ALJDEC

99F-0158-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 1999-09-30

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

|DANNY ASKREN, | | No. 99F-0158-ROC | | | | | |Complainant, | | | | | |RECOMMENDED DECISION | |-v- | |OF ADMINISTRATIVE | | | |LAW JUDGE | |License No. 101783, Class B of | | | | | | | |PAUL ONVIE, NORMAN, dba | | | |PAUL NORMAN GENERAL CONTRACTOR | | | |(INDIV), | | | | | | | |Respondent. | | | | | | |

HEARING: September 22, 1999. APPEARANCES: No one appeared on behalf of either party. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Dorinda M. Lang. _____________________________________________________________________

The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on September 22, 1999 pursuant to advance notice duly sent to both parties. Although the start of the scheduled hearing was delayed for approximately 20 minutes to afford added time in which to make an appearance, neither party appeared in person or through any proper legal representative. Based upon the entire record, the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order are made.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The hearing in this matter was set solely on the issue of whether Respondent had complied with the Decision and Order of the Registrar of Contractors dated November 18, 1998 and the Order Lifting Suspension dated May 25 ,1999 was appropriate and should go into effect. 2. Complainant offered no evidence in support of his appeal and request for hearing from the Order Lifting Suspension.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The burden of proof at an administrative hearing is generally upon the appellant. Utah Construction Company v. Berg at al, 68 Ariz. 285, 205 P.2d 367 (1949). Further, the standard of proof at hearing is a “preponderance of the evidence”. Smith v. Arizona Dept. of Transportation, 146 Ariz. 430, 706 P.2d 756 (App. 1985). 2. Complainant, by the aforementioned default in appearance at the hearing, failed to sustain the requisite burden of proving by a preponderance of relevant, substantial and probative evidence that the Order Lifting Suspension should not go into effect. RECOMMENDED ORDER

In view of the foregoing, and in light of the lack of prosecution of the appeal by Complainant, it is recommended that this appeal be dismissed and that the Order Lifting Suspension dated May 28, 1999, be affirmed. Done this day, September 30, 1999. OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

___________________________________ Dorinda M. Lang Administrative Law Judge Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of ____________, 1999, to:

Registrar of Contractors Mr. Michael P. Goldwater ATTN: Joyce Armijo 800 West Washington, 6th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85007

By ___________________________

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

Office of Administrative Hearings 1400 West Washington, Suite 101 Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-9826