STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL ) REGULATION, CONSTRUCTION ) INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 90-4600
)
DOMINICK A. SOLITARIO, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was conducted in this case on October 5, 1990, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, before J. Stephen Menton, a duly designated Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Robert G. Harris, Esquire
Staff Attorney
Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe Street
Suite 60
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
For Respondent: Dominick A. Solitario, pro se,
2077 North Powerline Road Pompano Beach, Florida 33609
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
The issue in this case is whether the Respondent, Dominick A. Solitario, committed the offenses alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
On April 12, 1990, the Department of Professional Regulation (the "Department") issued an Amended Administrative Complaint charging the Respondent, a certified pool contractor, with gross negligence, incompetence and/or misconduct in violation of Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes. In addition, the Amended Administrative Complaint alleged that Respondent willfully or deliberately violated or disregarded the applicable local building codes and laws in violation of Section 489.129(1)(d). Finally, the Department has charged that Respondent violated Section 489.129(j) and Sections 489.105(4) and 489.119, Florida Statutes by failing to properly supervise contracting activities for which he was responsible as the qualifying agent.
Respondent denied the allegations contained in the Amended Administrative Complaint and requested a formal hearing. On July 27, 1990, the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings which noticed and conducted a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes.
At the hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of five witnesses: Linda Skidd, a homeowner who entered into a contract with Respondent for the remarciting of a pool at her house; Anthony Gallagher, a homeowner who entered into a contract with Respondent for the construction of a pool and deck at his house; Seymour Preissman, the Chief Structural Inspector for the City of Coral Springs and a state certified general contractor; Kevin Fusco, a homeowner who entered into a contract with Respondent for the construction of a pool and deck at his house; and Henry Pita, a building inspector for Palm Beach County and a state licensed general contractor. Petitioner offered fifteen exhibits into evidence, all of which were accepted. The hearsay contents of Petitioner's Exhibits 4 and 5 have been noted and considered in accordance with Section 120.58(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1989).
Respondent testified on his own behalf and presented the testimony of Steve Miller, who is employed by Respondent's company as a supervisor. Respondent offered six exhibits into evidence, all of which were accepted. The hearsay contents of Respondent's Exhibit 6 have been noted and considered in accordance with Section 120.58(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1989).
At the conclusion of the hearing, Petitioner was granted leave to supplement the record with additional deposition testimony related to certain documentary evidence submitted by Respondent that had not been produced prior to the hearing. However, no such supplementary evidence has been submitted.
A transcript of the proceedings has been filed. At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties agreed upon a schedule for filing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Petitioner has timely submitted such proposals.
However, no post-hearing filings have been submitted by Respondent. A ruling on each of Petitioner's proposed findings of facts is included in the Appendix attached to this Recommended Order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made.
At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent, Dominick Solitario, was licensed as a certified pool contractor in the state of Florida, having been issued license no. CP CA17558.
At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was the licensed qualifying agent for Jade Pools, Inc.
Sometime around February of 1988, Respondent contracted with Michael and Linda Skidd to remarcite the swimming pool at the Skidd's home in Coral Springs, Florida.
The contract price for the remarciting of the Skidd's pool was
$2000.00. Respondent has been paid in full for this work.
There is no evidence that there were any leaks in the Skidd's pool prior to the time the work was undertaken by Respondent.
At the time the work was begun, one of the Respondent's employees discovered an expansion plug that had been inserted in the main drain. The employee inquired as to whether the Skidds had experienced any problems with the drain. The Skidds denied having any problems. The evidence presented at the hearing was inconclusive as to whether the main drain was working properly. At the time the Respondent began work under the contract, the Skidds were using a "creepy crawler" to clean the pool. This device required the main drain to be shut off. While Mrs. Skidd testisfied that she thought the main drain was working properly, she admitted that her husband was more familiar with the cleaning and mechanical aspects of the pool. Mr. Skidd did not testify.
