ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2009A-50956212-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2012-02-21

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: February 1, 2012 APPEARANCES: Robert J. Armstrong appeared personally. Terry Lynn Adriance, doing business as Jim Adriance, appeared personally. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Brian Brendan Tully _____________________________________________________________________ Based upon the evidence of record, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommended Order on Compliance: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Terry Lynn Adriance, doing business as Jim Adriance (“Respondent”), is the holder of License No. 098530, a Class B contracting license issued by the Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”). 2. In the underlying disciplinary case, Case No. 09-5095, between Robert J. Armstrong (“Complainant”) and Respondent, the Registrar adopted the following Order set forth in the Administrative Law Judge Decision: In view of the foregoing, it is recommended commencing on the effective date of the Registrar’s order that the Respondent’s Class B- License shall be suspended until the Registrar of Contractors receives and accepts written proof that the Respondent has caused a properly licensed roofing contractor to inspect and, if found to be necessary by the roofing contractor, correct the Complainant’s roof. It is further recommended that if the Respondent causes the [proper] accomplishment of 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 that this matter be closed.

3. Respondent had JSC Roofing, Inc. (“JSC”), the holder of License No. 142630, a Class K-42 Dual Roofing license, inspect Respondent’s workmanship on Complainant’s roof. The inspection took place on February 6, 2010. Jim Adriance[1] and Complainant were present during the inspection. 4. On March 26, 2010, Respondent filed a copy of JSC’s written report authored by Stephen Bradner, JSC’s president, to support her compliance with the Registrar’s prior Order. The report noted the following: What I have found is that the bubbles throughout this roof [cannot] be explained without knowing who the original roofer was, and what products the original roofer used. The bubbling of the roof is not the elastomeric seal coating that Jim Adriance applied. The bubbling is the black product a few layers under Jim Adriance[’s] elastomeric [s]ystem. I find the work Jim Adriance performed was done properly and has bonded extremely well to the existing roof. I also found some cracking in the elastomeric seal coating that Jim Adriance applied. This cracking is common when coating is applied over certain roof systems. Not a leak problem, a cosmetic problem.

5. No further action was recommended by JSC. 6. On March 18, 2011, Complainant filed with the Registrar a written objection to the JSC report. 7. The Registrar issued an Order Lifting Suspension/Setting Compliance Hearing in Case No. 2009-50956212, formerly Case No. 09-5095, that provided as follows: IT IS ORDERED that this matter be set for a limited Compliance Hearing…in the expedited course of docketing in the Phoenix area to determine the following: (1) whether Complainant has the right to object to the Report given the terms of the January 14, 2010 Order; (2) if Complainant is allowed to lodge an objection, whether or not such objection is reasonable and supported by expert opinion by an alternative roofing contractor; and (3) if such would require Respondent to perform any further corrective work. (Emphasis in the original)

8. The parties’ dispute was addressed in the underlying disciplinary action. 9. The evidence of record established that Respondent complied with the Registrar’s Order in the underlying disciplinary action. Respondent had a properly licensed roofing contractor, JSC, inspect Respondent’s roofing work. JSC found that no further work was necessary. That opinion is based upon JSC’s experience as a licensed roofing contractor. 10. The Registrar’s prior Order did not require the parties to mutually agree upon the selection of the required licensed roofing contractor. The Order did not provide that Complainant could disagree with the findings of the licensed roofing contractor. 11. At hearing, Complainant presented his expert witness, Terry Leja of Complete Roofing & Waterproofing, Inc. Mr. Leja testified that Respondent did a good job on the coating and agreed with the opinion of JSC. However, Mr. Leja was critical of the 21-year old roof being coated rather than replaced.[2] CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Registrar has jurisdiction over Respondent and the subject matter in this case. 2. Pursuant to A.A.C. R2-19-119, Respondent has the burden of proving her compliance with the Registrar’s prior Order in this matter. 3. Respondent complied with the Registrar’s prior Order by having a properly licensed roofing contractor inspect the roof work performed by Respondent. The licensed roofing contractor opined that no remedial work was necessary to Respondent’s work. / / / / / / RECOMMENDED ORDER ON COMPLIANCE Respondent complied with the Registrar’s prior Order in this matter. Therefore, Case No. 2009-50956212, formerly Case No. 09-5095, shall be closed. In the event of certification of the Administrative Law Judge Decision by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the effective date of the Order will be 40 days from the date of that certification. Done this day, February 21, 2012.

/s/ Brian Brendan Tully Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

William A. Mundell, Director Registrar of Contractors ----------------------- [1] Mr. Adriance is Respondent’s husband, who performed the roofing work at issue. [2] Respondent had been hired by Complainant to repair a roof leak, not replace the roof. There has been no roof leak since Respondent performed the roof repair.

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

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