ORDER
2023A-06039-RFA-LS-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-03-28
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Eric Feller,
COMPLAINANT
v.
RHINO CONCRETE LLC
License No. ROC 335131,
RESPONDENT
No. 2023A-06039-RFA-LS-ROC
ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT’S REQUEST TO CERTIFY RECOMMENDED DECISION AS FINAL AGENCY DECISION
This tribunal has read and considered Respondent’s request to certify the Recommended Decision as the final agency decision in this matter. For the reasons that follow, this tribunal determines that it has no authority to do so.
The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), being an administrative agency, has only those powers specifically prescribed by statute. OAH’s authority to certify the recommended decision in this case must be found within the applicable statute or OAH does not have the power to do it.
The rules of statutory interpretation are well settled in Arizona. The cardinal rule is, of course, “to ascertain the meaning of the statute and intent of the legislature.” Words in a statute are given their ordinary meaning unless the legislature has clearly intended to give a term a special meaning. Moreover, the intent of the Legislature is determined primarily from the language of the statute itself. When the words of the statute are clear and unambiguous and convey a clear and definite meaning, there is no occasion to go outside the language itself for interpretation.
A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(I) requires OAH, upon a timely request of a licensee, to certify as the final agency decision an ALJ decision emanating from “any appealable agency action or contested case involving a licensing decision.” A.R.S. § 41-1001(15) defines a licensing decision as “any action by an agency to grant or deny any request for permission, approval or authorization issued in response to any request from an applicant for a license or to the holder of a license to exercise authority within the scope of the license.” The plain language of the statute demonstrates that the purpose of the action and the resultant decision must be directed at granting or denying a license.
In contrast to a licensing action, the Registrar’s recovery fund “is established to be administered by the registrar for the benefit of claimants that are damaged by an act, representation, transaction or conduct of a residential contractor that is licensed [pursuant to Title 32, chapter 10] and that is in violation of this chapter or the rules adopted pursuant to this chapter.” An administrative action for payout from the registrar’s recovery fund involves a determination as to whether there should be a payout from the recovery fund to a person to remedy a contractor’s violation of Title 32, Chapter 10 where the contractor’s license has been suspended or revoked. In a recovery fund case, a contractor’s ability to contest a recovery fund payout is limited to its objection to the “amount or propriety of the payment.” The plain language of the applicable recovery fund statutes indicates that the sole objective of a recovery fund proceeding is to benefit a claimant and is limited to a determination of the amount or propriety of the payment. By its own terms, it is not directed at granting or denying “a request for permission approval or authorization” to engage in contracting.
Given the clarity of the respective statutes and the fact that a recovery fund proceeding is not an action to grant or deny a license, drawing such a conclusion would be inconsistent with the legislative intent as demonstrated through the language of A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(I).
OAH has no authority to certify a recovery fund recommended decision under A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(I), and therefore, it cannot acquiesce to Respondent’s request to do so in this case.
Done this day, March 28, 2025.
/s/ Tammy L. Eigenheer
Chief Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
[email redacted]
RHINO CONCRETE LLC
[email redacted]
[email redacted]
Eric Feller
[email redacted]
Registrar of Contractors
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff