ALJDEC - Licensing

2023A-06338-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2023-10-23

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Sylva Hrabovsky,

COMPLAINANT

v.

Cal-Pro Roofing LLC

License No. ROC 306666,

RESPONDENT

No. 2023A-06338-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: October 19, 2023

APPEARANCES: Complainant Sylva Hrabovsky appeared on her own behalf. Abraham Martinez, Project Manager, appeared on behalf of Respondent Cal-Pro Roofing LLC.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Tammy L. Eigenheer

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Cal-Pro Roofing LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 306666 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about March 14, 2023, Sylva Hrabovsky (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for a roof repair.

On or about June 4, 2023, the Registrar received a complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work and abandonment with respect to the project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Joey Chester. After a jobsite inspection, Investigator Chester issued a written directive to Respondent that provided as follows:

After investigation, the Registrar determined that you failed to meet the requirements of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A), and now issues this Directive requiring you to take appropriate corrective action. Failure to comply with this Directive constitutes a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22) and may result in the issuance of a citation, discipline of your license, and a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E) of up to $500.00. You must notify the Registrar’s assigned Investigator of your compliance with this Directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on July 21, 2023.

. . . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:

Complaint Item: wrong area on my roof was used to cover and prevent possible small leak to my kitchen from upcoming storms. It was covered with Owens synthetic roofing underlayment directly over undamaged shingles installed with 50+ plastic cap nails trough the undamaged shingles on the top of my roof. It's about 100 sq. feet currently covered by the synthetic roofing material. ;

I have caped nails falling off the roof to my yard. One of my pets stepped on the nail!

Investigator’s Observation: At time of inspection the roof tarp was still in wrong area, respondent needs to remove the tarp, inspect the roof and repair the area by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Following the issuance of the written directive, Respondent removed the tarp and replaced some of the shingles that were under the tarp. After the deadline in the directive expired, Investigator Chester was notified Respondent did not perform all of the required corrective work.

On or about August 1, 2023, Investigator Chester conducted a compliance jobsite inspection. Investigator Chester documented his observations of the project during the compliance jobsite inspection as follows:

At the time of the CJSI the tarp had been removed and most of the nails that were holding it down had been removed. There was still holes in the shingles that the tarp was on top off and nothing had been done either to cover them up with roofing caulk or replaced. There was multiple nails on the roof along with a couple poking out of the roof shingle.

The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A); and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Investigator Chester testified as to his observations of the project.

Complainant testified that Respondent initially failed to install the tarp over the area where the roof leak was, which left her home at risk for further damage. Complainant also stated that it took months for Respondent to follow-up on the work and she ultimately filed the complaint with the Registrar after Respondent would not return her calls. Complainant stated that after the directive was issued, Respondent failed to properly correct the issue with the shingles. Complainant indicated that there were still nails through shingles that needed to be addressed.

Mr. Martinez asserted that the individual who entered into the contract with Complainant failed to provide Respondent a copy of the contract, so Respondent had no knowledge of the project, which accounted for its delay in responding to Complainant’s calls. During the hearing, Mr. Martinez eventually admitted that Respondent had failed to properly perform the corrective work required in the written directive.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on October 19, 2023. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 306666 was first issued on July 29, 2016, and has been suspended due to a disciplinary action since September 20, 2023. Such prior License record also reflects that there were two open complaints, one prior resolved/settled complaint, and one prior complaint resulting in discipline against Respondent’s license.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

Respondent’s suspended license does not deprive Complainant of her right to prosecute her complaint or prevent the Registrar from determining the merits of the complaint.

Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence.

“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

The evidence established that Respondent’s work was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent did not complete the project in a workmanlike manner in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A).

The evidence established that Respondent did not complete the corrective work following the Directive being issued. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a written directive from the Registrar in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall suspend Respondent’s License No. 306666 for a period of three days.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $500.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(E).

It is further recommended that if Respondent fails to pay the entire amount of the civil penalty on or before thirty days following the effective date of the Registrar’s final order, the Registrar revoke Respondent’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 Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1101(A)(5), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.

Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(I), the licensee may accept the Administrative Law Judge Decision by advising the Office of Administrative Hearings in writing not more than ten (10) days after receiving the decision. If the licensee accepts the Administrative Law Judge Decision, the decision shall be certified as the final decision by the Office of Administrative Hearings.

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 forty (40) days from the date of that certification.

Done this day, October 23, 2023.

/s/ Tammy L. Eigenheer

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Joey Chester

[email redacted]

Sylva Hrabovsky

[email redacted]

Cal-Pro Roofing LLC

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff