ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final
2023A-14498-RFA-LS-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-05-15
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
David R. Woker,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Alsi Construction and Development LLC,
License No. ROC 345924,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2023A-14498-RFA-LS-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: April 22, 2025
APPEARANCES: David R. Woker appeared on his own behalf. No person appeared on behalf of Respondent Alsi Construction and Development LLC.
Assistant Attorney General Mona Baskin represented the Arizona Registrar of Contractors.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Kay Abramsohn
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Registrar Exhibits 1 through 11.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) administers a Residentiary Recovery Fund (Fund). The Registrar’s Notice of Hearing provided that the issue set for determination in this matter was Respondent’s appeal of the Registrar’s determination regarding Complainant’s Fund Claim.
2. On February 7, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing setting the above-entitled matter for hearing. The Registrar mailed copies of the Notice of Hearing to the parties at the addresses of record.
3. On request of Respondent, the hearing was continued. By ORDER dated March 11, 2025, the Office of Administrative Hearings issued its ORDER by email advising the parties the continued hearing would be conducted virtually by videoconference or telephone via Google Meet and providing the instructions to connect to the hearing.
4. Respondent did not appear by videoconference or telephone and had not requested that the hearing again be continued. Although the start of the hearing was delayed a minimum of 15 minutes, Respondent did not appear. Consequently, Respondent did not present any evidence in this matter.
5. The hearing was convened and conducted through Google Meet on April 22, 2025. At hearing, the Registrar presented the testimony of Meredith Bell, legal assistant for the Registrar. Complainant David R. Woker testified on his own behalf.
BACKGROUND
6. On December 21, 2023, Complainant had filed a Licensed Complaint form (Complaint) with the Registrar alleging poor work and abandonment in connection with a construction project of an office inside a garage building. The Complaint indicated that the contract amount was for $19,431.00 and that Respondent had been paid $13,601.70.
7. The Registrar conducted an investigation into the Complaint. Registrar Investigator Nipp conducted a job-site inspection on February 6, 2024, determining that, although work had begun, the contracted-for work was not completed and there were poor workmanship issues.
8. After Investigator Nipp issued a written directive (Directive) for the work to be corrected by appropriate means, Respondent failed to correct any of the Directive items.
9. On March 21, 2024, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(1); Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b); Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(a) and (b); and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).
10. Following an administrative hearing, an Administrative Law Judge issued an Administrative Law Judge Decision on June 13, 2024, finding that the evidence of record demonstrated that Respondent had violated the cited statutory provisions.
11. On July 12, 2024, the Registrar issued a Final Administrative Decision and Order determining that Respondent had violated the cited statutory provisions.
RECOVERY FUND CLAIM
12. On August 21, 2024, Complainant filed the Recovery Fund Claim Form. Complainant submitted relevant information for consideration of the Fund Claim, including two bids to repair or complete the contract.
13. On December 30, 2024, the Registrar notified the parties regarding the determined Administrative Award from the Fund in the amount of $18,920.70.
14. On January 13, 2025, Respondent filed an appeal regarding the determination. Complainant did not contest the amount of the administrative payout.
15. As previously found, Respondent failed to appear for the Fund hearing.
16. The Registrar’s witness testified regarding the appropriateness of the considered bids and her determination that the Award was supported by the Fund Claim and the record.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1132(A) provides that “[a]n award from the fund is limited to the actual damages suffered by the claimant as a direct result of the contractor's violation but shall not exceed an amount necessary to complete or repair a residential structure or appurtenance within residential property lines. . . .”
The Registrar’s final decision in the underlying workmanship case giving rise to the instant matter establishes that Respondent’s work violated the statutory provisions that were charged in the Citation.
When the Registrar has calculated the amount of a complainant’s compensable damages and has proposed a payout from the Fund to which a complainant is entitled, the calculation is a prima facie showing of the amount that a complainant is entitled to recover as a payout from the Fund.
Having appealed the Award, the Respondent bears the burden of proof to establish that the Registrar’s determination of eligibility for access to, and the determined payout from, the Fund is incorrect or inappropriate 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.” A preponderance of the evidence is “[t]he greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”
After review of the hearing record, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Respondent failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Registrar’s determinations of eligibility and Award amount were either improper or inappropriate.
The weight of the evidence shows that the Registrar correctly determined that Complainant is eligible for access to the Fund pursuant to statute and that the determined Award amount is appropriate. Consequently, the Registrar appropriately granted Complainant’s Fund claim.
After review of all the evidence, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Complainant is eligible for an award from the Fund and that the $18,920.70 award proposed by the Fund accurately reflects Complainant’s actual damages. Accordingly, the Tribunal concludes that Complainant is entitled to a payout from the Fund in the amount of $18,920.70.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
In view of the foregoing,
IT IS ORDERED Respondent’s appeal is dismissed.
IT IS ORDERED that on the effective date of the final Order in this matter, the Residential Contractors’ Recovery Fund shall pay $18,920.70 to Complainant David R. Woker.
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, May 15, 2025.
/s/ Kay A. Abramsohn
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted electronically to:
Tom Cole
Registrar of Contractors
Mona Baskin
Assistant Attorney General
[email redacted]
Attorney for the Arizona Registrar of Contractors
David R. Woker
4040 E Mallory Circle
Mesa, AZ 85215
[email redacted]
Alsi Construction and Development LLC
4450 E Creosote Dr
Cave Creek, AZ 85331
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff