ALJDEC

02F-T0268-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2002-04-23

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: April 10, 2002; at 8:30 a.m. APPEARANCES: The Complainant appeared through her attorney, Dennis A. Rosen. The Respondent, James Carpenter Construction Inc. (Corp.), appeared through its attorney, Joy Elkins. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: M. Douglas _____________________________________________________________________ Evidence and testimony were presented and, based upon the entire record, the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order are made: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. This matter was originally scheduled for a consolidated hearing with the Complainant’s more extensive complaint against the general contractor for her residence. The complaint against the general contractor had to be continued. The matters were then separated and each matter was heard separately. 2. Respondent is the holder of a Class B- License issued by the Registrar of Contractors. 3. The Complainant was dissatisfied with the Respondent’s workmanship and failure to correct its work despite her repeated requests that it do so. The Complainant then filed a formal complaint, against the Respondent, with the Registrar of Contractors. 4. Pursuant to the filing of the formal complaint, an assigned Agency Inspector conducted an on-site inspection. The assigned agency inspector did not issue a corrective work order in this matter. 5. Credible evidence, presented at hearing, established that the Respondent performed construction work as a framing subcontractor on the Complainant’s residence. The fact that the corporate Respondent was being paid on an hourly basis for its employees that worked on the construction project does not alter its responsibility as a licensed contractor. 6. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent’s framing work fails to comply with applicable workmanship standards, code requirements and applicable plans and specifications. 7. Credible evidence established that, prior to any work by the Respondent, the general contractor became dissatisfied with perceived inaccuracies in the blueprints for the residence and “fired” the architect that designed the Complainant’s residence. The general contractor then made all decisions regarding the correct “interpretation” of the approved plans and specifications. 8. Credible evidence established that the Respondent worked under the direct supervision of the general contractor while performing the framing on the residence. There was no credible evidence that the Respondent bid the work on the approved plans and specifications or attempted to construct the framing in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. Instead credible evidence established that the Respondent performed its construction work under the direct supervision of the general contractor on the project and performed its framing work in accordance with the general contractors instructions. 9. The Respondent did not perform all of the framing work on the residence. The only framing work that was shown to have been performed by the Respondent was the framing of the roof for the residence. 10. Credible evidence, produced at hearing, established that the framing work performed by the Respondent failed to comply with applicable workmanship standards and applicable code requirements. 11. Credible testimony and evidence established that the roof trusses are not properly braced and blocked and that the roof is not properly vented. The Respondent either knew, or should have known, of these workmanship deficiencies when it was performing the construction work. A licensed contractor is responsible for performing its work in a workmanlike manner and to comply with all applicable code provisions even if another contractor directs it to do otherwise. The Respondent shall properly correct its framing work and ensure that all code requirements are properly satisfied. 12. The Respondent’s actions, in performing its construction work in an unworkmanlike manner and in failing to comply with applicable code requirements, are found to constitute a wrongful act. 13. Notice is taken of the Respondent’s prior License record with the Registrar of Contractors. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The credible evidence of record established violations by the Respondent of the provisions of A.R.S. (32-1154 (A) (7) (Wrongful Act), and (3); namely, Rule R4-9-108. RECOMMENDED ORDER In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Respondent’s Class B- License shall be suspended until the Registrar of Contractors receives proof that the Respondent has properly corrected its framing work as set forth above in Finding of Fact No. 11. It is further recommended that if the Respondent properly accomplishes the above described corrective action, on or before the effective date of this Order, then the above provided License suspension shall not take place and Citation No. T02-0268 shall be closed. Done this day, April 30, 2002.

________________________________ M. Douglas Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of April, 2002, to:

Michael P. Goldwater, Director Registrar of Contractors ATTN: Joyce Armijo 800 West Washington, 6th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85007

By _______________________________

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

Office of Administrative Hearings 100 N. Stone Ave., Suite 704 Tucson, Arizona 85701 (520) 628-5488