|
 | |
|
Misleading Report by Engineer Held to Be Professional Misconduct
|
| |
|
November 14, 2005
|
| |
|
|
|
Howrey LLP
John F. Sheils, a professional engineer, prepared a report regarding the structural integrity of a residential roof. He concluded that the roof would withstand winds of 70 miles per hour and a "major storm." After a hearing before an administrative law judge, Florida's Board of Professional Engineers determined that Sheils' report was misleading and constituted professional misconduct. The board formally reprimanded Sheils, fined him $1,000, put him on two years' probation, and required him to take a course in professionalism and ethics. The District Court of Appeal of Florida affirmed. Sheils v. Florida Engineers Mgmt. Corp., 886 So. 2d 426 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004).
The case involved installation of a new shingle roof over an existing shake roof. The homeowners alleged the roofing job was defective. The roofer hired Sheils to examine the roof and issue a report. The report was the basis for the disciplinary action.
Under Florida law, misconduct by a professional engineer includes being "misleading. in any professional report" or "omitting relevant and pertinent information from such report. when the result of such omission would or reasonably could lead to a fallacious conclusion on the part of the client, the employer, or the general public." (Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-19.001 (6) (b).)
Sheils' report was found to be misleading for several reasons. First, Sheils knew that the roof must withstand 100 mph winds and not detach, as required in the applicable building code. Sheils also knew that the 70 mph wind mentioned in his report applied to the maximum wind speed that the shingles on the roof would withstand before detaching from the sheathing -- not to the wind speed the roof itself must withstand. Consequently, the 70 mph reference was misleading because the integrity of the shingles was unrelated to wind load requirements of the roof itself.
Second, the report was misleading because of Sheils' use of the vague and imprecise criteria of a "major storm" as a design basis. The appeals court accepted an expert's testimony that a "major storm" could be any type of storm. Sheils should have quantified the wind speed he used in determining the structural integrity of the roof.
The administrative law judge found, and the board agreed, that the report amounted to a deliberate attempt to mislead the homeowners and possibly the local Building Department - which constitutes misconduct in engineering.
The court concluded that a finding of professional misconduct, under the Administrative Code, does not require that an engineer succeed in misleading a third party. Nor must the conduct be untruthful or deceptive. A mere attempt to mislead is sufficient to support a finding of professional misconduct if it reasonably could lead to a fallacious conclusion on the part of the client, the employer or the public.
If you would like to receive legal reports and updates more quickly, by e-mail, click here and fill out the mailing list form. If you would like to subscribe to our RSS feeds or learn more about RSS, click here.
For more information about the issues covered in this report, please contact Paul Berning in our San Francisco office at 415-848-4996 or at paulberning@howrey.com or contact your Howrey attorney. For more information about Howrey's Construction Practice Group, click here.
©2005 Howrey LLP
|
| | |
