ALJDEC

00A-NOD25-ACC · Department of Public Safety - Adult Care Clearance · 2000-03-06

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: March 6, 2000 APPEARANCES: Assistant Attorney General, Lisa Stelly was present on behalf of the Department of Public Safety, as well as Mike Timmerman. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella _____________________________________________________________________ On March 6, 2000, at 9:00 a.m., a hearing was scheduled to consider the appeal of the denial of Appellant’s registration to work in a residential care institution, home health agency, or nursing care institution. Based upon the entire record in the matter, the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order are made:

FINDINGS OF FACT Appellant failed to appear. The Notice of Hearing sent to Appellant’s address of record, indicated the proper date, time and location of the scheduled hearing, and was not returned. The record was kept open until approximately 9:34 a.m. to allow for the appearance of Appellant, or the receipt of any information which would constitute good cause for Appellant’s absence or delay. No such information was received. No evidence was presented at the hearing in support of Appellant’s appeal. Assistant Attorney General, Lisa Stelly, made a motion to dismiss this matter.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Appellant bears the burden of proof, and the standard of proof on all issues is by a preponderance of the evidence.[1] A “preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”[2] It is evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.”[3] Appellant, by the aforementioned default in appearance at the hearing, failed to prove by a preponderance of relevant, substantial and probative evidence that her appeal of the denial of registration to work in a residential care institution, home health agency, or nursing care institution should be sustained.

RECOMMENDED ORDER In view of the foregoing, and in light of the lack of prosecution by Appellant, it is recommended that this appeal be dismissed.

Done this day, March 6, 2000.

______________________________________ Sondra J. Vanella Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of March, 2000, to:

Col. Dennis A. Garrett Department of Public Safety - Adult Care Clearance Mail Code 2300 Arizona Department of Public Safety Applicant Team #2/Attn. Mike Timmerman Post Office Box 6638 Phoenix, AZ 85005

By ___________________________

----------------------- [1] Culpepper v. State, 187 Ariz. 431, 930 P.2d 508 (App. 1996). [2] Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence, (5 (1960). [3] Black’s Law Dictionary, 1182 (6th ed. 1990).

-----------------------

Office of Administrative Hearings 1400 West Washington, Suite 101 Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-9826