Respondent contends that Mr. Skidd was present at the time the plug was removed from the main drain and that the condition was brought to his attention. However, it does not appear that either Respondent or Mr. Skidd knew why the drain was plugged or the significance of the situation. Respondent proceeded with his contractual work without conducting any tests to determine whether there was a leak in the main drain.
When the work was completed, the workers directed the Skidds not to use their main drain. No explanation was given for this instruction.
After the work was completed, the Skidds turned on the main drain and lost approximately four inches of water from the pool in a relatively short time. The Skidds turned off the drain and called Jade Pools.
An employee of Jade Pools came out and inspected the premises. He advised the Skidds not to use the main drain, but instead to use their "creepy crawler." The Respondent's employee indicated that there was a leak in the main drain. It is not cler how he reached that conclusion.
In order to complete the work on the Skidd contract, Respondent's employees were required to install a pressure release valve near the pool's main drain by drilling through the bottom of the pool. The hole for this valve was drilled several inches away from the main drain and its plumbing. Petitioner suggests that the Respondent's employees may have punctured the main drain or its plumbing when this hole was drilled. However, no persuasive evidence was introducted to prove this allegation.
Respondent contends that the pool was improperly constructed and/or that the main drain line had been previously damaged and plugged shut to avoid detection of the leak. In order to perform the contracted work, Respondent's employees unplugged the drain and the alleged preexisting leak became evident.
Respondent has inserted a plug into the main drain and claims that the pool is now in the same condition it was when he began his work. Respondent has refused to repair the main drain or perform any additional work unless he is paid for it.
At the time that Respondent first proposed to enter into a contract with the Skidds, he was told by the Skidds that there was a suction leak at the pump. In retrospect, Respondent contends that this suction leak confirms the preexisting problem with the main drain.
No conclusvie evidence was presented to establish why the pool is leaking. As of the date of the hearing, the Skidds are still unable to use their main drain.
The Petitioner did not present persuasive evidence to establish that Respondent was responsible for the leak in the Skidds' pool. While it is possible that the Respondent's employees caused the leak when they drilled the hole for the pressure release valve, an equally likely explanation is that there was an existing problem that had been obscured by the prior plugging of the main drain.
On or about June 29, 1987, Respondent contracted with Anthony Gallagher to construct a swimming pool and a deck at Mr. Gallagher's home in Coral Springs, Florida for the contract price of $17,800.00. Respondent has been paid in full for this work less $100 for damage caused during construction.
The contract with Mr. Gallagher called for Respondent's company to top the existing patio slab and tie it into a newly added patio deck surrounding the pool. The building permit for this work was pulled by Jade Pools.
Although the work on the Gallagher deck and pool was completed sometime in late 1987 or early 1988, the pool and deck have still not passed final inspection by the City. The local building officials have refused to approve the final inspection on the Gallgher's deck because of the excessive slope from the back of the house to the pool.
The pitch of the deck constructed by Respondent's company from the back of the Gallagher's house to the pool is very severe, effectively rendering a portion of the deck unusable. A table cannot sit flat on this portion of the deck because of the slope.
The Respondent's construction of a deck with such a severe slope that it is incapable of passing final inspection constitutes incompetency in the practice of contracting.
In order to provide a usable deck, Respondent should have ripped out the existing deck or placed the pool at a higher elevation. Respondent contends that his contract did not call for him to rip out the existing deck, but only to top it. He claims the existing deck that was topped had a similarly severe pitch. Nonetheless, Respondent is responsible for insuring that his final product is functional and able to pass inspection. Respondent has failed to take any remedial action to obtain a successful final inspection.
During construction, the Gallaghers, on several occassions, expressed displeasure with the deck and its excessive slope in some areas. On two occasions, Respondent sent his workmen out to correct certain aspects of the construction that the Gallaghers found unacceptable. Ultimately, the homeowners paid the Respondent in full and instructed Respondent to stay off their property. Although Respondent's presentation was somewhat unclear, he appears to argue that these actions by the Gallaghers relieve him of any liability for his work under this contract. However, the evidence established that the Respondent was never able to obtain a successful final inspection of his work at the Gallagher home. This failure is the direct result of the excessive pitch in the patio he constructed. While the Gallaghers have paid the full amount of the contract and are apparently using the pool and patio, these facts do not relieve Respondent from responsibility for the incompetently constructed deck.
The City of Coral Springs requires a deck electrical inspection to insure that all the steel in the deck is on the same electrical field (same electrical bond) as the pool. Jade Pools failed to call for this electrical bond inspection before pouring the Gallagher's deck. Ultimately, the city building officials required the Respondent's company to expose a portion of the steel in the deck to confirm that the pool was properly bonded. This test indicated that the pool was in fact properly bonded.
On or about August 10, 1988, Respondent contracted with Kevin Fusco to construct a swimming pool and deck at Mr. Fusco's home in Boca Raton, Florida for a total contract price of $10,030.00. Respondent has been paid in full under this contract.
Jade Pools obtained the building permit for the Fusco's pool. Therefore, Respondent's company was responsible for obtaining all of the inspections for the construction, including the final inspection.
Prior to the time that work was begun on the Fusco contract, Respondent's employees inspected the property and were advised as to some existing problems with drainage in the backyard of the house. The Fusco's lot was designed to drain from back to front. A berm runs behind the Fusco property and causes water to drain through the backyard. On some occasions prior to construction, this drainage situation resulted in standing water against the back of the house.
The installation of the Fusco's pool seriously affected the drainage plan for the property. After the pool was installed, there was often standing water all around the deck following a rain.
After construction was started and the deck was formed out, the county refused to give approval for pouring the deck because of anticipated problems with drainage in the backyard. One of Respondent's employees advised the Fuscos that if they removed approximately three feet of soil from around the deck, the county would allow them to proceed with pouring the deck. Based upon this recommendation, the Fuscos entered into a contract with a company recommended by Respondent. That company removed approximately six or eight feet of soil all around the deck and installed a rock bed in the area. The cost of this removal was in addition to the contractual price agreed to between Respondent and the Fuscos and was borne by the Fuscos.
As indicated above, the installation of the pool greatly exacerbated the drainage problems that previously existed on the property. Respondent did not warn the homeowners prior to construction to expect this result nor did the Respondent take steps to preclude these additional drainage problems.
While Respondent contends that the Fusco's property was inappropriately graded prior to the time the work was initiated, Respondent never brought this fact to the attention of the homeowners until after the pool was installed and the increased drainage problems became evident.
After the work was completed, the county inspectors advised the homeowners that the pool did not pass final inspection because of drainage problems caused by the pool and deck. By the time the Fuscos found out the pool had not passed final inspection, Respondent had been paid in full under the contract.
The Fuscos contacted Jade Pools, which refused to take any corrective action. The Respondent claimed that drainage problems were not part of his company's responsibility and refused to return to the property to correct the problem even though the pool had not passed final inspection.
The Fuscos hired an engineer to design an acceptable solution to the drainage problem and arranged for the completion of the work at their own expense. In accordance with this solution, the homeowners installed a series of french drains around the back yard in order to try to get the water to percolate into the ground. After this additional work was completed, the pool passed final inspection by the county. It was approximately one year after Jade Pools finished its work before the final inspection was passed.
The Fuscos continue to experience increased drainage problems on their property as a result of the installation of the pool and deck. These problems include standing water around the deck after a heavy rain and, in some instances, an overflow of water into the pool.
While the Respondent was installing the Fusco's pool, Respondent was concurrently installing a pool at the house next door. There has been no drainage problems on the property next door because the elevation on that house is higher.
The Fusco's pool was actually installed at a level that was at or below the surrounding ground level. The problems associated with such an installation were never explained to the homeowners prior to the time the work was commenced. Respondent contends that this situation was necessary because of the existing elevations of the house and lot. He says that the pool and deck had to be installed in a manner that provided a four inch step down from the house and also matched the existing slab.
The drainage problems could have been minimized by swaling out from the pool area to the side of the house. While Respondent contends that such "landscaping" efforts were not part of his contract, he should have not undertaken the work unless he could adequately deal with the drainage problem and ensure that the final installation would pass inspection. The pool contractor is responsible for insuring that, after the pool is built, proper drainage is obtained around the pool. The efforts undertaken by the Respondent were insufficient to deal with the resulting drainage problems and constitute incompetency in the practice of contracting.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of this proceeding pursuant to Sections 120.57(1) and 455.225(5), Florida Statutes (1989).
The Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board is authorized by Section 489.129(1), Florida Statutes, to discipline the license of a contractor who is found guilty of violations of statutes or rules governing the professional practice of construction contracting.
The Petitioner has the burden of establishing the basis for the proposed disciplinary action by clear and convincing evidence. Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So.2d 292 (Fla. 1987). "The evidence must be of such weight that it produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction, without hesitancy, as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established."
Slomowitz v. Walker, 429 So.2d 797, 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). The revocation or suspension of a license may be based only upon offenses specifically alleged in the administrative complaint. See, Hunter v. Department of Professional Regulation, 458 So.2d 842, 844 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1984).
Section 489.129, Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part as follows:
The board may revoke, suspend, ... the certificate or registration of a contractor, require financial restitution to a consumer, impose an administrative fine not to exceed
$5,000, place a contractor on probation, require continuing education, assess costs associated with investigation and prosecution, or reprimand or censure a contractor if the contractor, or if the business organization for which the contractor is a primary qualifying agent ..., is found guilty of any of the following acts:
(d) Willfully or deliberately disregarding and violating the applicable building codes or laws of
the state or of any municipalities or counties thereof.
(j) Failing in any material respect to comply with the provisions of this part.
(m) Being found guilty of fraud or deceit or of gross negligence, incompetency, or misconduct in the practice of contracting.
Respondent has been acting as the "qualifying agent" for Jade Pools at all time pertinent to this proceeding. A "qualifying agent" has the statutory responsibility "to supervise, direct, manage, and control the contracting activities of the business entity with which [he] is connected." Section 489.105(4), Florida Statutes. This duty may not be delegated by the "qualifying agent to another licensed contractor." Thus, Respondent is liable and can be disciplined for any statutory violations committed by Jade Pools or any of its subcontractors in connection with the contracts referenced in the Amended Administrative Complaint on the theory that he breached his duty to supervise, direct, manage and control. Sections 489.129(1)(j), 489.119, and 489.105(4), Florida Statutes. See, Hunt v. Department of Professional Regulation, 444 So.2d 997, 999 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).
Petitioner has charged Respondent with violating Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes, by willfully or deliberately violating or disregarding applicable building codes or laws. The evidence established that, under the applicable building codes, Respondent was responsible for obtaining final inspections on the Gallagher and Fusco projects and failed to do so. Moreover, Respondent failed to undertake the work necessary to place those projects in an acceptable condition so that they could pass final inspection. Therefore, Respondent has violated Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes, in connection with both the Gallagher and Fusco projects.
The Amended Administrative Complaint also charges that Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes. The evidence adduced at the hearing clearly and convincingly established that Respondent was guilty of a
violation of Section 489.129(1)(m) due to incompetency in connection with the Gallagher and Fusco contracts. However, the evidence was insufficient to establish a violation in connection with the Skidd contract.
