ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2010A-2035458-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2011-12-06

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: December 2, 2011 at 1:00 p.m. APPEARANCES: The Complainants appeared through Beau Wilcox. The Respondent appeared through its attorney, Corey Larson. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: M. Douglas

This matter came on for a Compliance Hearing to determine whether the Respondent has fully complied with the terms of the Registrar’s June 4, 2010 Order. Evidence and testimony were presented, and the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation on Compliance Hearing are made: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Order Setting Compliance Hearing provides, in pertinent part, as follows: At the Compliance Hearing, the parties may offer evidence and testimony as to whether or not Respondent has complied with the terms and conditions of the Registrar’s June 4, 2010 Order issued in this matter. If it is determined that Respondent has failed to fully comply with the Registrar’s written directives, absent unreasonable interference or denial of access by Complainants, then Respondent’s B.245776-R License shall be subject to the immediate imposition of discipline. If it is determined that Complainants have unreasonably interfered or denied access to Respondent or its representatives in their attempt to comply with the Registrar’s June 4th Order, then Respondent’s License shall not be disciplined and the matter shall be closed as Respondent having fully complied with the terms of the Registrar’s Order.

2. The assigned Agency Inspector performed a pre-hearing Compliance Inspection. 3. The Inspector opined that the Corrective Work Order had not been fully complied with. 4. The credible evidence of record established that the Respondent has failed to fully comply with the terms of the Registrar’s June 4, 2010 Order. 5. Credible testimony and evidence established that the tile floor installed by the Respondent in the Complainants’ residence still fails to comply with applicable workmanship and industry standards. 6. Credible testimony and evidence established that it would be cheaper and faster to remove and replace the tile floor installed by the Respondent as opposed to further repairs on the tile floor. 7. Credible testimony and evidence established that the Respondent failed to obtain the required electrical permit as required by the June 4, 2010 Order of the Registrar and that the Complainants have obtained the permit for $220.00, plus a late fee of $250.00, for a total cost of $470.00. 8. Credible testimony and evidence established that the remaining items of the June 4, 2010 Order have been fully complied with. 9. Credible evidence established that the Respondent’s actions over a prolonged period of time are not indicative of a good faith desire to resolve this matter by complying with the terms of the June 4, 2010 Order of the Registrar. On the contrary, credible evidence of record establishes that the Respondent has repeatedly failed to properly accomplish compliance with the terms and conditions of the June 4, 2010 Order and that the Respondent’s efforts appear to have been directed to delay and excuse, rather than to achieve, full compliance with the June 4, 2010 Order of the Registrar. 10. There was no credible evidence of any unreasonable denial of access by the Complainants in this matter.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Credible testimony and evidence presented during the compliance hearing supported findings which establish that the Respondent has failed to fully comply with the terms of the June 4, 2010 Order of the Registrar. 2. A licensed contractor is not entitled to an unlimited period of time or an endless succession of opportunities to comply with specified conditions which reduce, eliminate, or terminate, disciplinary action against the Contractor’s License. 3. The Respondent was found to have violated the charged provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A) (2), A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A) (17), A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A) (23) and A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A) (3), namely, A.A.C. rule R4-9-108 in the June 4, 2010 Order of the Registrar. 4. A.R.S. § 32-1156.01 provides that after a hearing pursuant to this article, an administrative law judge may recommend that a licensee provide restitution to any person who is injured or whose property is damaged by an action of the licensee. RECOMMENDed order In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Respondent’s License be immediately placed on active license suspension until the Registrar receives and accepts written proof that the Respondent has caused a properly licensed contractor of the Complainants’ choice to properly correct the Complainants’ tile floor in full compliance with the terms of the Registrar’s June 4, 2010 Order and that the Respondent has fully paid, as restitution, the sum of $470.00 to the Complainants for their cost of obtaining the required electrical permit and payment of the late fee for the required permit. In the event of certification of this 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 the certification. / / / / / / / / /

Done this day, December 6, 2011.

/s/ M. Douglas Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

William A. Mundell, Director Registrar of Contractors -----------------------

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