ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

05F-P0244-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2006-02-06

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: November, 9th, 2005, and February 1st, 2006 APPEARANCES: Complainants, Mr. George and Ms. Sharon Robinson, and Respondent, Mr. Walter Laverl Crosby, appeared and represented themselves.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Grant Winston _____________________________________________________________________ The administrative hearing of this matter was held by the Office of Administrative Hearings, over two separate days. Testimony was heard and other evidence admitted to the record, and, based on the entire record, the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order are made.

FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Respondent herein, Mr. Walter Laverl Crosby, is, and during all time material hereto was, a contractor licensed by and doing business in the State of Arizona, holding Class C-11 License number 161309. 2. This is a residential matter where the Respondent performed the electrical phase of construction at the Complainants’ Nutrioso, Arizona residence. Construction of the home was pursuant to a written contract entered into in July of 2002. Construction was completed and the Complainants moved into their new home in July of 2004. 3. Complainants were dissatisfied with several aspects of the electrical work performed on their new home by Respondent and filed the instant Complaint with the Arizona Registrar of Contractors on May 24th, 2005. 4. The Complaint was assigned to Registrar of Contractors Inspector Tom Sandoval. Inspector Sandoval conducted a job-site inspection on June 15th, 2005, and as a result of his inspection issued a written Corrective Work Order to Respondent dated June 23rd, 2005. The CWO directed Respondent to properly correct several items listed in the Complaint, and to do so within 15 calendar days, which was a reasonable amount of time. But as to several other items the Inspector noted that the items complained of had been inspected by Apache County building inspectors in due course of their job duties, and those building officials had approved of the work. Thus, according to Inspector Sandoval’s CWO and his testimony at the hearing, the Registrar of Contractors defers to the judgment pronounced by the Apache County building inspector and refrains from ordering corrective action be taken on building code items already approved by the appropriate county officials. 5. Respondent returned and made efforts to comply with the CWO. However Respondent failed to correct all the items in the CWO, and Complainants requested an administrative hearing. Citation and Complaint issued from the Registrar’s office, and Respondent filed a written answer thereto. This hearing was duly scheduled, noticed and held. 6. The greater weight of evidence at the hearing proved that Respondent has not properly corrected some of the items ordered to be corrected in the CWO, and has no valid justification for the failure. The evidence further proved that the Complainants have no longer any confidence in the Respondent’s abilities to properly perform his licensed work, and wish any corrections to be performed by another contractor. 7. Respondent should cause an appropriately licensed contractor to properly correct items ##4, 15, 19, 20 and 23 of Inspector Sandoval’s CWO. 8. Notice is taken of Respondent’s prior license record with the Arizona Registrar of Contractors.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. This administrative hearing was held under authority of and pursuant to A.R.S. 32-1156, and A.R.S. 41-1092. 2. The within record proved by a preponderance of the evidence violations by the Respondent of A.R.S 32-1154.A.23, and 3, as set forth in the instant Citation and Complaint. There is insufficient to conclude that Respondent violated A.R.S. 32- 1154.A7 independently of the other violations.

RECOMMENDED ORDER In view of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is hereby recommended that Respondent’s Class C-11 License number 161309, be suspended until such time as the Registrar of Contractors receives written proof that Respondent has caused another appropriately licensed contractor to properly correct Items ##4, 15, 19, 20 and 23 in the Inspector’s Corrective Work Order. It is further recommended that in the event the Respondent complies with the first paragraph of this Recommended Order, on or before the effective date of this Order (40 days after the date of service shown by the Registrar’s certification on the Order), then the above-provided license suspension shall not occur, and Citation and Complaint P05-0244, shall be closed. In the event of certification of the Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Order by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, then the effective date of the Order shall be 30 days after the date of that certification. Done this day, February 3rd, 2006.

______________________________________ Grant Winston Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of ____________, 2006, to:

Registrar of Contractors Fidelis V. Garcia Legal Department 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