ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

22A-006-INS · Department of Insurance and Financial Institutions - Insurance · 2022-04-25

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

In the Matter of:

BOHON, OTTO RAMON JR.,

(National Producer License No. 10180740),

Respondent.

No. 22A-006-INS

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: April 5, 2022.

APPEARANCES: Assistant Attorney General James Rolstead represented the Arizona Department of Insurance and Financial Institutions (Department). Otto Ramon Bohon Jr. (Respondent) represented himself.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Kay Abramsohn

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

At all times relevant, Respondent was licensed by the Department as an Arizona resident insurance provider with lines of authority in casualty, property, credit, life, and variable life and variable annuity insurance, under National Producer Number 10180740. First licensed in January 2018, Respondent’s license currently expires on January 31, 2024.

Respondent’s business and mailing address of record with the Department is 5507 North Paseo Ventoso, Tucson, Arizona 85750-1125; his business e-mail address of record is [email redacted].

On June 16, 2021, the Department received information from a member of the public regarding a felony charge against Respondent.

On November 19, 2021, the Department again received information from a member of the public regarding a felony charge against Respondent.

On November 22, 2021, Respondent called the Department to self-report a felony conviction in Pima County Superior Court.

On August 19, 2021, under a Plea Agreement in Pima County Superior Court Case No. CR20203891-001, Respondent pleaded guilty to a Class 4 felony, Attempted Luring of a Minor under fifteen, an offense committed on July 23, 2020.

On or about October 28, 2021, the Court entered judgment on the guilty plea, suspended imposition of sentencing, placed Respondent on a 15-year probation period, ordered that Respondent register as a sex offender, and ordered that Respondent comply with the Sex Offender Special Conditions of Probation. As part of the judgment, due to Respondent’s performance during the pendency of the matter, the Court allowed Respondent to continue to reside in the family home with his wife and four children. Respondent was provided with written terms and conditions of probation.

On February 23, 2022, the Department issued its Notice of Hearing and Complaint notifying Respondent of its authority, and intent, to take disciplinary action against Respondent’s license.

At hearing, Respondent acknowledged that his actions in pursing internet communications of a sexual nature/involvement with a minor was “one poor choice.”

Respondent argued that he should be allowed to continue to be licensed and be able to work in the insurance realm for several reasons. He argued that he is not a threat to the public in consumers’ homes because he did not, at that time, or now, go into consumers’ homes for his work and employment; he worked from an office and from his home (and in Zoom meetings) in marketing at this time and processes financial business paperwork and documents. Respondent noted that the offense was unrelated to insurance or financial concerns and that, as a part of his probation, he was excepted from certain probationary conditions, two of which were device and computer access to the internet. In that regard, Respondent noted that his smart-phone number, on-line access identification/name, and vehicle are able to be monitored through the Sherriff’s office. Further, Respondent argued that his risk assessment, as documented on the Offender Screening Tool, is very low, at 3 of 42 assessment risk points.

One condition of his probation is that Respondent must obtain prior written approval for any temporary or permanent change to employment.

Regarding being in public or other premise restrictions, Respondent was allowed by the Court at sentencing to continue to reside in the family home and he is not restricted in contact with his family or children. Respondent is not required to meet in-person weekly with his probation officer but has to meet once a month; Respondent does not have a curfew. Respondent is allowed 11⁄2 hour deviation from a set schedule to go to the Gym and can stop at the grocery store; he is also allowed 11⁄2 hour deviation for a lunch time.

At the administrative hearing, the Department requested that Respondent’s license be revoked based on Respondent’s felony offense and the nature of the offense. The Department’s position is that Respondent’s actions were more than “one poor choice” as there were multiple communications and photographs during the offense/actions. The Department’s argued that it is responsible to protect public interests and that, if Respondent is allowed to remain licensed, persons and children are at risk if Respondent were to meet with consumers in their homes and, further, that it had only been 5 months since Respondent had been placed on probation and that 5 months was insufficient time for rehabilitation.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Department’s jurisdiction.

The Department bears the burden of proof to establish cause to discipline Respondent’s license by a preponderance of the evidence. A.R.S. § 20-295(A) sets forth multiple actions/causes for which discipline by the Department is appropriate, the vast majority of which are related to regulation of insurance business and/or practices. While the designation of a “felony conviction” as one cause for discipline is not limited to a felony related to insurance business and/or practices, the need for regulation by the Department is of utmost importance when conduct impacts, or is likely to impact, the area of insurance business and/or practices.

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

The Department established that Respondent’s conduct included being convicted of a felony. Such conduct is a violation of applicable statues and rules within the meaning of A.R.S. § 20-295(A)(2) and (6).

Respondent’s conduct, that of being convicted of a felony, provides grounds for the Director of the Department to suspend for not more than 12 months, or revoke, Respondent’s license pursuant to A.R.S. § 20-295(A).

Based on the hearing record, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that the Department’s action to revoke Respondent’s license should not be affirmed. While the hearing record established poor judgment on Respondent’s part with the resultant felony conviction as a consequence and, essentially, a life-time penalty, the hearing record also established that this was a felony conviction unrelated to the insurance business and/or practices. At the time of the actions and offense, Respondent was not working in-person with consumers and, at this time, that remains the case; further, the Court has assessed him as a very low risk to the public. The Administrative Law Judge concludes that the Department should, at this time, take no disciplinary action to suspend or revoke Respondent’s National Producer License.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Director not affirm the Department’s proposal to revoke Respondent’s National Producer License No. 10180740.

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 five days from the date of that certification.

Done this day, April 25, 2022.

/s/ Kay Abramsohn

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Evan G. Daniels,

Department of Insurance and Financial Institutions - Insurance

By Miranda Alvarez

Legal Secretary