ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2012A-5342-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2013-12-13

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: November 4, 2013 held open until November 25, 2013

APPEARANCES: David Pham, Complainant’s representative; Darryl Hunter, Respondent’s Qualifying Party and hearing representative; Chris Poma, observer; Steve Klein, Registrar of Contractors inspector

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Dorinda M. Lang _____________________________________________________________________ Complainant has established that Respondent violated A.R.S. §§ 32- 1154(A)(3), (13), and (23) and that disciplinary action against Respondent’s License No. KB-2.232046-D is appropriate. Therefore, it is recommended that Respondent’s license undergo a provisional suspension, with lingering penalties, and a civil penalty. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Arizona Registrar of Contractors issued License No. KB- 2.232046-D to Respondent. Respondent[1] entered into a contract with Complainant[2] on or about June 14, 2012 for remodeling of Complainant’s commercial building. The parties signed addendums modifying the contract on or about July 21, 2012, August 16, 2012, and August 24, 2012. The contract did not describe the work to be completed but referred instead to “invoices for work done.”[3] 2. Complainant filed a compliant[4] with the Registrar of Contractors on October 31, 2012, alleging potential violations by Respondent of the Arizona statutes and rules governing licensed contractors. Complainant’s items of complaint are summarized as follows: a. Wall outlets not completely done, some wall boards leaning against the wall, holes, not completed. b. No power to some outlets. c. Electric wiring left out d. Lighting not done as promised. e. Roof leaks and resulting damage. f. Doors unprofessionally installed. Some not installed. g. New stainless steel sinks rusting. h. Water heater too small, not the size agreed upon. i. Food refrigeration units that were moved from Complainant’s previous location were damaged in the move. j. Painting not complete, done poorly. k. Overall quality of work poor. 3. Steve Klein was the Registrar of Contractors’ Inspector assigned to case. After a job site inspection on November 16, 2012, he issued a Corrective Work Order on November 30, 2013, requiring Respondent to perform certain corrective work within 15 days. The Corrective Work Order[5] stated, in relevant part, as follows:

1) Wall outlets are not completely done, some wall boards are just leaning against the wall, and there are a lot of whole and stuff still needs to be done:

Receptacles installed by the Respondent were completed before jobsite inspection. Wall board is loose. Respondent shall correct the wall board by the appropriate means.

2) Wall outlets: No power to most of the outlets:

Receptacles installed by the Respondent have power. No action required by the Respondent.

3) Electrical Wiring: Wiring is left out and seems abandoned:

Walls covered prior to the inspection. All receptacles installed by the Respondent have power. No action required by the Respondent.

4) Lighting: Lighting wasn’t done as told they would:

At the time of inspection, the Complainant discussed three motion sensors that didn’t operate correctly. Two were removed by the Complainant, and the sensor in the kitchen worked at second inspection. No action required by the Respondent.

5) Roof: Roof leaks, and has damages due to the leaks:

a) Water tested the north skylight where there were signs of a previous leak. Respondent stated the leak was repaired prior to the inspection, and it didn’t leak at the time of inspection. No action required by the Respondent.

b) Drywall damage at north skylight from previous leak. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

6) Doors: Doors are installed unprofessionally, and some aren’t even installed:

Complainant showed the inspector a swinging door in the kitchen that needed adjustment. The inspector asked the Complainant if there were any more doors he was concerned about, and he said no. Respondent shall correct the swinging door in the kitchen by the appropriate means.

7) Sinks: Sinks were paid for and [were] supposed to be installed, but sinks that contractor chose [have] rust build up that would not clean off:

Two new stainless steel sinks rusting within the first year of installation. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

8) Water Heater: Was supposed to install an 80G, but instead installed the smallest size water heater.

Plans and contract called for an 80 gallon water heater. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

9) Freezers: We supposed to be moved from old location to new location and installed, but freezers don’t function right, temperatures are always dropping.

Complainant had no documentation on freezer repairs. The inspector is unable to assign fault or determine cause at the time of inspection. No action required by the Respondent.

10) Overall Painting: Painting was promise[d] to entire bakery, but the paint wasn’t completely done, and some of the paint job that was done was done poorly:

Complainant showed the inspector several areas that weren’t completed. a) Patch on ceiling in the far north room. b) Three closets in showroom area at the east side of the building. c) Office ceiling. d) Several missed areas in the storeroom, and overspray on rubber molded base in storeroom. e) Double doors between storeroom and hall are not painted. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

11) Overall quality of the work that was done: The quality of the work was done sloppy and very unprofessionally. A lot of things are still left unfinished or [not] even touched.

Complainant stated to the inspector that this last item was an overall summary of the job. (General Statement).

4. Inspector Klein conducted a pre-hearing inspection on October 31, 2013. After inspecting the items of correction, he found that none of the items had been corrected though some work had been done clearing away debris and some painting. 5. Inspector Klein testified regarding items 1 through 4 on the Corrective Work Order. He said that the wall outlets were fine because Complainant had to abandon some outlets to get a “building final.” It was later clarified that some areas of this commercial building had been wired for residential electrical service. By agreeing to abandon some outlets, Complainant was able to meet the requirements to pass inspection as a commercial building. Therefore, Inspector Klein found that Respondent had committed no violation in leaving those outlets unfinished. This was the crux of the first four complaint items, so no action was required on items through 4. 6. Regarding the allegation of a roof leak in item 5, Inspector Klein testified that he water-tested the roof for leaks but not the skylights because they were used and were not installed by Respondent. The roof did not leak so Respondent’s roof work was passed. Inspector Klein said that at the first job site inspection, Respondent agreed to take care of the water damaged drywall by the skylight. At the pre-hearing inspection, however, the inspector found that the drywall wasn’t repaired.

7. Regarding the remaining items, Inspector Klein initially testified as his notes indicated on the Corrective Work Order. The remainder of the hearing brought forth more detail on the background and the parties’ positions on each issue. 8. Respondent testified regarding item 5. He claimed that he repaired the damaged drywall by the skylight, but that the skylight leaked again, so the drywall was damaged again. He argued that the skylight area will continue to leak until the skylight itself is replaced. Respondent attempted to have Inspector Klein acknowledge that the area had been repaired, but Inspector Klein denied that this was true. The inspector said that, when he observed the area at the pre-hearing inspection, it looked as if no corrective attempts had been made. Complainant stated that Respondent had told him that the new coating on the roof would prevent leaks and did not tell him that the skylight would leak. 10. Regarding the doors in item 6, Respondent claimed that they were properly installed. Respondent attempted to have Inspector Klein acknowledge that the swinging doors were only crooked when open, but Inspector Klein stated that one was framed out of square and that the two sides of the swinging doors were different. 11. Regarding item 7, Respondent argued that the stainless steel sinks would not have rusted if Complainant had been using them properly. He said that he showed the manufacturer pictures of the sinks and the manufacturer took the position that Complainant must have been using corrosive materials. No evidence was presented to show that the manufacturer limited its warranty to exclude the use of corrosive materials. Nevertheless, Complainant testified credibly that he only uses his sinks to wash vegetables and for hand washing. An invoice submitted to the Registrar of Contractors by Respondent shows that Respondent paid $68.00 each for two wall mounted hand sinks.[6] Inspector Klein stated that he received something from Respondent[7] but he ordered the item of complaint to be corrected because Complainant’s older sink was without rust and because the sinks failed within a year of purchase, though he noted that the Registrar of Contractors usually goes with what the manufacturer says. 12. Respondent argued that it was up to the Complainant to get the manufacturer to replace the sinks. It was not disputed that Respondent ordered the sinks and purchased them for Complainant. So, while Respondent argued that it is the customer who must contact the manufacturer, the evidence established that Respondent was the customer. 13. Respondent said the size of the water heater, item 8, was an agreed-upon change because the larger unit would need plumbing changes that Complainant did not want to pay for. Complainant testified that he might be okay with the change of the water heater but he did not get a credit for the difference between the larger water heater and the one that was installed. Respondent did not dispute that no credit was given for the price difference. 14. Regarding the freezers/refrigeration units in item 9, Complainant testified that he hired Respondent to move two refrigeration units (or freezers), which Respondent did. However, Complainant said, the units, which had worked fine prior to the move, worked only on and off after they were moved. He said that as a bakery, Complainant needed the coolers to work properly, so he had to throw them away and replace them after Respondent refused to come and fix them. He said replacing them cost the company over $3,000.00. 15. Respondent said he contracted to move the units, which, he said were at least 5 years old and 3 years old, respectively. He said his paperwork said Respondent was not responsible for any damage but, nevertheless, there was no damage. Respondent said he never claimed to know anything about refrigeration systems. He said one of the units was frozen over before they moved it because he saw the lines were frozen over before he moved the units. He said he didn’t know this was a problem because it was not his area of expertise. He said another worker said that the compressor was leaking on that unit. He said Complainant knew there was something wrong with the refrigerator before he even moved it. No evidence was presented to support this claim. He also claimed that he had no contract to set up the system to get it working, and he said that he guessed Complainant’s previous contact would not work with Complainant anymore so he called someone to help Complainant fix them. No evidence was presented to show that anyone Complainant has worked with subsequently refused to do so. Respondent claimed that he only charged Complainant to move the refrigerators, not to set them up, because somehow “labor” refers only to moving things and not to the process of setting them up. Respondent pointed out that the invoice referenced in the contract states that Respondent is not responsible for damages cause by the move. However, the invoice actually contains two sections referencing labor. One is a general provision that specifies that Respondent is not responsible for damages to property caused by the move. The other provision was more specific to the refrigeration units. It is priced separately, and it provides for setting up the refrigerator at the new location (though Respondent argued that he didn’t charge for this) and it contains no separate disclaimer for damages caused while moving them.[8] 16. In direct contradiction to Respondent’s testimony, Complainant testified that he hired Respondent to move the refrigerators because Respondent claimed that he knew how to move the refrigerators correctly. Since Respondent prepared the contract and the invoice that the contract references, and since the invoice clearly states that it includes setting up the units, Respondent’s testimony is not credible. Inspector Klein did not direct Respondent to correct the matter because he could not determine fault at that time. He noted in the Corrective Work Order that Complainant had not provided any documentation on freezer repairs. Complainant argued at hearing that he could provide documentation on the freezers so the matter was held open to allow him that opportunity. On November 25, 2013, Complainant submitted a statement that included a receipt for new freezers, but the receipt was dated from 2010.[9] Ultimately, Complainant was unable to show the exact amount of money he paid to purchase new units or the amount it would have taken to repair them. However, the testimony of the parties was sufficient to establish that Respondent contracted to move and set up the units and that Respondent did damage the units and refused to repair them. 17. The scope of work was the issue regarding the painting, item 10. Respondent argued that there were unoccupied areas of the building that were not included in the permit’s occupancy. He said these areas would cost Complainant over $60,000 to make the electricity in these areas compliant, so everything that Respondent did was for the remaining 4,000 square feet and the other 6,000 square feet of the building were not part of the contract.[10] He said according to Complainant’s occupancy, he is not to be occupying the remainder of the building. In order to use that area, he said, Complainant would have to change the electrical wiring and install a sprinkler system. Respondent said painting the unoccupied areas wasn’t in the contract because it was in the blueprints. He said the contract doesn’t state this because they were using the blueprints and the blueprints state that only 4,000 square feet can be occupied. For this reason, he argued, it was clear that only 4,000 square feet were to be painted. Respondent’s post-hearing statement included a copy of the permit. Respondent argued that Complainant is prevented from occupying parts of the building and, therefore, the contract was to paint only the occupied portions of the building. The contract referred to an invoice for the scope of work to be performed. According to page 4 of that invoice, which was dated June 13, 2012, Respondent was to “Paint interior and exterior - 1 color”.[11] No limitations on this provision were stated either in the contract or in the invoice. Respondent’s argument, therefore, is that the contract incorporated, not only the unspecified invoice, but the blueprints and/or permit as well. 18. Complainant said that he contracted for paint and lighting for the whole building, which is on the blueprints, and they went over the whole building while making the contract. Respondent acknowledged that lighting for the whole building was in the blueprints and that he was to do, and did do, overhead lighting for the unoccupied area so that Complainant could go between his occupied areas safely. But, he said, the painting was only for the 4,000 square feet. Complainant said the contract called for internal and external painting, like the lighting. 19. Inspector Klein testified that there was one unpainted room that he did not mention in the Corrective Work Order that should have been included and that should have been painted. On cross-examination, Respondent attempted to have Inspector Klein acknowledge that the unpainted room had been painted, but Inspector Klein stated that the room, which was taped and mudded, was not painted at all. Respondent also attempted to have Inspector Klein admit that he had told Respondent that his corrective work was finished but that Complainant was simply not satisfied, but Inspector Klein testified that there were corrective items that weren’t done. 20. Respondent submitted a myriad of accusations against Complainant that were not directly relevant to any issue set for hearing. Complainant denied the allegations and made some as well against Respondent. Due to prior dealings, Complainant asked that Respondent be required to hire another contractor to complete any work that may be ordered. While Respondent did not establish that Complainant has denied access, Complainant has not established that Respondent should not be allowed to do corrective work either. 21. Administrative notice is taken of the Respondent’s prior License record as reflected on the Registrar of Contractors public website on December 13, 2013. Such prior License record reflects that License No. KB- 2.232046-D was current and had one open case, one closed case that resulted in disciplinary action, and one closed case that was resolved, settled, or withdrawn. The website further reflects that the license was issued on April 25, 2007 and that it was suspended for lack of bond for 2 days in 2010. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. This matter is within the jurisdiction of the Registrar of Contractors pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 32-1104(A)(4), 32-1154(B) and 32-1156. 2. The Citation and Complaint issued by the Registrar of Contractors in this matter alleged potential violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) (violation of any ROC rule, namely A.A.C. R4-9-108), (13) (specifically A.R.S. § 32-1158(B)(5), (8), and (9)), and (23). 3. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) provides grounds for suspension or revocation of a contractor’s license for “[v]iolation of any rule adopted by the registrar”. The Arizona Administrative Code requires contractors to meet minimum workmanship standards in the projects they undertake. A.A.C. R4-9-108. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(23) provides grounds for suspension or revocation of a contractor’s license for failure to take appropriate corrective action on a Corrective Work Order without valid justification and within a reasonable period of time. 4. Arizona Administrative Code (“A.A.C.”) R4-5-108 provides as follows:

R4-9-108. Workmanship Standards A. A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner. B. A contractor shall perform all work in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards. C. All work performed by a contractor in a county, city, or town that has not adopted building codes or where any adopted building codes do not contain specific provisions applicable to that aspect of construction work shall be performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

5. Complainant has the burden of proof and the standard of proof on all issues is by a preponderance of the evidence. See A.R.S. § 41- 1092.07(G); A.A.C. R2-19-119. Complainant’s testimony throughout the hearing was credible, as was the testimony of the Registrar of Contractors’ Inspector. However, Respondent’s testimony was not credible for many reasons. Not only did he contradict himself, he made allegations against Complainant that were not supported by any evidence but that were clearly designed to make the Complainant look bad. Respondent also claimed at hearing that the refrigerators were broken before they were moved and that he saw that a refrigerator line had frozen. If this were true, however, Respondent would have included this information in his answer or in some earlier communication on the case. Respondent claimed that stainless steel wouldn’t rust unless it was the fault of the user; however, he offered no evidence in support of this. No evidence was presented to show that any harsh corrosive chemicals are used in the process of baking. In fact, such an allegation makes no sense whatsoever. If harsh chemicals were used in baking, then most stainless steel sinks that are installed in homes would rust as well, since the kitchen is used for baking anywhere and the process of baking must be the same everywhere in order to produce the same baked goods. For these reasons and more, Respondent’s testimony could not be considered credible. 6. The parties repeatedly mentioned a judicial court case they had been involved with prior to the hearing. Since issue preclusion is an affirmative defense, and since no evidence or argument was offered to show that this judicial court case had any legal effect on this matter, Respondent has not established that any issues set for hearing in this matter should be precluded by that case. 7. In this case, Complainant has established that Respondent failed to meet minimum workmanship standards on the following items of complaint: a. Items 1 through 4 of the Corrective Work Order required no action by the Respondent for technical reasons involving the proper lighting. Because this was based on a legal issue beyond Respondent’s control, no violation should be found for those items.[12] b. Item 5 of the Corrective Work Order required that Respondent repair some water damaged drywall. The correction was not completed. Respondent was not credible when he said he corrected the problem but that Complainant experienced more leaking. Inspector Klein observed the area and found no reason to agree with this statement. Therefore, Respondent’s failure to correct this issue was a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(23). c. Item 6 of the Corrective Work Order found that the swinging doors were not installed properly and Respondent failed to correct them. The weight of the evidence established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32- 1154(A)(3) and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(23). d. Item 7 of the Corrective Work Order found that the stainless steel sinks purchased by Respondent and installed by Respondent were rusting. Respondent’s claim that Complainant was responsible was not credible. Further, the sinks failed within the warranty period. Respondent failed to correct the item after receiving the Corrective Work Order. The evidence established a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(23). e. Item 8 of the Corrective Work Order found that the contract called for an 80 gallon water heater, which was larger than the one that was installed. The evidence established a violation of A.R.S. § 32- 1154(A)(3) and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(23) because Respondent did not give Complainant a credit for the difference in price. f. Item 9 of the Corrective Work Order declined to find Respondent responsible for the refrigeration units that Respondent moved from Complainant’s former place of business due to insufficient documentary evidence. However, the greater weight of the evidence at hearing established that this item should be affirmed. Respondent should be found in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) for the damage to the refrigerators. On this issue, Respondent’s testimony was particularly contradictory, while there was no reason to doubt any of the statements made by Complainant. Therefore, Complainant’s testimony must be considered to carry the weight of the evidence. Complainant testified that Respondent said he had the ability to move the units and that the units worked prior to the move and did not work afterwards. The units had been replaced prior to the hearing and there was insufficient evidence to establish the proper amount of restitution, however, Respondent should at least be required to refund the $2,200.00 he charged for moving the units since Complainant never received what he paid for on that item. g. Item 10 of the Corrective Work Order referred to some specific areas that needed painting but failed to mention a room that, according to Inspector Klein’s testimony, Respondent prepped but did not paint. Respondent alleged that the contract implied that many of the areas in question were not included because they could not be occupied by the bakery. This argument did not make sense. If Respondent wanted to exclude painting in some of the areas, he could have made this clear in his contract. Failure to do so must be weighed against the drafter of the contract, not Complainant. The evidence established violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) with regard to the room that was not mentioned in the Corrective Work Order. The evidence further established that, as to the remaining unpainted areas, Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(23). h. Item 11 was a general statement and not an allegation. 8. In addition to the above items, Complainant also established that Respondent should have been ordered to correct the issues presented by the broken refrigeration units and the additional room that was not included in the Corrective Work Orders items to be painted, and that these items constitute violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) as well. 9. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(13) provides grounds for suspension or revocation of a contractor’s license for failure to comply with provisions of that chapter. To wit, A.R.S. § 32-1158(B) states, in relevant part, as follows: B. From and after December 31, 2007, any contract in an amount of more than one thousand dollars entered into between a contractor and the owner of a property to be improved shall contain in writing at least the following information: * * * 5. A description of the work to be performed under the contract. * * * 8. The dollar amount of any progress payment and the stage of construction at which the contractor will be entitled to collect progress payments during the course of construction under the contract. 9. That the property owner has the right to file a written complaint with the registrar for an alleged violation of section 32-1154, subsection A. The contract shall contain the registrar's telephone number and website address and shall state that complaints must be made within the applicable time period as set forth in section 32-1155, subsection A. The information in this paragraph must be prominently displayed in the contract in at least ten point bold type, and the contract shall be signed by the property owner and the contractor or the contractor's designated representative. This paragraph does not apply to a person who is subject to and complies with section 12- 1365. 10. It was not disputed that the contract between the parties failed to meet the requirements of paragraphs 8 and 9, above. To the extent that the contract did describe the work to be done per paragraph 5 of A.R.S. § 32-1158(B), Respondent cannot have it both ways. The contract states that painting is to be done inside and out, yet Respondent claimed at hearing that it was understood that the contract did not include the entire building based on information from two documents (blueprints and a permit) that were not referenced in the contract. Vague or unclear contractual provisions should be construed against the drafter of the contract. Therefore, Complainant established that painting the entire building was in the contract, and the contract did not properly describe this. Additionally, Respondent’s contract did not state within its four corners the scope of work to be performed, but referred, instead to an invoice. Although there was no dispute in this case as to which invoices the contract referred to, it is not sufficient to refer to some unidentified invoices as part of the contract. The evidence clearly established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(13) in failing to describe in the contract the work that was to be performed. 11. Respondent’s prior license record as it pertains to the license named in this matter is not so poor that it should be considered a factor in aggravation in this matter. 12. In this case, Complainant has established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), (13), and (23) and that disciplinary action against Respondent’s license would be appropriate. RECOMMENDED DECISION In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that Respondent’s License No: KB-2.232046-D shall be immediately suspended on the effective date of the Order entered in this matter until the Respondent has properly corrected items 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the Corrective Work Order, including the unpainted room that Inspector Klein testified was erroneously omitted. It is further recommended that after Respondent completes the corrective work, or, alternatively, if Respondent completes the corrective work on or before the effective date of the Registrar of Contractors’ Order, Respondent’s license shall be placed on active suspension for a period of l4 days followed immediately by a period of disciplinary probation for one year. If the corrective work is completed prior to the effective date of the Order entered in this matter, this alternative penalty shall commence on the effective date of the Order. If the corrective work is completed after the effective date of the Order, this alternative penalty shall commence on the date that the corrective work is completed. It is further recommended, in addition to the above-provided alternative penalty, that Respondent pay the sum of $250.00 in certified funds to the Registrar of Contractors by way of a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(D). The failure by Respondent to pay the entire amount of the aforesaid civil penalty in certified funds, on or before 30 days following the effective date of the Order entered in this matter, shall result in the automatic revocation of Respondent’s contractor’s license, effective on such deadline date. No future license shall be issued to any entity consisting of persons associated with Respondent, as defined in A.R.S. § 32-1101(A)(5), unless payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty is tendered.

If the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings certifies this Administrative Law Judge Decision, the effective date of the Order will be forty (40) days from the date of certification. Done this day, December 13, 2013.

/s/ Dorinda M. Lang Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

William A. Mundell, Director Registrar of Contractors ----------------------- [1] Hereinafter, “Respondent” shall refer to the license-holder, a contracting business, as well as Respondent’s Qualifying Party and hearing representative, unless further clarification is needed. [2] Hereinafter, “Complainant” shall refer to the Complainant, a bakery, and Complainant’s representative, unless further clarification is needed. [3] Agency Record, “Insp Complaint Submittal1.pdf” in the electronic file. [4] Ibid. [5] Agency Record, “Corrective Work Order1.rtf” in the electronic file. [6] See Agency Record, “Insp Correspondence from Respondent3.pdf” in the electronic file. [7] See Agency Record, “Insp Correspondence from Respondent1.pdf” in the electronic file. [8] See Agency Record, “Insp. Correspondence from Respondent2.pdf” in the electronic file. [9] See 12/25/2013 “Electronic-docrec submitted by David Pham” in the electronic file (last page). [10] However, he later acknowledged that he did some lighting in the unoccupied areas for safety reasons. [11] See Agency Record, “Insp Correspondence from Respondent 2.pdf” in the electronic file. [12] Not all of the more minor parts of item 1 were mentioned at hearing. However, the items not mentioned were minor and there was insufficient evidence to establish a violation for them.

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

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