ALJDEC

97A-127-SPC · Structural Pest Control Commission · 1998-01-28

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: December 10, 1997

APPEARANCES: Leo Ortiz appeared on his own behalf; Assistant Attorney General Blair Driggs appeared on behalf of the State of Arizona.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Eric A. Bryant _____________________________________________________________________

This case concerns allegations of unlicensed structural pest control activity by Respondent Leo P. Ortiz, dba Leo’s Pest Service. At the start of the hearing, the Assistant Attorney General requested that the caption be modified to include Respondent’s Applicator Certificate. Respondent did not object. This request is granted and the caption has been modified. The parties presented evidence and testimony at the hearing and, based upon the entire record, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommended Order that Respondent be fined for unlicensed activity. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. On September 15, 1996, Vince Craig (“Craig”), an inspector with the Structural Pest Control Commission (“Commission”), was on duty in Chandler, Arizona, when he noticed a light brown pickup truck that looked like a pest control vehicle. The truck had a 50 gallon tank in its bed and hoses for spraying large amounts of chemicals. Respondent was driving the truck. When Craig signaled for Respondent to stop, Respondent did. Respondent also consented to a safety inspection of the truck and an inventory of the pesticides that were in the truck. Craig found the application equipment noted above and a container of Dursban 2EC, which is a regulated pesticide used for general pest control. For all intents and purposes, the truck was a typical truck used by applicators. 2. During the inspection, Respondent told Craig that he was making pesticide applications with the truck and that he was in the process of getting licensed. Respondent showed Craig his certification card and told Craig that he was doing landscaping. Craig asked to see pest control records for the work that Respondent had done that day and Respondent agreed to bring the records to Craig at the Commission offices that week. Respondent never brought records to Craig. 3. By November 4, 1996, Craig had still not heard from Respondent, so he decided to go to Respondent’s home and see if he could get the records or schedule a time to exchange the records. Respondent asked Craig to leave and did not provide any records. The next day, Respondent went to the Commission offices to talk about the situation, but still did not bring any records. Respondent has never provided any records to the Commission. 4. around the same time, Respondent submitted an application for licensure, with himself as Qualifying Party. As part of the application package, Respondent provided references from a business and an individual that stated that Respondent had been doing pest control for them for at least 2 years. (Exhibit 2.) Craig visited these references to obtain any records. The individual refused to speak with Craig. The business provided four invoices from “Leo’s Pest Service.” (Exhibit 3.) 5. According to a letter dated August 7, 1995, from Herb Fisher, President of Allied Material Handling Products, Inc., Respondent had been providing pest control services at the company’s office warehouse facility for the previous 2 years. (Exhibit 2.) The invoices in Exhibit 3 show that Respondent has also been providing those services in 1996 and 1997. The invoices are dated as follows: “4/12/95,” “8/4/95,” “2/8/96,” and “3/12/97”. They all say “Leo’s Pest Service” at the top, along with Respondent’s certificate number. All four invoices say “pest control. . .in & outside” and all state that Dursban 2 was the pesticide used. Finally, they all indicate that Respondent was paid between $35-45 for the service. 6. Respondent does not hold a business license from the Commission to engage in the business of pest control. 7. The Commission’s records reveal that in 1990, Respondent was found to have operated as an unlicensed structural pest control business on July 24, 1989. (Exhibit 4, Case 090789-7). The Commission imposed a civil penalty of $1,000. 8. The evidence is clear that Respondent has been, since at least 1993 through 1997, applying pesticides for payment, operating as the unlicensed business known as Leo’s Pest Service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2328, the Commission has jurisdiction to investigate and impose sanctions on those engaged in the business of structural pest control without a license. 2. [landscaping not supported by evidence] 3. The evidence supports a conclusion that Respondent has violated A.R.S. § 32-2325(1) by engaging in the business of structural pest control without holding a business license to do so. 4. [no revocation of certificate] 5. [prior violation] RECOMMENDED ORDER IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Commission impose a civil penalty of $2000 on Leo P. Ortiz for engaging in the business of structural pest control without a license. Mr. Ortiz shall pay the entire civil penalty within 30 days of the date that the Commission’s Order becomes effective.

Done this 28th day of January 1998.

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

______________________________________ Eric A. Bryant Administrative Law Judge

Original mailed this ___ day of January 1998, to:

Mr. J. H. "Bud" Paulson, Executive Director ATTN: Jack Confer Structural Pest Control Commission 9545 East Doubletree Ranch Road Scottdale, AZ 85258

By ___________________________