PDF copy: ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2015A-1168-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2016-05-12

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

B B Ewing Property Management LLC No. 2015A-1168-ROC COMPLAINANT, v. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE Khart Management LLC, DECISION License No. KB-1.258816-D

RESPONDENT.

HEARING: January 14 and February 26, 2016. Held open until March 11, 2016 APPEARANCES:

On January 14, 2016: John Ryan, Complainant’s Attorney; Dr. Elissa Gartenberg, Complainant’s representative; Everett Butler, Respondent’s Attorney; Kyle Hart, Respondent’s representative; Ted Gerold, Registrar of Contractors Investigator; Darko Vracevic, Joel Steenhoek, and Gerald Palmer, witnesses; Andrea Ryan, paralegal.

On February 26, 2016: John Ryan, Complainant’s Attorney; Dr. Elissa Gartenberg, Complainant; Everett Butler, Respondent’s Attorney; Kyle Hart, Respondent’s representative; Ted Gerold, Registrar of Contractors Investigator; Darko Vracevic, Joel Steenhoek, Gerald Palmer, and Stan Brimley, witnesses; John Zook, paralegal.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Dorinda M. Lang _____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Complainant’s representative (hereinafter referred to as “Complainant”)

contracted with Respondent to remodel in an older home for use as a doctor’s office. Complainant filed a complaint against Respondent with the Registrar of Contractors regarding various issues. After conducting a job site inspection, Registrar of Contractors Investigator Ted Gerold issued a Directive from the

Office of Administrative Hearings 1400 West Washington, Suite 101 Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-9826 Registrar on April 28, 2015.1 It directed Respondent to remedy various alleged violations of the Registrar of Contractors workmanship rule as follows:

1) Excessive dip and or waviness in the newly poured concrete floor to the left of the vestibule/rear exit door.

2) All gaps in door casing miters that exceed 1/16’’ shall be replaced. If casing miter gaps don’t exceed 1/16’’ but are still present, need to be properly filled in.

3) No door jamb or casing bottom shall be more than ¼’’ from the finished floor. Correct where needed. If the door jamb and casing bottoms are within ¼’’ from the finished floor and a gap is present than the gap shall be properly filled in.

4) Improper and excessive vinyl floor cuts at the door jamb and casing bottoms. No vinyl should be more that 1/8’’ against the bottom of any door jambs and casings and the cuts should be in a straight line.

5) Reinstall vinyl base at areas where a full 48’’ piece can be used in lieu of a series of shorter pieces used. No gaps between the vinyl base pieces should exceed 1/16’’. If the gaps are 1/16’’ or less but still present than the gaps should be properly filled in. All vinyl base should fit tight against the wall with no gaps.

6) The Drywall on the right side of the vestibule/rear exit door should be set back to the back of the door casing as the drywall is on the right side of this door. The drywall should also be properly prepped and painted. 7) The damaged drywall around the inside of the electrical room door should have been replaced at least 6”-8’’ away from the door casing. The paint is peeling on the outside of this door. There are hinge screw(s) missing from this door.

8) The tile wainscoting in the bath should have been placed on all of the walls, not just the 2. The center of the toilet is now only 13-7/8’’ from the tiled wall and should be 15’’ per code requirement.

9) Regarding the interior doors:

1 See case file in Prolaw. a) All six sides should be sealed. They are not especially the door tops. b) There are excessively chipped edges that were sealed over. c) Poor putty repairs at the door edges, hinge mortises, and striker mortises. d) Excessive white blemishes in the door finishes. e) Excessively chipped top edges where doors were cut. f) Door striker cylinder exposed on office door. g) Screws missing at some of the hinges. h) Poor and excessive mortising below some of the hinges and around the striker hardware. 1/8’’ will be allowed around the hardware and properly filled in.

10) Contractor shall pay for a termite inspection if one had not been conducted at the floor vinyl install stage in the classroom. If the presence of termites are found [then] Complainant shall pay for the post treatment and Contractor shall pay for any vinyl repairs in the classroom where necessary.

11) Adjust front door closure so it doesn’t hit door casing and repair door casing.

12) Address loose vinyl at rear vestibule/exit area. 13) Remove all paint from window glass where present.

