ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-00562-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-06-04

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Robert Fields,

COMPLAINANT

v.

Hirsch Masonry & Construction LLC

License No. ROC 345664,

RESPONDENT

No. 2025A-00562-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: May 20, 2025

APPEARANCES: Complainant Robert Fields appeared via telephone on his own behalf. Registrar of Contractors Investigator David Cooke appeared via Google Meet.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE:

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Hirsch Masonry and Construction LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 345664 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about July 16, 2024, Complainant hired Respondent to repair his roof at his home in Sierra Vista, Arizona.

On or about January 17, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator David Cooke. The jobsite inspection was performed on February 18, 2025.

Investigator Cooke then issued a Written Directive on or about February 19, 2025, which provided in pertinent part 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 Monday, March 10, 2025.

. . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item: 3 - Edging needs to be neat and sealed at all edging.

Investigator’s Observation: The edges of the roof displayed jagged cuts, excess material overhanging and parts of the torch down showed evidence of peeling. The Respondent will need to correct this issue by the appropriate means. Since the Respondents license is revoked, the appropriate means will be the two parties coming to a resolution to have an appropriately licensed contractor complete the corrective work.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 4 - Drip edge was installed with galvanized material not matching and brown facia or gutters

Investigator’s Observation: Unpainted drip edging was observed along the east side of the home. The Respondent will need to correct this issue by the appropriate means. Since the Respondents license is revoked, the appropriate means will be the two parties coming to a resolution to have an appropriately licensed contractor complete the corrective work.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 5 - The torch down roofing is extremely over burnt stripping most granular off of roofing material.

Investigator’s Observation: Several areas of the roof exhibited exposed bitumen where the granular has been removed. The lack of granular exposes the underlay to the elements. The Respondent will need to correct this issue by the appropriate means. Since the Respondents license is revoked, the appropriate means will be the two parties coming to a resolution to have an appropriately licensed contractor complete the corrective work.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 6 - Roof to parapet flashing not installed properly.

Investigator’s Observation: The parapets, throughout the roof, had torch down material overlapped up onto the tops of the block. This material showed signs of failed adherence with pieces of the roofing material peeling up. The Respondent will need to correct this issue by the appropriate means. Since the Respondents license is revoked, the appropriate means will be the two parties coming to a resolution to have an appropriately licensed contractor complete the corrective work.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 11 - Flashing to all roof walls not done at all.

Investigator’s Observation: Upon inspection, multiple areas of the roof was missing flashings. The flashings are pertinent to water deflection and should be installed to prevent water intrusion. The Respondent will need to correct this issue by the appropriate means. Since the Respondents license is revoked, the appropriate means will be the two parties coming to a resolution to have an appropriately licensed contractor complete the corrective work.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 12 - Roof shingles not nailed per manufacture instructions.

Investigator’s Observation: Shingles were nailed with improper overlap.

Fasteners were also left exposed to the elements. The Respondent will need to correct this issue by the appropriate means. Since the Respondents license is revoked, the appropriate means will be the two parties coming to a resolution to have an appropriately licensed contractor complete the corrective work.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 17 - Shingled ridge cap to be redone.

Investigator’s Observation: The ridge cap was installed with the shingle overlap facing the prevailing winds. The fasteners were also left exposed to the elements. The Respondent will need to correct this issue by the appropriate means. Since the Respondents license is revoked, the appropriate means will be the two parties coming to a resolution to have an appropriately licensed contractor complete the corrective work.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 18 - Site clean up not complete.

Investigator’s Observation: An abundance of trash was observed along the west side of the home. The complainant claims this was left by the Respondent. The respondent will need to correct this by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship...

(All errors contained in the original).

On March 19, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A); A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12), namely A.R.S. § 32-1158; and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

On or about March 25, 2025, Respondent submitted an Answer to the Registrar.

On or about April 9, 2025, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing on May 20, 2025, at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency. The Notice of Hearing was sent to Respondent’s mailing and e-mail address of record. Further the Office of Administrative Hearings issued an Order setting the matter on Google Meet on April 9, 2025 and sent it to the parties’ email addresses of record.

Despite waiting 10 minutes for Respondent to appear, no representative from Respondent appeared at the hearing and therefore no evidence was presented on his behalf.

At hearing, Investigator Cooke testified as to the Registrar’s involvement and the above timeline and findings.

Investigator Cooke testified that Respondent was not present at the Jobsite Inspection. Further, Investigator Cooke testified that he tried multiple times to contact Respondent about the complaint with no luck.

As to the contract issue, Investigator Cooke testified that there was no contract, as Respondent only used the insurance company’s bid.

Complainant’s testimony echoed that of Investigator Cooke’s. Further, Complainant testified that he informed Respondent during install that he was worried about monsoon storms and micro bursts in particular as that us what damaged the roof in the first place. Complainant also testified that the work performed by Respondent will not withstand another micro burst or a heavy monsoon season.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on June 4, 2025. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. 345664 was first issued on June 19, 2023, and reflected that there was one open case, namely the present case, and two disciplined cases. The License record also reflected that Respondent’s license was revoked as of September 23, 2024.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See A.R.S. § 32-1101 et seq.

Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. See A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1); see also Vazzano v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952). “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960).

The preponderance of the evidence established that there was a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A), as explained in the Written Directive items 3-6, 11-12, and 17-18.

The preponderance of the evidence established that Complainant never received a valid contract in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12), namely A.R.S. § 32-1158.

Finally, the preponderance of the evidence established Respondent failed to reach an agreement with Complainant to have another contractor complete the work. Further, Respondent could have corrected item 18 (the trash) despite its license being revoked. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a written directive from the Registrar in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall revoke Respondent’s License No. 345664.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $500.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 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 A.R.S. § 32-1101(A)(7), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.

It is further recommended that Respondent be ordered to provide the Registrar with a proper sample contract which complies with A.R.S. § 32-1158.

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, June 4, 2025.

/s/ Adam D. Stone

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Robert Fields

[email redacted]

Hirsch Masonry & Construction LLC

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff