ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

20F-P14-045-BTR · Board of Technical Registration · 2020-06-15

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

In the Matter of:

CHRISTOPHER DEPRIMA P.E. (CIVIL)

Registration No. 48220,

Appellant

No. 20F-P14-045-BTR

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: May 11, 2020, and May 20, 2020, with the record held open until May 26, 2020

APPEARANCES: Appellant Christopher DePrima appeared on his own behalf. The Arizona Board of Technical Registration was represented by Assistant Attorney General Deanie Reh.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Tammy L. Eigenheer

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

On February 13, 2020, the Arizona State Board of Technical Registration (Board) issued a Notice of Hearing (Notice) setting the above-captioned matter for hearing on March 10, 2020, at the Office of Administrative Hearings in Phoenix, Arizona. Due to the COVID-19 global pandemic, the hearing was continued and convened on May 11, 2020, via telephone.

The Notice indicated the issue for hearing was whether grounds existed to uphold the decision of the Board to deny Respondent’s license application for registration as an engineer (civil).

Respondent appeared and testified on his own behalf; the Board presented the testimony of Kurt Winter, Robert Stam, and Patrice Pritzl.

The Board’s mission is to protect the public health and safety from unlicensed practice in engineering, land surveying, and other disciplines. The Board does so by ensuring that all license holders are capable and competent to practice safely. The Board reviews all applications to verify whether the applicant meets all the state standards and any applicable national standards. An applicant for licensure must pass two licensing exams, and show that he or she is of good moral character and that he or she can practice safely. Applicants for certification as structural engineers must also pass a national licensing exam.

The application at issue is Respondent’s September 13, 2019 application for registration as an engineer, with the requested branch being civil.

Respondent previously held Professional Engineer (Civil) Registration No. 48220. On August 29, 2017, the Board accepted a Consent Agreement and Order through which Respondent’s registration was revoked.

On September 8, 2017, Respondent filed with the Board an application for licensure. That first application was denied by the Board, Respondent appealed, and the Office of Administrative Hearings conducted a hearing on February 21, 2018.

On March 13, 2018, Administrative Law Judge Moses-Thompson issued an Administrative Law Judge Decision recommending that the Board’s denial of Respondent’s application be affirmed.

ALJ Moses-Thompson’s Decision shows that Respondent stated that the Board had no authority to regulate him, and she concluded that he was not regulatable.

On March 8 and 13, 2018, Respondent filed several motions with the Office of Administrative Hearings, through which he requested that his original certification be restored, and in which he asserted that he had been tricked into signing the Consent Agreement, that the Agreement was null and void, and that the Board was corrupt and composed of tyrants. Respondent also wrote that he could be regulated if the Board would agree to be diplomatic and modify the Consent Agreement.

Through “Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order” dated March 30, 2018, the Board adopted ALJ Moses-Thompson’s recommendation affirming the Board’s denial of Respondent’s first application.

On December 6, 2018, the Board received Respondent’s second application for licensure. Respondent’s second application was denied by the Board, Respondent appealed, and the Office of Administrative Hearings conducted a hearing on April 18, 2019.

On May 1, 2019, Administrative Law Judge Shedden issued an Administrative Law Judge Decision recommending that the Board’s denial of Respondent’s application be affirmed.

ALJ Shedden’s Decision detailed that Respondent failed to provide the Board with sufficient information to establish that he had the required experience and that, while Respondent professed a willingness to be regulated by the Board, Respondent’s history and prior statements demonstrated he was unable or unwilling to accept that the Consent Agreement that he entered into was binding on him.

On May 20, 2019, Respondent emailed Assistant Attorney General Scott Donald and Ms. Cornelius as follows:

Mr. Donald, BR board and staff,

I would like to propose a

settlement per BTR Act.

Revoking my license

was too extreme per A.A.C. R4-30-126(C).5.

I went to the board meeting to have my case and fees

dismissed because I felt I had done nothing wrong.

To revoke my license for and error in taxes

when there is amnesty for taxes is just EXCESSIVE!!!

America is not about a

repressive government for it’s own ulterior motives!

I can not even go on vacation without the

mental anguish caused by your EXCESSIVE and unfounded

punishment!!!

Your Revokation Consent

Agreement is Repugnant and therefore UnConstitutional and

Expunged!!!

I have had enough punishment and

you have done enough vetting of me!

I would like to go back to the original

Consent Agreement with Fees Waived due to Hardship,

Attached!

Please note, the first Consent

Agreement was signed prior to the formal hearing at BTR!

I need my PE Civil license

#48220 restored to Active status for me to gain

employment!

You have already reviewed 3

Peer Reviews in which I received Excellent ratings in all

Categories.

It is a win-win, you get your

Regulation and I get to go back to work!

In exchange I agree NOT to sue BTR or the

State of Arizona!

Please accept this

Settlement in the name of the U.S. Constitution! Amen!

All errors in original.

On May 20, 2019, Assistant Attorney General Scott Donald responded to the email indicating that he did not understand Respondent’s offer because Respondent did not have a license to reinstate as his revoked license no longer existed.

On May 28, 2019, the Board considered ALJ Shedden’s recommendation during a Board meeting. Following the Board meeting, Respondent emailed Board staff the following:

Attention BTR,

Per todays board meeting your consent agreement for my case was filed illegally per A.R.S. 12-2602, please have the director reactivate my license PE Civil 48220 asap!

Like I said this was just a big misunderstanding due to miscommunication.

Thanks!

All errors in original.

Through “Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order” dated May 30, 2019, the Board adopted ALJ Shedden’s recommendation affirming the Board’s denial of Respondent’s second application.

On May 31, 2019, Respondent submitted a statement to ALJ Moses-Thompson and ALJ Shedden that provided, in pertinent part, as follows:

I have a clear cut case of FRAUD AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION against Arizona Board of Technical Registration board, staff and their lawyer Scott Donald.

A.R.S. 12-2602 Section F says THE CASE MUST BE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE SINCE THE CLAIMANT FAILED TO SERVE AND EXPERT OPINION AFFIDAVIT!!!

By doing so they are intimidating, harassing, violate civil rights, violate constitutional laws, entrapment and extorting engineers and architects for frivolous lawsuits for financial gain, malicious prosecution and loss of reputations.

You may use my case 17F-P14-045-BTR-RES as reference as it is especially repugnant.

They files a suit without following protocol in A.R.S. 12-2602 and then proceeded to revoke my license similarly!

This statute allows for dismissal of these cases but they refused in last board meeting when I confronted them.

I have been asking for their cooperation for years now and just happily made this discovery!

This Extortion shocks the engineers with a repugnant consent agreement and fees which the must get a lawyer to defend! This statute exists to protect licensed engineers from such extreme harassment and malicious prosecution! This ends up costing us large losses of income unjustifiably!

They Entrap engineers as in my case by not letting me out of their system.

I just wanted to explain I felt did nothing wrong and wanted the to reduce the fees, they made up their mind to not let me out of their system!

They would not let me do the 1st consent agreement and pay the fine, but instead insisted on revoking my license and will not renew it.

The state offers Amnesty for any tax errors I may have done but the refused to cooperate.

Yes I have complained on SEVERAL occasions before but was thrilled to find they broke the law big time!!!

PLEASE CLOSE THE CASE AGAINST ME SINCE CLEARLY IT WAS DONE ILLEGALLY AND RESTORE MY PE CIVIL LICESEN 48220 BACK TO ACTIVE STATUS!!!

It is my opinion the lawyer failed to protect the BTR director and should be fired!

For my tip I want my PE Civil license restored to active status for 20 years including firm registration without fees, immunity from taxes forever, and restitution of $100 Million dollars negotiable.

This is no joke! Please investigate, good luck and thanks!

All errors in original.

On June 12, 2019, Respondent submitted a Professional Renewal Form in which he requested that his previously issued and revoked Registration Number 48220 be renewed. Respondent submitted a renewal fee of $225.00.

As the Board had no way to renew a revoked Registration Number, the Board returned the unprocessed Professional Renewal Form and the fee to Respondent.

On August 22, 2019, Thom Severance submitted an email to Melissa Cornelius, the Board’s Executive Director, that provided, in pertinent part, as follows:

I am a residential homeowner. Roughly a year ago I was in great need of a Structural Engineer for a 2 story addition expanding my property in Prescott Az. The search surfaced [Respondent] SE and PE who made it clear his license was currently suspended, and 2 local licensed Engineer companies that offered structural services. My small residential project was tiny compared to the many commercial projects consuming the time and attention of these engineering companies. They delayed responding to my request for an unreasonable amount of time and attention of these engineering companies. They did not want to service such a small project compared to their pipeline. I settled on whittling down my home expansion from a 4 BR 2 story, to a 2 BR single story renovation-only project to get by without the need for a licensed SE. I consulted with [Respondent], a Chandler AZ SE regarding several foundation and roof load details to make sure I met the IRBC requirements. I was in great home that by now, approximately a year later, his license would be reinstated. There is a severe shortage of licensed Engineers for current residential demand. . . .

Due to the severe shortage of Residential SE’s in AZ at this time, could I ask that the Board overseeing Engineering Licenses for the State of AZ, please understand the hardship it places on smaller projects in need licensed SE expertise. Please consider lifting [Respondent’s] license suspension. His work displayed serious technical competence. A year’s license suspension would cause great harm to one’s ability to support a family and serves as severe disciplinary action. But to continue this suspension without a process for acknowledging whatever fault occurred and offering strict oversight that any violation not repeat, hurts the community for which the board serves. Please consider this my request to reinstate [Respondent’s] license during this severe shortage of Licensed Engineers.

All errors in original.

On August 22, 2019, Ms. Cornelius responded to Mr. Severance’s email, in pertinent part, as follows:

I do not have the legal authority to reinstate a license to [Respondent], or to any former licensee who no longer qualifies to hold one. You should be aware that [Respondent] never held a structural license. He was a civil engineer. When and if he can ever demonstrate that he has the required technical competence and the ability to be regulated successfully to the Board, the Board may grant him a new license.

On September 13, 2019, Respondent filed with the Board a third application for licensure.

Applicants are required to provide the Board with certificates of experience (COE). COEs consist of two pages, the first is filled out by the applicant and the second by a representative from the employer.

With Respondent’s third application, Respondent submitted COEs indicating he worked 1) 40 hours per week for Northpoint Engineering under supervisor Ken Cochran for 55 months as a sub-professional and 1 month as a professional; 2) 40 hours per week for SE Consultants under supervisor Steve Schaub for 30 months as a sub-professional; 3) 40 hours per week for CTS under supervisor Paul Scott for 1.5 months as a sub-professional; 4) 5 hours per week for APB Consulting Engrs under supervisor Adam Bronnenkant for 12 months as a professional; and 5) 40 hours per week for Chris DePrima Eng. for nine years. Respondent signed and submitted the second page of the fifth COE as the employer and stamped the COE with the seal from his previously revoked certificate.

On September 20, 2019, the Board notified Respondent that the Board was processing his application for Professional Registration, but his application was not administratively complete. Respondent was directed to submit a government issued photo identification, 2 COEs, and 3 updated COEs.

On October 2, 2019, Respondent submitted the following message to the Office of Administrative Hearings:

Attention: Admin. Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson,

This case against me was done illegally per A.R.S. 12-2602.

There was NO Affidavit signed and sealed by a civil engineer that says there is substantial reason to bring lawsuit against me.

I have been harassed needlessly for years for nothing and illegally! This have caused me mental anguish and loss of income due to unethical practices at BTR!

Please help me right a wrong by Squashing, Expunging and Destroying this fraudulent case against me.

I appreciate any help with this matter.

My PE Civil license #48220 needs to be restored back to active status due to this illegal activity.

I am also asking for Restitution for this BTR fraud!

All errors in original.

On October 4, 2019, Respondent emailed Board staff the following:

I spoke to Mrs. Cochran today who informed my that Ken Cochran, my formed director of engineering has passed away. He will not be changing my mind about me and gave me an Excellent review in all categories. . . . Please take this into consideration and let me know if my application is complete.

All errors in original.

On October 10, 2019, Respondent emailed Board staff the following:

I respectfully disagree with your statement on Mr. Cochran’s Certificate of Experience.

You told me it should be updated in case they change their mind.

Since he died he can not change his mind.

We the People can not be bullied and harassed for nothing.

The BTR is just about safety say Mr. Ducey, our governor, anything else is not being reasonable.

I will ask them to get the other certificate to your office.

I ask that you set up a hearing; I have an attorney on board once that last certificate is received.

I have over 16 years experience in Structural Engineering and there is no reason to throw it all away for nothing.

We are engineers and scientist and we do not make a big deal about trivia ever!

All errors in original.

On October 14, 2019, Respondent emailed Board staff the following:

Attention, BTR regulators,

I have attached a missing Certificate of Experience Form from Gilbert Structural;

Please consider this with my application.

I also submitted a former CoE form from Ken Cochran; please consider this also.

I have provided totals of my months of Educations and Work Experience as requested:

8 Years Education * 9 Months = 72 Months

SE Consultants = 30 Months

CTS = 1.5 Months

Northpoint Engineering = 57 Months

Gilbert Structural = 2 Months

Allied Signal = 9 Months

SUM = 171.5 > 96 Months Required

I think you will find I have enough experience for PE Civil license.

Please put me on the Agenda for October Board Meeting.

I expect Gilbert Structural to give a good recommendation.

All errors in original.

On October 30, 2019, Glenn Smith emailed Board staff the following:

I am the Owner of NorthPoint Engineering, Inc. Mr. Ken Cocharn was my Engineer of Record. We ceased doing business in 2008 and last year Mr. Cochran passed away. I have amended the requested documents on my part. [Respondent] did good work for NorthPoint providing structural analysis and drawings for custom-built homes, swimming pools, retaining walls, posts and beams, and other structures. I have not worked with [Respondent] since 2008 but at the time found him to be very competent and Mr. Cocharan also had confidence in his work. Please see the amended paperwork attached.

All errors in original.

On December 10, 2019, the Board considered Respondent’s application during its regularly scheduled Board meeting.

During the Board meeting, the Board referenced Respondent’s statements from October 2019 that the Board’s decisions were fraudulent and restitution should be paid as indicative that Respondent was “not looking forward to being regulated” and noted that “there had been some concern with [Respondent’s] willingness to abide by rules and regulations and the board practice in the past.” The Board also noted that the COEs submitted by Respondent indicated an extensive amount of sub-professional experience, which the Board limits to six months of experience total. It was also noted that the COE indicating Respondent worked five hours a week was not credible of Respondent’s experience to establish the basis for a license. A Board member also expressed concern with the fact that Respondent used his expired seal for his revoked license on his COE.

Through a letter dated December 11, 2019, the Board informed Respondent that his current application had been denied because he failed to provide satisfactory evidence to demonstrate that he was capable and qualified to practice safely as a registered professional engineer in Arizona. The letter also indicated that the Board remained concerned that it could not effectively regulate Respondent’s practice in order to protect the public.

Respondent appealed the denial and the matter was set for hearing with the Office of Administrative Hearings.

On March 11, 2020, Respondent emailed the Board the following:

Attention: BTR, please have your Application Review Committee process my PE Civil application.

I believe we had a misunderstanding but I think you will find I am more than qualified!

On March 12, 2020, Respondent emailed the Board the following:

Attention: BTR officials,

I want to propose a settlement!

You expunge my record and active my PE Civil license 48220 & in exchange I agree not to sue Az government!

Please CEASE AND DESIST YOUR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION!

Thanks for you cooperation!

All errors in original.

Again on March 12, 2020, Respondent emailed the Board the following:

Attn: BTR officials,

It appears to be regulated by BTR means to take constructive criticism very serious and just pay the fine for their time! I can agree to this type of regulation!

I think we have all learned something and I just to move forward with the same PE Civil License!

I suggest this win-win settlement.

All errors in original.

At the hearing, Respondent repeatedly argued that the actions of the Board regarding the Consent Agreement and Order were illegal, and thus, the Consent Agreement and Order was null and void. Despite being told repeatedly by the Administrative Law Judge that the appropriateness or legality of the Consent Agreement and Order was not at issue in the instant matter, Respondent would not accept that he was not permitted to engage in such a collateral attack. Respondent repeatedly defended his use of his seal because, as he understood recent changes, seals no longer expired, but he failed to recognize that he should not have used the seal because his license was revoked. Questions directed to that issue resulted in Respondent again attacking the Consent Agreement and Order as illegal.

When asked if he trusted the Board, Respondent said he would if they granted him his license. Respondent asserted that the Board could not say he was not regulatable until he had been issued a license.

Respondent argued that the Board should not have discounted the COE signed by Mr. Cochran simply because he had passed away. Respondent asserted that, because of his passing, Mr. Cochran could not change his recommendation regarding Respondent and the Board should accept the COE previously signed by Mr. Cochran.

Respondent made numerous ad hominem attacks against the Attorney General’s Office, including that they practice witchcraft, which Respondent argued was a violation of the separation of church and state, that the Board’s counsel, Assistant Attorney General Scott Donald, was a “tyrant extremist of a Board lawyer”, and that they “believe in communism”, “don’t believe in Americans”, and “hate conservatives.” Respondent argued that the Administrative Law Judge should disregard anything the Attorney General’s Office had to say during the hearing.

Respondent alleged that the Board retaliated against him and was engaging in malicious prosecution. Respondent asserted this was the worst experience of his life and that it was emblematic of everything that could be wrong with America.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Respondent bears the burden of persuasion. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1092.07(G)(1).

The burden of proof at an administrative hearing falls to the party asserting a claim, right or entitlement, or an affirmative defense. The standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of a preponderance of the evidence. Ariz. Admin. Code § R2-19-119.

A preponderance of the evidence is:

The 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.

Black’s Law Dictionary 1373 (10th ed. 2014).

Statutes should be interpreted to provide a fair and sensible result. Gutierrez v. Indus. Comm’n of Arizona, 226 Ariz. 395, 249 P.3d 1095 (2011) (citation omitted); State v. McFall, 103 Ariz. 234, 238, 439 P.2d 805, 809 (1968) (“Courts will not place an absurd and unreasonable construction on statutes.”).

Engineering services may not be provided by an individual who is not registered with the Board. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-121.

Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-123(A) provides as follows:

A person desiring to practice any board-regulated profession or occupation shall apply for registration or certification on a form prescribed by the board, subscribed under penalty of perjury and accompanied by the appropriate application fee prescribed by the board. If the evidence submitted satisfies the board that the applicant is fully qualified to practice the profession or occupation for which registration or certification is asked, the board or the executive director as authorized by the board shall grant the applicant a certificate of registration or certification, signed by the chairman and secretary and attested by the official seal. If the applicant seeks registration as a professional engineer, the certificate of registration shall list the proficiency designation in the branch of engineering in which the applicant has demonstrated proficiency.

Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-125(C) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

It is unlawful for a registrant whose certificate has expired or has been revoked or suspended to use the seal.

Respondent did not show that he is qualified to practice as a civil engineer or that the Board’s denial of his application should be reversed.

Prior to the Board’s December 10, 2019 meeting, he did not provide the Board with sufficient information to show that he has the required experience because he did not provide COEs establishing the requisite experience. Respondent also did not provide this information at the hearing, nor did he provide any witnesses who could provide information about his technical qualifications.

Although Respondent asserted a willingness to be regulated if he were granted a license, his history with the Board, prior statements to Board staff, and his conduct during the hearing failed to support his assertion. Related to this concern was Respondent’s inability and/or unwillingness to accept that the Consent Agreement and Order he entered into is binding on him, his decision to perform work for Mr. Severance after his license was revoked, and his refusal to acknowledge he was not authorized to use the seal related to his revoked license.

Consequently, Respondent’s appeal should be denied and the Board’s decision to deny his application should be affirmed.

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that Respondent’s appeal is denied;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Board’s decision denying Respondent’s application is affirmed.

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 is five days after the date of that certification.

-54864001

001

-137160-45720000Done this day, June 15, 2020.

/s/ Tammy L. Eigenheer

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Melissa Cornelius, Executive Director

Board of Technical Registration-54864001

001

-137160-45720000