14) Address the wall paint intruding onto the window trim where necessary.

15) Ensure that the proper quantity of fire extinguishers are mounted throughout the building and that the tags had not expired at the time of install. 2. Respondent disputed the items and ultimately a hearing was set with the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. On January 12, 2016, the Registrar of Contractors Investigator conducted a pre-hearing inspection in which he found that no additional work had been done. 3. At the hearing, the Investigator testified that Kyle Hard (hereinafter “Respondent’s representative”), Gerald Plumber (the project architect), Ken Mathis, Tom Womack, and Everett Butler (Respondent’s Attorney) tried to attend

the pre-hearing inspection but Complainant would not allow them in the building and the Investigator did not know why. 4. Respondent’s representative testified that he went to the pre-hearing inspection

and knocked on the door. He said he saw Complainant inside but she would not

come to the door. Afterwards, he said, the Registrar of Contractors Investigator

said he did not have the authority to let them in.

5. Mr. Palmer testified that he went to the pre-hearing inspection but he wasn’t

invited in. He said the Registrar of Contractors Investigator went inside, then

came back out and said Complainant did not want to give them access and

announced that the meeting was over.

6. Complainant testified that she did not keep Respondent out of the pre-hearing

inspection. She said at about the time set for the pre-hearing inspection she

saw that “5 men appeared at the end of the walkway,” then the Investigator came

and talked to them, then the Investigator came in and said that he had already

talked to Respondent’s representative and there was no need to let them come

in. She said the Investigator looked around for a short time and went back out

and talked to them, but that they did not knock on the door. She said that she thought it was suspicious the way they were standing around and that she suspects they were setting it up to make her look bad.2 It is noted that Complainant’s testimony regarding this issue conflicted with the testimonies of both the Respondent’s representative and the Registrar of Contractors Investigator. 7. At the hearing, Complainant and Respondent offered evidence regarding each of the items in the Directive. 8. Regarding Item 1, “Excessive dip and or waviness in the newly poured concrete floor to the left of the vestibule/rear exit door,” Respondent argued that it did not pour any concrete in that area, which Complainant disputed. There are no items in the Respondent’s estimate that indicate a concrete pour was part of the project. Complainant testified that Respondent “definitely did”

pour the concrete in that area when he added the vestibule.3 However, under cross examination, she stated that it had previously been an outdoor area and she did not know if there was concrete in that area before the remodel.4 The

greater weight of the credible evidence established that Respondent was not

responsible for the vestibule/rear exit door area because, although Complainant

indicated that she was sure that Respondent did pour concrete on the project,

under cross examination, information that came out apparently made her realize

that she actually could have been mistaken. The remaining evidence in the

case supports a finding that Respondent did not pour the concrete.

9. Regarding Item 2, “All gaps in door casing miters that exceed 1/16’’ shall be

replaced. If casing miter gaps don’t exceed 1/16’’ but are still present, need

to be properly filled in,” Complainant testified that there were gaps in the prefabricated interior door frames. She stated that Respondent put putty in them to close the gaps but it looks bad. 10. Respondent’s representative testified that a prefabricated metal door jamb cannot be cut or painted and his only choice was to use putty in the gaps. Respondent’s representative established that the age and condition of the existing home impinged on the ability of Respondent to meet all of the usual workmanship tolerances and still have a working door. One of the issues was whether Respondent was responsible for leveling the floors. The answer to that issue affects this issue as well because Respondent’s ability to install prefabricated doors and jambs without having workmanship problems might not be possible with uneven floors. Respondent’s representative testified that Complainant was incorrect in claiming that leveling the floors was included in the contract. Rather, he stated, he was to “float” the floors, meaning only that he would fill in pock marks and imperfections that could eventually show through the vinyl floor covering. He said that if he was to level the floors, it would have

2 2/26/16 Hearing Record from approximately 1:12:38 to approximately 1:14:00. 2/26/16 Hearing Record from approximately 7:30 to 7:45. 4 2/26/16 Hearing Record from approximately 1:09:00 to 1:09:45. cost Complainant more on the contract. His statement was corroborated by the project’s own architect, Gerald Palmer. Both men stated that an important issue in bidding the job was to steer clear of the City of Scottsdale’s nonconforming

use limitation that requires anyone remodeling over 50% (in floor space or cost)

of an existing building to bring the entire building up to the current building

codes. Mr. Palmer testified that this would have required Complainant to install

a sprinkler fire system as well as other changes. He said Complainant was not

trying to bring the building up to code and that bringing it to code was not

possible in the remodel. Mr. Palmer agreed with Respondent’s representative

that floating the floors means evening out the slight dips, cracks, and pits where

the vinyl flooring was to be installed. He said the existing floors, however, were

not perfectly level and putting in new floors would have been a “disaster”

involving the walls and much more. Although he said the purpose of floating the

floors was to level them as much as possible for flooring, he did not think it

would be possible to level them perfectly.5 Considering that the remodel, as

Respondent bid it, totaled $132,168.15, the concern regarding the

nonconforming use limitation is credible. Further, the wording of the contract supports Respondent’s interpretation of its duty. It states, “FLOOR PREP Remove all layers of flooring and float floors to provide surface for new vinyl plank flooring.” [Emphasis added.]6 It was established at the hearing that the plans did not call for leveling the floors. 11. Although Respondent may have been encumbered by existing issues with the home, no evidence was presented to show that Complainant signed an express written waiver acknowledging that she did not wish to pay the additional costs associated with the work necessary to bring the project up to workmanship standards. Without such a waiver, the Registrar of Contractors has traditionally found that a violation exists even when the conditions of the project left the contractor with no other choice and the owner was the one whose plans caused 2/26/16 Hearing Record at 4:54:00 to 5:00:10. 6 Exhibit R-1. the issue in the first place. Therefore, it must be found that Respondent did not meet workmanship standards in Item 2.

12. Regarding Item 3, “No door jamb or casing bottom shall be more than ¼’’

from the finished floor. Correct where needed. If the door jamb and casing

bottoms are within ¼’’ from the finished floor and a gap is present than the

gap shall be properly filled in,” the photos included in Complainant’s

complaint7 show that the flooring stopped more than ¼” from the bottom of the door. As noted above, this may be due to the uneven floors. However, because Respondent failed to obtain an express written waiver, Respondent is responsible for the workmanship. Therefore, Complainant established that Item 3 was in violation. 13. Regarding Item 4, “Improper and excessive vinyl floor cuts at the door jamb and casing bottoms. No vinyl should be more that 1/8’’ against the bottom of any door jambs and casings and the cuts should be in a straight line,” photos show that the flooring was cut too far from the door jambs.8 Complainant established that Item 4 was in violation. 14. Regarding Item 5, “Reinstall vinyl base at areas where a full 48’’ piece can be used in lieu of a series of shorter pieces used. No gaps between the vinyl base pieces should exceed 1/16’’. If the gaps are 1/16’’ or less but still present than the gaps should be properly filled in. All vinyl base should fit tight against the wall with no gaps,” Respondent testified credibly that the vinyl base pieces were cut as needed to run along the floors, which, as noted above, were uneven and not part of the contract. Respondent’s duty to float the floor might extend to evening it out under the base pieces if the unevenness was so frequent that gaps remained; however, the evidence established that the floor was floated enough to install the flooring. This issue would be relevant if the Registrar of Contractors was concerned with comparative fault or damages, but the only issue in this hearing was whether there was a violation, and without an

7 See Prolaw case file. express written waiver by Complainant, this issue must be considered to be in violation.

15. Regarding Item 6, “The Drywall on the right side of the vestibule/rear exit

door should be set back to the back of the door casing as the drywall is on

the right side of this door. The drywall should also be properly prepped

and painted,” Respondent’s representative testified that this concerns a metal

door leading to the outside. He said the door had to be placed where it was to avoid a trip hazard, to allow it to swing wide open without hitting a curb, and to leave room by the door for a button to allow handicapped patients to open the door electronically. Respondent’s representative said he placed the door in accordance with the plans that Complainant provided him. Mr. Palmer, the architect, testified that he expected Respondent to follow his plans. Unfortunately, the space between the jamb on the inside and the perpendicular wall is only 3/8 inch while the smallest trowel is an inch wide. Respondent’s representative said he made the drywall co-planar with the jamb because if he set it back further without being able to use a trowel, the drywall would have been wavy. Considering the totality of circumstances, it would have been impossible for Respondent to fill in the area in question in the traditional manner of drywall work. However, because of the Registrar of Contractors approach to such matters, without an express written waiver, it must be recommended that the Registrar find that Item 6 is in violation. 16. Regarding Item 7, “The damaged drywall around the inside of the electrical room door should have been replaced at least 6”-8’’ away from the door casing. The paint is peeling on the outside of this door. There are hinge screw(s) missing from this door,” Respondent’s representative testified that he replaced the door but not the jamb or frame in the electrical room so he is not responsible for the drywall there. Complainant testified that Respondent replaced the door frame over damaged drywall and is therefore responsible for

8 See Prolaw case file. it. The Registrar of Contractors Investigator testified that Respondent would not be responsible for the problem if he didn’t install the jamb, but Respondent’s representative didn’t mention this at the job site inspection so he put it in the

Directive from the Registrar. The Administrative Law Judge can find no

documentary evidence in the exhibits to support Complainant’s claim that

Respondent installed a jamb with the door and Respondent’s representative’s

failure to remember or say that it wasn’t part of the contract during a job site

inspection cannot be considered a knowing and voluntary waiver of his right not

to exceed the scope of the contract. Therefore, no violation was established for

Item 7.

17. Regarding Item 8, “The tile wainscoting in the bath should have been placed

on all of the walls, not just the 2. The center of the toilet is now only 13-7/8’’

from the tiled wall and should be 15’’ per code requirement,” Mr. Palmer, the project architect, agreed that the current code requires that the toilet be moved, but because the plans did not include a new toilet and because there was already a compliant handicapped bathroom in the building, the toilet location was grandfathered in and did not have to meet code requirements. He also stated that in his plans the tile wainscoting was to follow the former wainscoting, which was only on two walls. He said he saw no problems with Respondent’s work and estimated its quality to be 8 out of 10 while the underlying/preexisting work on the home was more like a 2 or 3 out of 10. Darko Vracevik, the City of Scottsdale Building Investigator who inspected the property and issued the final approval, testified that a toilet that existed before construction is grandfathered in and does not have to meet the new codes. Respondent has established that Item 8 meets workmanship standards. Item 8 was not established to be in violation. 18. Item 9 of the Directive from the Registrar states as follows: Regarding the interior doors: a) All six sides should be sealed. They are not especially the door tops. b) There are excessively chipped edges that were sealed over. c) Poor putty repairs at the door edges, hinge mortises, and striker mortises. d) Excessive white blemishes in the door finishes. e) Excessively chipped top edges where doors were cut. f) Door striker cylinder exposed on office door. g) Screws missing at some of the hinges. h) Poor and excessive mortising below some of the hinges and around the striker hardware. 1/8’’ will be allowed around the hardware and properly filled in. 19. Respondent’s representative testified that he hired a subcontractor to install the interior doors and sent him back out to the job on two occasions. Respondent’s representative was under the understanding that all issues with the doors had been fixed. He said that when he left the job, there were no dings, scratches, or gouges in the doors and all the strikers were lining up. He said he did seal the doors on site with a clear sealer, including the tops of them, but the Registrar of Contractors Investigator found that they weren’t sealed simply by feeling the tops of the doors. Respondent’s representative testified that the sealant tends to raise the grain make it feel rough. He said the proper way to test the doors is to water test them. He said that when he left the project, all of the screws were in the doors. He said the doors will not hang straight unless all the hardware is in place. In examining a photo of a hinge with a screw missing,9 he said it doesn’t make sense to take it out. He opined that the doors were most likely banged when Complainant moved her exam tables into the rooms. He said he did not see white blemishes in the wood when he saw the doors, but he noted that the doors are birch, which has a multi-colored grain. He said the doors were pre- mortised (having stated earlier that they were prefabricated doors), but that if they were over-mortised, it is acceptable to use wood putty to fill them in. 20. Respondent offered the testimony of Stan Brimley, the subcontractor who, along with his employees, installed Complainant’s doors. He said that he has installed doors for 9 years and that prior to that, he was a general contractor. He stated

9 Exhibit C-20. that he was on site around 5 or 6 times, that he watched his employees do some of the door installation, and he went back on two occasions to do some punch list items. He, too, stated that the doors were all sealed with a clear sealant. He

said he inspected all of the doors and jambs. He said he saw some chips, which

were corrected, and he saw some bad putty repairs, which he corrected. He

said he saw some white blemishes that looked like a door had been bumped but

all marks that were pointed out were repaired. He said all of the doors were

functioning properly with proper reveals when he left and all the screws were in

them. He noted that screws can sometimes come loose later. He did not

remember seeing any problems with poor mortising but he remembered doing

some patchwork on the edge of the doors. He said it was possible that some

problems arose after he and his employees left. He said bumping the door

frames and a number of other things can upset the putty, but the doors were

working perfectly and any visible damage was repaired while he and his

employees were there.

21. Complainant offered photos of the interior door issues consisted of two similar

photos of a rough looking striker plate showing marks around it and in other areas around the door.10 Complainant also included photos with her complaint11 that show some scratches on 2 or 3 doors and two places where screws are missing. There is no way to know when the photographs were taken and, while they may have been taken before the final repairs were made, it is doubtful that the Registrar of Contractors Investigator would have put these issues in the Directive without seeing them first. Therefore, the greater weight of the evidence established that there must have been some issues remaining with the doors. Because Respondent was not allowed at the pre-hearing inspection, Respondent had no opportunity to obtain evidence that the issues were resolved (or at least had been improved). Therefore, Complainant was able to establish a violation on the door repairs. However, because the Investigator could not have Last photo of Complainant’s Exhibit 20 and another copy of the same or similar photo elsewhere among the photos in that exhibit. The same or similar photo is Complainant’s Exhibit 32. known whether there was sealant on the doors and because Respondent offered first hand testimony that it was applied, Item 9a was not established to be in violation. The remainder of Item 9 was established to be in violation.

22. Item 10 of the Directive states as follows:

Contractor shall pay for a termite inspection if one had not been conducted at the floor vinyl install stage in the classroom. If the presence of termites are found [then] Complainant shall pay for the post treatment and Contractor shall pay for any vinyl repairs in the classroom where necessary.

23. Complainant testified that when Respondent’s representative removed the carpet in the classroom where the vinyl floor was to be installed, he showed her a crack with a termite’s nest and said he would call Wild Horse Termite Company to have it treated. She said he didn’t call them because she found termites in a closet a couple months later. At that time, she said, Respondent’s representative told her to call the termite company. She did, and when the representative came to spray he said he hadn’t been there earlier. Ultimately, she opened the vinyl floor and had the crack drilled and sprayed. She said it was under warranty so there was no cost involved, but she thought Respondent’s representative had lied about calling them. 24. Respondent’s representative testified that he did not tell Complainant that he found any termites in the floor but he did point out a mud tube in another area. However, he testified that she was the one who was supposed to call the termite company and he never said he would call them. Nothing in the contract indicates that Respondent would be responsible for termite damage. It should be sufficient to notify the owner when a termite issue is found. By the time of the hearing, the Registrar of Contractors Investigator testified that another contractor had done the work and it was no longer an issue. Based on the comparative credibility of the parties, no violation was established on Item 10.

11 See Prolaw case file. 25. Regarding Item 11, “Adjust front door closure so it doesn’t hit door casing

and repair door casing,” Respondent’s representative testified that he did not

install the door casing or a plastic cover, as Complainant testified. He said he

only painted the front door and any further work on it was outside the scope of

the contract. The contract itself only mentions the word “doors” in relation to

interior doors, but it does provide for exterior painting. Respondent’s

representative’s testimony is, therefore, more credible and Complainant has

failed to establish a violation in Item 11.

26. Regarding Item 12, “Address loose vinyl at rear vestibule/exit area,” the

Registrar of Contractors Investigator testified that he could no longer find this problem and Complainant agreed that it could not be confirmed. No violation was established for Item 12. 27. Regarding Item 13, “Remove all paint from window glass where present,” Respondent denied leaving paint on the window glass. Respondent’s representative testified that it was dark purple, which was a color Respondent did not use. Respondent’s representative stated that he had a painting crew try to take it off but it etched the glass. He said this indicates that the paint was lead based and that one is supposed to leave lead based paint alone. Complainant testified that the paint on the glass had to be from Respondent because it was brown and the previous color of the walls was white. However, Respondent’s representative’s testimony makes more sense. It was not disputed that lead-based paint etches glass. Therefore, according to his testimony, one may surmise that a recent splatter of non-lead-based paint would not etch the glass. Further, due to the age of the building, it does not follow that the paint “must” be from Respondent based solely on the color of the walls prior to painting because the walls could have been many colors over the years. Therefore, Complainant did not establish a violation in Item 13. 28. Regarding Item 14, “Address the wall paint intruding onto the window trim where necessary,” Complainant testified that Respondent got the latte color of the walls on the brown trim of the window. Respondent’s representative testified that he never saw this. However, a photo in the file12 shows that some paint got on the edge of a window’s trim. Therefore, the evidence did support the finding of a violation in Item 14.

29. Regarding Item 15, “Ensure that the proper quantity of fire extinguishers are

mounted throughout the building and that the tags had not expired at the

time of install,” Darko Vracevik, the City of Scottsdale Building Investigator who

issued the Certificate of Occupancy, testified that he would not have issued it

without the inspection and approval of the fire marshal, which did occur. He said as far as he knew the fire marshal would not have approved the project without the proper fire extinguishers. Considering the overall credibility of the witnesses in this matter, Complainant has not established a violation for Item 15. 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 issued by the Registrar of Contractors in this matter alleged potential violations of A.R.S. §§ 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108, and (22). 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. 4. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22) provides grounds for suspension or revocation of a contractor’s license as follows: Failure to take appropriate corrective action to comply with this chapter or with rules adopted pursuant to this chapter without valid justification within a reasonable period of time after receiving a written directive from the registrar. The written directive shall set forth the time within which the contractor is to complete the remedial action. The time permitted for compliance shall not be less than fifteen days from the date of issuance of the directive. A license shall not be revoked or suspended nor shall any

12 See Prolaw case file. other penalty be imposed for a violation of this paragraph until after a hearing has been held. [Emphasis added.] 5. The Registrar of Contractors may consider the prior record of a contractor in any disciplinary proceeding. A.A.C. R4-9-117. Administrative notice is taken of the

Registrar of Contractors website. As of the time of this recommendation,

Respondent’s license was in good standing with one open complaint against it.

6. In this case, Complainant has established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-

1154(A)(3) for Items 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, and 14. No violation was established for

Items 1, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, or 13.

7. The findings of violations regarding Items 2, 3, 5, 6, and 9 were based on

Respondent’s failure to obtain an express written waiver. The correction of

those items would have caused Complainant to incur significant additional

expense. Therefore, Respondent has established a valid justification for not

correcting those items, and Respondent should not be found in violation of

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22) regarding them.

8. Respondent’s attorney argued that the Registrar of Contractors Investigator’s

testimony should not be considered because Respondent was denied due

process when Complainant did not allow Respondent’s representative, attorney and experts access to the pre-hearing inspection. Complainants are not prevented from refusing access because of their right to exclude others from their homes and it would not be appropriate to require contractors to trespass. It is recognized that lack of access impinges on one party’s ability to defend itself and utilizing the benefits of the Registrar of Contractors is a privilege. Therefore, it is recommended that the Registrar dismiss complaints in which access is denied. 9. Respondent’s attorney argued that the Registrar of Contractors Investigator destroyed his notes and therefore there was spoliation of evidence and the Investigator’s testimony should be stricken. It was not established that the Registrar of Contractors Investigator is required to keep his handwritten notes or that his typed notes or testimony should be stricken. RECOMMENDED DECISION

Based upon the foregoing considerations, the undersigned Administrative Law

Judge hereby recommends that Respondent’s license (License No. 258816) be

suspended for one day.

If the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings certifies this Administrative Law Judge Decision, the effective date of the order will be five (5) days from the date of certification. Done this day, March 30, 2016.

/s/ Dorinda M. Lang Administrative Law Judge Transmitted electronically to: Jeffrey Fleetham, Director Registrar of Contractors