The evidence failed to establish the cause of the leak in the Skidd's pool. Without question, the water level in the pool dropped after Respondent completed his work and the main drain was turned on. However, Petitioner has failed to provide adequate proof that Respondent is responsible for this condition. While Petitioner contends that the main drain was functioning prior to the time Respondent began his work, the evidence on this point was not clear and convincing. It appears that the main drain may have been plugged prior to the time Respondent began work. While Respondent should have been more conscientious in documenting this discovery and explaining the ramifications of this situation to the Skidds prior to undertaking any further work, it cannot be said that his actions in connection with this contract constitute gross negligence or incompetence.
The evidence did clearly and convincingly establish the violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint with respect to the Gallagher and Fusco contracts.
Respondent's contentions that the problems on the Gallagher and Fusco jobs resulted from existing conditions on the job sites are not persuasive. Even if true, these contentions do not excuse Respondent's failure to ensure that his work was able to pass final inspection by the applicable building authorities. Respondent was obligated to take those steps that were necessary to deal with the existing conditions so that he could deliver a final product that was able to pass final inspection. As a result of the Respondent's incompetency, the Gallaghers have a patio with limited utility and which has still not passed final inspection. The Fuscos have been required to expend additional funds in order to provide a drainage solution acceptable to the county building officials, but which is still not completely satisfactory. While it may have cost a greal deal more than the contract price to properly install the Fusco's and Gallagher's pools, once Respondent entered into the contracts, he was required to ensure that the work was competently completed so that both jobs could successfully pass final inspection.
Inasmuch as Respondent violated Sections 489.129(1)(d) and (m), Florida Statutes, disciplinary action against him is warranted.
Florida Administrative Code Rule 21E-17.001 provides in pertinent part:
Normal Penalty Ranges. The following guidelines
shall be used in disciplinary cases, absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances and subject to the other provisions of this Chapter.
(8) 489.129(1)(d): Failure to call for inspections. First violation, letter of guidance; repeat violation,
$250 to $750 fine.
489.129(1)(m): Gross negligence, incompetence, and/or misconduct, fraud or deceit.
Causing no monetary or other harm to licensee's customer, and no physical harm to any person. First violation, $250 to $750 fine; repeat violation, $1000 to $5000 fine and 3 to 9 month suspension.
Causing monetary or other harm to licensee's customer, or physical harm to any person. First violation, $500 to $1500 fine; repeat violation,
$1000 to $5000 fine and suspension or revocation. 1/
489.129(1)(d): Violation of state or local laws. First violation, $250 to $750 fine. Repeat violations, $1000 to $3000 fine.
The absence of any violation from this Chapter shall be viewed as an oversight, and shall not be constructed as an indication that no penalty is to be assessed.
Because Respondent's violation "harmed" the Fuscos by causing them to incur additional costs, subsection (19)(b), rather (19)(a), of Rule 21ED-17.001 applies to that charge.
Rule 21E-17.004, Florida Administrative Code, provides:
Where the above guideline states that the first violation shall be dealt with by letter of guidance, this is premised upon the assumption that the violation being discussed is the only violation for which probable cause exists. Where this assumption is not accurate, and there is probable cause and other violations in the same or other cases being concurrently considered, then the "letter of guidance" violation shall normally be charged by administrative complaint, and in such cases a portion of the penalty dealing with said violation shall be a reprimand.
"Repeat violation," as used in Chapter 21E-17, Florida Administrative Code, is described in Florida Administrative Code Rule 21E-17.003 as follows:
As used in this rule, a repeat violation is any violation on which disciplinary action is being taken where the same licensee had previously had disciplinary action taken against him or received a letter of guidance in a prior case; and said definition is to apply (i) regardless of the chronological relationship of the acts underlying
the various disciplinary actions, and (ii) regardless of whether the violations in the present or prior disciplinary actions are of the same or different subsections of the disciplinary statutes.
The penalty given in the above list for repeat violations is intended to apply only to situations where the repeat violation is of a different subsection of Chapter 489 than the first violation. Where, on the other hand, the repeat violation as the first
violation, the penalty set out above will generally be increased over what is otherwise shown for repeat violations on the above list.
Florida Administrative Code Rule 21E-17.005 provides that "[w]here several of the . . . violations [enumerated in Florida Administrative Code Rule 21E-17.001] shall occur in one or several cases being considered together, the penalties shall normally be cumulative and consecutive."
The aggravating and mitigating circumstances which are to be considered before a particular penalty is chosen are listed in Florida Administrative Code Rule 21E-17.002. They are as follows:
Monetary or other damage to the licensee's customer, in any way associated with the violation, which damage the licensee has not relieved, as of the time the penalty is to be assessed. (This provision shall not be given effect to the extent it would contravene federal bankruptcy law.)
Actual job-site violations of building codes, or conditions exhibiting gross negligence, incompetence, or misconduct by the licensee, which has not been corrected as of the time the penalty is being assessed.
The severity of the offense.
The danger to the public.
The number of repetitions of offenses.
The number of complaints filed against the licensee.
The length of time the licensee has practiced.
The actual damage, physical or otherwise, to the licensee's customer.
The deterrent effect of the penalty imposed.
The effect of the penalty upon the licensee's livelihood.
Any efforts at rehabilitation.
Any other mitigating or aggravating circumstances.
Having considered the facts of the instant case in light of the provisions of Chapter 21E-17, Florida Administrative Code, the appropriate penalty in the instant case is to issue a reprimand to Respondent, to place Respondent on probation for a period of two years, impose a fine in the amount of $2,000 and require him to reimburse the Fusco's for the costs incurred in correcting the drainage problem.
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby
RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violations of Section 489.129(d) and (m), Florida Statutes, in connection with the Fusco and Gallagher contracts, issuing a reprimand and imposing a fine on Respondent in the amount of $2,000.00 for having committed these violations. In addition, Respondent should be placed on probation for two years and required to reimburse the Fusco's for the money they have expended to correct the drainage problems caused by Respondent.
DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 8th day of February, 1991.
J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of February, 1991.
ENDNOTES
1/ Pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 21E-17.007, the Construction Industry Licensing Board, in addition to imposing the foregoing penalties, may also place the licensee on probation if it determines that such action is required "to assure that the licensee operates properly and within the law in the future."
APPENDIX
The Petitioner has submitted a Proposed Recommended Orders. No submittals have been received from Respondent. The following constitutes my rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner.
The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact
Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or
Reason for Rejection.
Rejected as unnecessary.
Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1.
Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 2.
Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 3 and 4.
Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 11.
Subordinate to Finding of Fact 5, 12-14 and 16.
Subordinate to Findings of Fact 8-12, 14 and 16.
Subordinate to Findings of Fact 15.
Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 17.
Suborindate to Findings of Fact 19 and 24.
Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 18.
Subordinate to Findings of Fact 19-21.
Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 19- 21.
Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 22.
Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 25.
Subordinate to Findings of Fact 27 and 29.
Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 32.
Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 33.
Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 22 and 38.
Copies furnished:
Robert G. Harris, Esquire Department of Professional
Regulation
1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Dominick A. Solitario 2077 North Powerline Road
Pompano Beach, Florida 33609
Daniel O'Brien Executive Director Post Office Box 2
Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel
Department of Professional Regulation
1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS: All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the final order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Feb. 08, 1991 | Recommended Order (hearing held , 2013). CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| May 03, 1991 | Agency Final Order | |
| Feb. 08, 1991 | Recommended Order | Pool contractor failed to obtain final inspections and incompetently per- formed work on 2 separate jobs; reimburse to owners recommend along with fine |
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD vs. KENNETH R. MARTIN, 90-004600 (1990)
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD vs RAYMOND HURLEY, 90-004600 (1990)
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD vs MERWIN C. CARTER, 90-004600 (1990)
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD vs. HARRY TINKLER, 90-004600 (1990)
