ALJDEC

98F-S0023-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 1998-01-13

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

|SANDS MOTEL, |§| | | |§|CASE NO.: s98-0023 | |Complainant, |§| | | |§|DOCKET NO.: 98f-s0023-roc | |-v- |§| | | |§| | |License No. 077874, Class L-38 of|§|RECOMMENDED | |ROMISCO (INDIVIDUAL), |§|DECISION AND ORDER | | |§| | |Respondent. |§| | | |§| | | |§| |

HEARING: January 9, 1997, at 1:30 p.m. APPEARANCES: The Complainant appeared through its owner, George Nerhan. The Respondent appeared through its owner and qualifying party, Robert Miscione. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: M. Douglas

This matter came on for hearing on January 9, 1998. The Complainant appeared through its owner, George Nerhan, and the Respondent appeared through its owner and qualifying party, Robert Miscione. Evidence and testimony were presented and, based upon the entire record, the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order are made:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Respondent is the holder of a Class L-38 License issued by the Registrar of Contractors.

2. This is a commercial matter where the Respondent’s employees charged the florescent tubes in a large sign at the front of the Complainant’s motel. Approximately 30 days after the work was performed, the plastic outer faces of the sign were blown off and shattered.

3. The Complainant requested the Respondent to repair the damaged sign.

4. The Respondent refused to perform any corrective action on the basis that the Respondent had only changed the florescent tubes on a sign that had been in existence for over twenty years and had done no work on the outer faces of the sign.

5. The Complainant was dissatisfied with the Respondent’s workmanship and failure to correct its work despite repeated requests that it do so. The Complainant then filed a formal complaint, against the Respondent, with the Registrar of Contractors.

6. Pursuant to the filing of the formal complaint, an assigned Agency Inspector conducted an on-site inspection. The Respondent failed to attend the on-site inspection despite receiving proper notice of the inspection. The assigned agency inspector conducted the inspection and noted that the florescent tubes were not readily accessible through the access doors and observed that the metal holder for the plastic facing had been tampered with and issued a written corrective work order directing the Respondent to perform designated corrective work on the Complainant’s sign.

7. The Respondent refused to comply with the corrective work order.

8. There was no dispute that neither the Complainant nor the Respondent were at the job-site at the time the florescent tubes were replaced. There was no credible evidence, presented at the hearing, to establish that the Respondent’s employees had tampered with the metal holders for the plastic sign.

9. There was no dispute that the sign was over twenty years old and that the Respondent did not install the original sign and had performed no prior maintenance work on the sign.

10. There was no credible evidence regarding the type or amount of wind which caused the outer faces of the sign to be blown off.

11. The credible evidence of record is insufficient to establish that the Respondent, either through action or inaction, caused the damage to the Complainant’s sign.

12. Notice is taken of the Respondent’s poor attitude and failure to cooperate with the assigned agency inspector during the investigation of this matter.

13. Notice is taken of the Respondent’s prior License record with the Registrar of Contractors.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The credible evidence of record is insufficient to sustain the Complainant’s required burden of proving the charges set forth in the complaint by a preponderance of relevant, substantial and probative evidence. Consequently, the credible evidence of record does not support any finding that the Respondent violated the charged violations of A.R.S. §32-1154(A).

RECOMMENDED ORDER

In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that Citation No. S98-0023 be dismissed. It is further recommended that the Respondent be formally admonished that licensed contractors are expected and required to cooperate with the Registrar’s assigned inspectors during complaint investigations.

Dated this 12th day of January, 1998.

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

_________________________________ M. DOUGLAS Administrative Law Judge

Original mailed this day of January, 1998, to:

Michael P. Goldwater, Director Attn: Joyce Armijo Registrar of Contractors 800 W. Washington, 6th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85007

Transmitted by:

-----------------------