ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2010A-308472080-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2012-08-02

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

LIMITED EVIDENTIARY HEARING: July 18, 2012, at 1:00 p.m. APPEARANCES: Respondent J.T. Sotomayor Construction Affordable Materials, Inc. was represented by Roger W. Strassburg, Jr., Esq., Roger Strassburg, P.L.L.C.; Complainant P.J. Brummer appeared on her own behalf; the Arizona Registrar of Contractors was represented by Seth T. Hargraves, Esq., Assistant Attorney General. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Diane Mihalsky _____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT Background and Procedure 1. The Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“the Registrar”) issued License No. B.200368-R to J T Sotomayor Construction Affordable Materials Inc. (“Respondent”). 2. This limited evidentiary hearing was held pursuant to two orders from the Maricopa County Superior Court, the Honorable Crane McClennen, in Case No. LC2011-000282-001 DT on Respondent’s appeal of the Registrar’s Decision and Order against Respondent on a complaint filed by P.J. Brummer (“Complainant”). 3. On or about September 13, 2011, Judge McClennen issued a minute entry order granting Respondent’s request for an evidentiary hearing and remanding the matter to the Registrar under A.R.S. § 12-910(A)(7)[1] for a hearing to determine, “at a minimum,” the following six factual issues: 1. Did [Respondent] send to the [Registrar] a change of address from 8627 E. Monterey Ave., Mesa AZ, to 15312 S. 229th Street, Mesa AZ.

2. If so, when did [Respondent] do so.

3. If so, what means did [Respondent] use.

4. If so, did the [Registrar] receive that change of address.

5. Does the [Registrar] have in place any procedure to track the receipt of change of address forms.

6. When did the [Registrar] first learn that [Respondent] changed its address from 8627 E. Monterey Ave., Mesa AZ, to 15312 S. 229th Street, Mesa AZ.[2]

Judge McClennen ordered that if the Registrar determined that Respondent had a “legally justifiable reason” for not filing a timely written answer to the Citation and Complaint, the Registrar should allow Respondent to file an answer “and proceed accordingly.”[3] Judge McClennen further ordered that if the Registrar determined that Respondent did not have a “legally justifiable reason” for not filing a timely written answer to the Citation and Complaint, the Registrar “shall make findings to that effect and enter an Order affirming whichever of his previous Orders he deems appropriate, which will be considered a final Order of the Agency.”[4] 4. Respondent moved for reconsideration of the September 13, 2011 order in Case No. LC2011-000282-001 DT. On March 8, 2012, Judge McClennen issued a minute entry order granting Respondent’s motion for reconsideration in two respects, in relevant part as follows: IT IS ORDERED the Evidentiary Hearing shall be conducted by the Office of Administrative Hearings [“the OAH”].

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Administrative Law Judge should determine whether the [Registrar] was aware of Plaintiff- Appellant’s change of address from any source.[5]

5. The Registrar referred the matter to the OAH, an independent agency, for a limited evidentiary hearing on the six issues set forth in Judge McClennen’s September 13, 2011 minute entry.[6] 6. A limited evidentiary hearing was held at the OAH on July 18, 2012. Respondent submitted seventeen exhibits and presented the testimony of two witnesses: (1) John Anthony Sotomayor (“Mr. Sotomayor”), Respondent’s qualifying party and officer; and (2) Lawrence Mathews, Chief of the Registrar’s Licensing Department. The Registrar submitted two exhibits. Hearing Evidence 7. Mr. Sotomayor testified that his father, Tony Sotomayor, an unlicensed contractor, performed work on a fencing project that involved multiple properties in Complainant’s subdivision that resulted in three property owners filing complaints with the Registrar against Respondent. Mr. Sotomayor testified that although he did not believe that Respondent was responsible for his father’s work, as a gesture of good will, Respondent performed work to comply with the Corrective Work Orders that were issued in the other property owners’ complaints in Case Nos. 10-1979, 10-1981, and 10-1983.[7] 8. Mr. Sotomayor testified that when he attended the Registrar’s jobsite inspections on the other property owners’ complaints in December 2009, he informed the Registrar’s assigned inspector, Geoff Galgan, that he was planning to move. Mr. Sotomayor testified that Inspector Galgan advised him to go to the Registrar’s public website, download a change-of-address form, and complete and return the change-of-address form to the Registrar. 9. Mr. Sotomayor testified that he obtained a change-of-address form from the Registrar’s public website. Mr. Sotomayor testified that on January 12, 2010, he completed the form to request that the Registrar change Respondent’s address of record from the old address of 8627 E. Monterey Ave., Mesa, AZ 84209 to the new address of 15312 S. 229th St., Mesa, AZ 85212.[8] 10. Mr. Sotomayor testified that he mailed the signed change-of- address form to the Registrar’s address at 3838 N. Central,[9] via United States Postal Service (“USPS”) regular mail shortly after he completed the form. Mr. Sotomayor testified that he is a one-man operation and that he does not have any office staff to process Respondent’s mail. Mr. Sotomayor testified that he has used regular mail to send his license renewal forms and other documents to the Registrar in the past without a problem. 11. The Registrar’s change-of-address form advised persons who used the form as follows: CHECK WITH US BY PHONE, (602) 542-1525, AFTER ONE WEEK OR VERIFY YOUR ADDRESS HAS BEEN RECEIVED AND DULY RECORDED BY CHECKING YOUR COMPANY AT OUR WEBSITE.

AN INCORRECT ADDRESS OF RECORD COULD RESULT IN DISCIPLINARY ACTION OR EVEN REVOCATION OF A LICENSE SHOULD YOU NOT RECEIVE LEGAL NOTIFICATION OF ANY AGENCY ACTION. THIS ADDRESS CHANGE WILL BECOME YOUR OFFICIAL ADDRESS OF RECORD AND ALL REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTOR CORRESPONDENCE WILL BE SENT TO THAT ADDRESS.

12. Mr. Sotomayor did not check the Registrar’s public website or call the Registrar to verify that the change-of-address form had been processed. 13. Before he moved, Mr. Sotomayor filed a notice of change of address for Respondent with the USPS. 14. On or about April 1, 2010, the Registrar received Complainant’s complaint regarding Respondent’s construction of a block wall and other work at Complainant’s house at 510 South 83rd Place, Mesa, Arizona.[10] 15. On or about April 6, 2010, Inspector Galgan, on behalf of the Registrar, sent to Respondent at its old address on East Monterey Avenue a copy of Complainant’s complaint and notice of the scheduled jobsite inspection.[11] Respondent did not attend the jobsite inspection on Complainant’s complaint. 16. Mr. Sotomayor testified that Inspector Galgan knew that Respondent had changed its address based on Mr. Sotomayor’s conversation with Inspector Galgan at the jobsite inspections on Complainant’s neighbors’ complaints. Inspector Galgan did not testify at the hearing. 17. On or about May 10, 2010, Inspector Galgan, on behalf of the Registrar, sent a copy of the Corrective Work Order on Complainant’s complaint to Respondent at the old address on East Monterey Avenue. 18. The Corrective Work Order was returned to the Registrar with a notice from the USPS that the forwarding time had expired, but providing Respondent’s new address on South 229th Street.[12] The Registrar’s date stamp showed that the envelope was received on May 12, 2010. 19. On June 8, 2010, Inspector Galgan, on behalf of the Registrar, mailed a copy of his letter informing Respondent that the complaint would be sent to the Legal Department, to which was attached a copy of Complainant’s request for a formal citation, to Respondent at the old address on East Monterey Avenue. 20. The Registrar’s letter and Complainant’s request for citation were returned to the Registrar with a notice from the USPS that the forwarding time had expired, but providing Respondent’s new address on South 229th Street.[13] The received date stamp on the envelope appeared to be June 10, 2010. 21. On or about August 31, 2010, the Registrar issued a Citation and Complaint against Respondent on Complainant’s complaint charging violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1), A.R.S. § 32- 1154(A)(2), A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108, and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(23). The Registrar sent a copy of the Citation and Complaint to Respondent’s old address on East Monterey Avenue. The Registrar’s Citation and Complaint was returned to the Registrar with a notice from the USPS that the document was undeliverable as addressed.[14] 22. On or about October 21, 2010, after Respondent failed to file a timely written answer to the Citation and Complaint, the Registrar issued a default Decision and Order on Complainant’s complaint, finding that under A.R.S. § 32-1155(B), Respondent’s failure to file a timely written answer was deemed an admission of the charges contained in the Citation and Complaint.[15] The Registrar’s Decision and Order required Respondent to provide proof that it had appropriately rectified the deficiencies identified in Complainant’s complaint and in the Corrective Work Order. The Registrar’s Decision and Order also required Respondent to pay a $500.00 civil penalty under A.R.S. § 32- 1154(D). The Registrar sent a copy of its Decision and Order to Respondent’s old address on East Monterey Avenue. 23. Mr. Sotomayor testified that he did not receive copies of Complainant’s complaint, the Corrective Work Order, Complainant’s request for a formal citation, the Registrar’s Citation and Complaint, or the Registrar’s Decision and Order until March 14, 2011, when Respondent’s attorney obtained the documents from the Registrar. 24. In late October 2010, Mr. Sotomayor mailed Respondent’s license renewal application to the Registrar and provided Respondent’s new address on South 229th Street.[16] Shortly thereafter, Respondent received at the address on South 229th Street the Registrar’s Renewal Rejection Notice because “[s]uspended licenses can not be renewed” and “[y]our license was suspended for failure to pay a civil penalty.”[17] 25. Mr. Sotomayor testified that he went to the Registrar’s main office on the same day that he received the Registrar’s Renewal Rejection Notice of Respondent’s renewal license application. Mr. Sotomayor testified that for the first time, he learned about Complainant’s complaint. 26. Mr. Sotomayor testified that the Registrar’s employee at the filing counter advised him to pay late fees to reinstate Respondent’s license and to file a change of address. Mr. Sotomayor also testified that the employee further advised him that he should file a petition for rehearing stating that Respondent had not received the Citation and Complaint, and that the Registrar would grant a rehearing. 27. On or about November 15, 2010, Respondent filed a petition for rehearing of the Registrar’s default Decision and Order, alleging that it did not receive the Citation and Complaint because although Respondent filed a change of address to the Registrar on or about January 12, 2010, the change of address was not processed, and the Registrar mailed the Citation and Complaint to an incorrect address. Respondent attached to its petition for rehearing a copy of a completed change-of-address form that Mr. Sotomayor had dated January 12, 2010, and copies of the Corrective Work Orders that were issued in Complainant’s neighbors’ complaints to the Registrar in Case Nos. 10-1979, 10- 1981, and 10-1983.[18] 28. On or about February 3, 2011, the Registrar issued an Order Granting Request for Rehearing.[19] 29. On or about April 7, 2011, the Registrar issued an Order Quashing Order Granting Request for Rehearing/Order Denying Request for Rehearing, in relevant part as follows: After a review of the file in this matter, the Registrar has determined that it did not err in issuing the Citation and Complaint nor the Default Decision and Order. The Registrar mailed the Citation and Complaint in this matter on August 31, 2010 to Respondent’s address of record contained in the Registrar’s Licensing file as of the date such was issued. Further, the Registrar issued the Default Decision and Order on October 21, 2010, to Respondent’s address of record contained in the Registrar’s Licensing file as of the date such was issued. The first time in which the Registrar received sufficient notice of a change to Respondent’s address of record was on October 26, 2010, in the form of a License Renewal. The Registrar approved the address of record change as of October 26, 2010.

In view of the foregoing, and with good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that the February 3, 2011 Order Granting Request for Rehearing be QUASHED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent’s November 25, 2010 [sic] Request for Rehearing be DENIED for the reason that there is no sufficient showing of any compelling legal or factual basis for the granting of any rehearing and for the further reason that the findings, conclusions and recommendations contained in the October 21, 2010 Default Decision and Order are fully supported by the record.

Note: The Registrar reviewed Respondent’s November 25, 2010 [sic] Request for Rehearing and attached copy of an Address of Record Change Form dated January 12, 2010. However, the copy that Respondent provided did not contain a received date stamp by the Registrar. Thus, Respondent did not prove that it provided such Address of Record Change Form to the Registrar prior to October 21, 2010.

It is the responsibility of the Licensee to maintain a current address of record on file with the Registrar and to respond to Registrar mailings in a timely fashion.[20]

30. Mr. Mathews testified that licensed contractors’ changes of address were within the Registrar’s Licensing Department’s bailiwick. Mr. Mathews testified that if the Registrar receives information from the USPS that a licensee has a new address, the Registrar does not follow up on the information by contacting the licensee by telephone, does not add the new address to the Registrar’s record for the licensee, and does not change the licensee’s address of record. 31. Mr. Mathews explained that the Registrar requires the responsible employee to sign a change-of-address form because anyone can file a change of address with the USPS, including persons who may wish harm to the licensee, such as former spouses and disgruntled employees. 32. Mr. Mathews testified that if the Registrar’s Compliance/Inspections Department receives information from the USPS that a licensee has a new address during the course of an investigation, the information will be scanned into the file and the assigned inspector may note the information as a comment in the compliance record. Mr. Mathews testified that the information will not be transmitted to the Licensing Department because A.R.S. § 32-1122(B)(1)(g) requires a person listed on the license to provide change-of-address information.[21] Mr. Mathews testified that the Registrar does not have any policy that requires or that prohibits the assigned inspector from contacting the licensee to inform it that the USPS was not able to deliver the Registrar’s letters that were addressed to the licensee’s address of record. Mr. Mathews testified that although every department has its own assigned tasks, the Registrar does not have any policy that requires or that prohibits cooperation among employees of different departments. 33. Mr. Mathews testified that when the Registrar had its main office at 3838 N. Central Ave., USPS delivered all mail to the mailroom for distribution to various departments, such as Investigations, Licensing, Inspections/Compliance, Legal, Recovery Fund, Accounting, and Central Administration. Mr. Mathews testified that the date stamps on the documents contained in the envelopes that the USPS returned to the Registrar could have been the Registrar’s mailroom stamp. Mr. Mathews testified that although he did not work for the Registrar in 2010, he had no reason to doubt that the envelopes containing the Corrective Work Order and Complainant’s request for citation with the USPS’s notation of Respondent’s new address on them were delivered to the Registrar. 34. Mr. Mathews testified that the Registrar’s written policy on address changes that was in effect until March 2010, required Licensing Department employees to date stamp all change-of- address forms that it receives immediately after opening. The Registrar’s written policy also required employees to check the signature on a change-of-address form and if the signature was improper, to return the form to the sender with a request for a correct signature. The written policy also required that if the change-of-address form was missing part of the address, the employee should “check into USPS on internet.”[22] Mr. Mathews testified that if part of the address was missing, the Licensing Department would not contact the licensee directly. 35. Mr. Mathews testified that under the Registrar’s current policy, address changes must be in writing with an appropriate signature and must include the company name, license number, and old and new addresses and that if the form is missing any of the required information, the Licensing Department employee must reject the change with an “appropriate reject letter.”[23] Mr. Mathews testified that the new policy included changes required by the Registrar’s new computer system, but did not include substantive changes in agency practice. 36. Mr. Mathews testified that the Registrar does not require licensees to send change-of-address forms by certified mail. 37. Mr. Mathews testified that because A.R.S. § 32-1155(A)[24] requires the Registrar to send complaints to licensees at their addresses of record, and A.R.S. § 32-1122(B)(1)(g) requires licensees to update their addresses of record within 30 days, the Registrar has no duty to take any action on the USPS’s notices of Respondent’s new address. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.[25] Respondent bears the burden of proof to establish “a legally justifiable reason” for not filing a timely written answer to the Citation and Complaint by a preponderance of the evidence.[26] “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”[27] Based on the evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing, the Administrative Law Judge determines the six factual issues that Judge McClennen specified in the September 13, 2011 order in Maricopa County Superior Court Case No. LC2011-000282-001 DT as follows: 1. Issue Nos. 1-3: Mr. Sotomayor credibly testified that on January 12, 2010, he mailed the completed change-of-address form to the Registrar after Inspector Galgan advised him to do so. The fact that Respondent was involved in the Registrar’s disciplinary process in Case Nos. 10- 1979, 10-1981, and 10-1981, at the time that Mr. Sotomayor was contemplating changing Respondent’s address, makes more credible Mr. Sotomayor’s testimony that he asked Inspector Galgan about the Registrar’s requirements for a change of address. The fact that Mr. Sotomayor filed a change-of-address form for Respondent with the USPS makes more credible his testimony that he also filed such a form with the Registrar at approximately the same time. Therefore, the evidence at hearing established that it is more likely than not that on or about January 12, 2010, Mr. Sotomayor on Respondent’s behalf sent via USPS regular mail to the Registrar a complete, executed change-of-address form, changing Respondent’s address from 8627 E. Monterey Ave., Mesa, Arizona, to 15312 S. 229th Street, Mesa, Arizona. 2. Issue No. 4: No evidence was presented to establish that the Registrar ever actually received or processed the change-of-address form that Mr. Sotomayor mailed on or about January 12, 2010. 3. Issue No. 5: The Registrar’s procedures to track the receipt of change- of-address forms are that personnel in the Registrar’s mailroom open and date-stamp such forms and forward them to the Licensing Department. 4. Issue No. 6: The Registrar first learned that Respondent changed its address from 8627 E. Monterey Ave., Mesa, Arizona, to 15312 S. 229th Street, Mesa, Arizona on or about October 26, 2010, when the Registrar received Respondent’s license renewal application. With respect to the factual issue stated in Judge McClennen’s March 8, 2012 order, based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Registrar received notice of Respondent’s change of address from the USPS on or about May 12, 2010, and on or about June 10, 2010, respectively, when the USPS returned the envelopes containing the Corrective Work Order and Complainant’s request for a formal citation with notations of Respondent’s new address on S. 229th Street. With respect to the legal issue of whether Respondent had a legally justifiable reason for failing to file a timely written answer to the Citation and Complaint stated in Judge McClennen’s September 13, 2010 order, A.R.S. § 32-1122(B)(1)(g) requires licensees to provide to the Registrar changes of address within 30 days and A.R.S. § 32-1155(A) requires the Registrar to send to effectuate service of a Citation and Complaint by mailing it to the licensee’s latest address of record. The Registrar has no legal obligation to investigate or follow up on information that the USPS provided that indicated that a licensee may have changed its address. For the reasons that Mr. Mathews stated in his testimony, if the Registrar accepted change-of-address information from anyone but the persons listed on a license, the Registrar would expose licensees to risks beyond their control. On the other hand, no statute, regulation, or policy requires licensees to transmit change-of-address forms through any means other than regular USPS mail. The text on the change-of-address form that licensees should check with the Registrar to verify that a change-of-address form has been received and recorded is advisory, not a statutory or regulatory requirement. Even though notice is served properly through USPS regular mail, Arizona courts have long recognized that through no fault of the party who has provided such notice, it may not actually be received.[28] Where a case has been decided based on a party’s default, “[b]ecause the law favors resolution on the merits, all doubts are to be resolved in favor of the moving party . . . .”[29] Even though Respondent mailed a timely completed change-of-address form to the Registrar, Respondent did not actually receive the Registrar’s Citation and Complaint until many months after the Registrar issued the Default Decision and Order. Therefore, Respondent established that it is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the merits of Complainant’s complaint.[30] RECOMMENDED ORDER Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Registrar’s Order, the Registrar request that the Superior Court of Maricopa County, the Honorable Crane McClennen remand Case No. LC2011- 000282-001 DT to the Registrar for the scheduling of a rehearing in the Office of Administrative Hearings on the merits of Complainant P.J. Brummer’s complaint in Case No. 2010-[number redacted] against Respondent J.T. Sotomayor Construction Affordable Materials Inc.’s License No. B.200368-R. 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, August 2, 2012.

