Professional Licensing Cases


Since 1971. Former Deputy Attorney General. Highest Ratings. Over 225 “Five Star” Client Reviews and Lawyer Endorsements. Client’s Choice Award 2007-2017.

A Lawyer cannot use past performance to predict future results.

Board of Psychology vs.  J. J.

Practice Area: Administrative Law
Outcome: Investigation Closed: N0 Discipline Imposed
   
Description: Licensed Psychologist pled guilty in Superior Court to driving under the influence with blood alcohol above .08; investigation case opened by the Board of Psychology, and upon review of our comprehensive Legal Brief, the BOP determined the case should be closed without disciplinary action.

____________________________________________________________

Physical Therapy Board of California vs. Abraham O.

Practice Area: Professional Licensing
Outcome: Probation

Description: Physical Therapy Board of California filed an Accusation to revoke licensee for sexual misconduct.
Results: Physical Therapy Board Decision allowed Physical Therapist License to be on probation.


Board of Registered Nursing vs. Linda M.

Practice Area: Professional Licensing
Outcome:  Case Closed without Merit

Description: Allegation of negligence in Patient Care by Board of Registered Nursing.
Results: BRN Investigation for gross negligence and incompetence against Registered Nurse Closed without merit.


Hearing Aid Dispensers Bureau vs. Buonacore

Practice Area: Administrative Law
Outcome: Probation

Description: Twenty Eight counts of misrepresentation in the fitting or selling of hearing aids, unlicensed fitting of hearing aids and Violation of the Song-Beverly Act regarding Warranties.


California Board of Occupational Therapy vs. Schmidt

Practice Area: Administrative Law
Outcome: Revocation Stayed – 3 years probation

Description: Accusation filed with allegations of incompetence and gross negligence, inflicting injury on a patient; and, use of modalities without post professional education.


Board of Chiropractic Examiners vs. Davenport

Practice Area: Administrative Law
Outcome: Chiropractic License Granted

Description: Consent Agreement involving out of state Chiropractic license


Board of Registered Nursing vs. Kristin H.

Practice Area: Administrative Law
Outcome: All Charges Dismissed – Complaint Withdrawn from Public Records

Description: The Board of Registered Nursing Withdrew and Dismissed the Accusation previously filed against Kristin H. and now there is No Public Record and No Disciplinary Action. The underlying facts are: BRN charged nurse with incompetence and unprofessional conduct as a result of a 58 year old patient admitted to the Hospital with polycystic kidney and end stage liver disease, had an adverse reaction to the medication, his condition continued to deteriorate and later died. Kristin was the preceptor for another nurse who administered a medication written by a physician without verifying the medication order and dosage with the hospital pharmacy. The alleged incompetence was Kristin’s failure to perform an intensive review of medications for this patient before any medications were given to him; her alleged failure to provide adequate supervision to the other nurse assigned as her orientee; and, her failure to review and note the correct dosage of the medication on the Medication Administrative Record for the patient. With testimony and evidence from multidisciplinary forensic experts and compelling legal and factual arguments made by my law firm, the Accusation was dismissed and case closed by the Board of Registered Nursing. This is represents an unprecedented winning result since the AG only files cases they know they can win, having served in the capacity as a Deputy Attorney General many years ago. By virtue of the large number of cases we handle statewide, I personally know the rigid standards by which the Office of Attorney General continues to this day to maintain. They have several levels of review and take their work very seriously. Nonetheless, we are zealous advocates and losing is not an option.


Board of Registered Nursing vs. Rowena C

Practice Area: Administrative Law
Outcome: Board of Registered Nursing Investigation Closed. No Public Record. No Disciplinary Action.

Description: This talented, resourceful and dedicated nurse had worked sixteen years as a Registered Nurse as well as a Supervisory Nurse when the BRN received a complaint of misuse of drugs and unprofessional conduct. In fact, we established by overwhelming evidence that our client never misused or diverted drugs, nor did she ever perform her duties and responsibilities under the influence of drugs or alcohol. We demonstrated by both incomparable and unimpeachable evidence our client had only taken medication regularly prescribed by her physician. As a result of abundant testimony, compelling evidence and highly persuasive legal and factual arguments made, the BRN closed its investigation without merit.


Board of Registered Nursing vs. John R.

Practice Area: Administrative Law
Outcome: BRN Investigation Closed. No Public Record. No Disciplinary Action.

Description: Board of Registered Nursing opened investigation as a result of disciplinary action taken by New York Board of Nursing in which client was previously placed on one year Probation. With persuasive testimony, notable evidence and both compelling legal and factual arguments made, my law firm obtained unprecedented results and the complaint against this otherwise stellar nurse was dismissed with the investigation case was closed by the Board of Registered Nursing.