/s/ Diane Mihalsky Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

William A. Mundell, Director Registrar of Contractors ----------------------- [1] A.R.S. § 12-910(A)(7) enumerates among the powers of the trial court on judicial review of administrative decisions the following: “When a hearing has been held by the agency, remand for the purpose of taking additional evidence when from the state of the record of the administrative agency or otherwise it appears that such action is just.” Judge McClennen noted that “[a]lthough § 12-911(A)(7) provides for a remand for a hearing when the Agency has held a hearing, this Court sees no reason why it should not have the authority to remand for a hearing when the Agency did not hold a hearing in the first place.” Respondent’s Ex. R2 at 3. [2] Id. [3] Id. [4] Id. [5] Respondent’s Ex. R1. [6] See the Registrar’s May 7, 2012 Order Setting Limited Evidentiary Hearing at 1, ll. 19½ - 25. [7] Respondent attached to its petition for rehearing Corrective Work Orders that were issued between December 21, 2009, and December 23, 2009. See Respondent’s Ex. R12 at 9-13. When Complainant filed her complaint with the Registrar, she requested that it be consolidated with Case Nos. 10- 1979, 10-1981, and 10-1983. See Respondent’s Ex. R6 at 3-7. [8] See Respondent’s Ex. R4. [9] The Registrar’s full former address was 3838 N. Central Ave., Suite 400, Phoenix, Arizona 85012-1946. The Registrar has since moved its main office to 1700 W. Washington St., Suite 105, Phoenix, Arizona 85007. At all times relevant to the events at issue in this matter, the Registrar’s main office was at the address on N. Central Ave. [10] See Respondent’s Ex. R6 at 3. [11] See id. at 1. [12] See Respondent’s Ex. 7. [13] See Respondent’s Ex. 8. [14] See Respondent’s Ex. 9. [15] See Respondent’s Ex. 10. [16] Mr. Sotomayor credibly testified that he routinely mailed license renewals to the Registrar. No evidence was presented that the license renewal that generated the Registrar’s Renewal Rejection Notice was transmitted to the Registrar in any other manner. [17] Respondent’s Ex. R11. Although the record in this matter does not contain a copy of the license renewal application with the Registrar’s date stamp on it, according to the Registrar’s April 7, 2011 Order Quashing Order Granting Request for Rehearing/Order Denying Request for Rehearing states that the Registrar received the application on October 26, 2010. [18] See Respondent’s Ex. R12. [19] See Respondent’s Ex. R13. [20] Respondent’s Ex. R14 at 1. As noted above, Respondent appealed the Registrar’s April 7, 2011 Order Quashing Order Granting Request for Rehearing/Order Denying Request for Rehearing to Superior Court. [21] A.R.S. § 32-1122 is entitled, “Qualifications for license,” and provides in relevant part as follows: B. To obtain or renew a license under this chapter, the applicant shall: 1. Submit to the registrar of contractors a verified application on forms that are prescribed by the registrar of contractors and that contain the following information and shall advise the registrar of any change in the information within thirty days: . . . .

(g) The address or location of the applicant's place of business and the mailing address if it is different from the applicant's place of business. [22] See Respondent’s Ex. R17 at 2. [23] See id. at 3. [24] A.R.S. § 32-1155(A) provides that “[s]ervice of citation upon the licensee shall be fully effected by personal service or by mailing a true copy thereof, together with a true copy of the complaint, by registered mail in a sealed envelope with postage prepaid and addressed to the licensee at the licensee's latest address of record in the registrar's office.” [25] See A.R.S. § 32-1155(A). Judge McClennen remanded the matter to the OAH for an evidentiary hearing but did not order that the OAH’s decision be the final decision. Therefore, in accordance with A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(A), the Administrative Law Judge issues her decision to the Registrar. [26] See A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1); see also Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952). [27] Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960). [28] See Reddell v. Industrial Comm’n, 111 Ariz. 313, 315, 528 P.2d 1254, 1256 (1974) (“We regret that we must take judicial notice of the declining efficiency and reliability of the United States Post Office Department . . . .”); Iphaar v. Industrial Comm’n of Arizona, 171 Ariz. 423, 426, 831 P.2d 422, 425 (App. 1992). [29] Addison v. Cienega, Ltd., 146 Ariz. 322, 323, 705 P.2d 1373, 1374 (App. 1985). [30] See A.A.C. R4-9-120(C)(3) (Registrar may grant rehearing based on “[a]ccident or surprise that could not have been prevented by ordinary prudence”).

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

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