Board of Physical Therapy vs. Ortiz

Practice Area: Administrative Law
Outcome: Physical Therapist can continue practice

Description: Accusation to revoke license of Physical Therapist for sexual misconduct.
Results: Physical Therapy Board Decision allowed Physical Therapist to be on probation after presenting plethora of evidence of rehabilitation.


Board of Chiropractic Examiners vs. Turkowski

Practice Area: Criminal Defense & Professional Licensing
Outcome: License granted

Description: Statement of Issues seeking to deny license for prior conviction involving moral turpitude.
Results: Board of Chiropractic Examiners issued license to Chiropractor.


Bureau of Automotive Repair vs. Ashton

Practice Area: Administrative Law
Outcome: Probation granted

Description: Accusation by Bureau of Auto Repair to revoke license to operate auto repair and smog facillity for sixteen causes of action of dishonesty, fraud or deceit.
Results: BAR Decision in which case was settled for Probation and 12 day suspension.


Board of Professional Engineers (BPELS) vs. Jalehchian

Practice Area: Administrative Law
Outcome: Accusation Withdrawn, No Discipline on Record

Description: BPELS filed formal Accusation against Civil and Geotechnical Engineer Licenses for fraud and incompetence in multiple projects. We presented overwhelming evidence to refute all of the charges. In an unprecedented decision, BPELS withdrew the Accusation and case closed.


Board of Registered Nursing vs. Mitchell

Practice Area: Administrative Law
Outcome: No Disciplinary Action – Investigation Closed

Description: BRN opened investigation into patient neglect and patient abuse. After we presented compelling evidence during the approximate two years the file was being investigated, BRN then Ordered the complaint was closed without merit.


Board of Veterinary Medicine vs. Roberts

Practice Area: Administrative Law
Outcome: Investigation & Complaint Closed – No Merit

Description: Obese Cat died immediately after surgery. Investigation opened for gross negligence and incompetence for procedures utilized before, during and after surgery. After presenting compelling defense evidence and Legal Brief, Veterinary Board determined no disciplinary action should be taken and closed case.


Board of Registered Nursing vs. Tracy C.

Practice Area: Administrative Law.
Outcome: BRN Accusation Withdrawn. No Disciplinary Action .

Description: BRN files an Accusation alleging multiple counts of Unlawful Possession of an Illegal Substance, Failure to note administration of medications on MAR (Medication Administration Record); and Falsification of Hospital or Patient Records. After painstaking investigation by our office on behalf of RN, it was determined that another RN had gained access to PYXIS machine and committed these acts of unprofessional conduct.


Board of Registered Nursing vs. Carol B.

Practice Area: Administrative Law.
Outcome: Investigation Closed – No public record of disciplinary action filed .

Description: The Board of Registered Nursing may take disciplinary action against an RN for a conviction of a felony or any offense substantially related to the duties and functions of an RN. Based upon the Litigation Brief and compelling arguments made, the complaint and investigation were closed.


Board of Registered Nursing vs. Dawne B.

Practice Area: Administrative Law.
Outcome: Public Reprimand .

Description: Registered Nurse charged with incompetence &/or gross negligence following a medication administration error (patient expired next day).


Board of Registered Nursing vs. Jennifer N.

Practice Area: Criminal Defense.
Outcome: Investigation Closed – No public record of disciplinary action filed.

Description: BRN investigation for improper removal of narcotic from the PYXIS system, and failure to report for drug testing.


California Respiratory Care Board vs. MacNeil

Practice Area: Administrative Law.
Outcome: License not revoked.

Description: Petition to Revoke Probationary License for failure to pass Competency Test.
Results: After presenting compelling Legal Brief, the Respiratory Care Board agreed to permit licensee to re-take test two additional times.


California Board of Pharmacy vs. Zimmerman

Practice Area: Administrative Law.
Outcome: Probation – 5 years.

Description: Allegations of multiple counts of Diversion of Dangerous Drugs or narcotics; use and possession of drugs; under the influence of drugs during work; and, conviction substantially related to duties and functions of pharmacist.


Board of Veterinary Examiners vs Grace Roberts, DVM

Practice Area: Litigation.
Outcome: Non-Disciplinary Action. Issued Citation only.

Description: Board investigation of allegations of Negligence, Aiding and Abetting, Anesthesia, Record keeping violations, and Duties of Supervising Veterinarian in death of cat after surgical procedure.


California Department of Real Estate vs. Lamson

Practice Area: Administrative Law.
Outcome: Restricted Real Estate Salesperson License Issued.

Description: Accusation to revoke Real Estate Broker’s license for trust account violations in excess of $200,000.
Results: Department of Real Estate (DRE) permitted licensee to obtain restricted real estate salesperson license, which license to be unrestricted within two years.


Board of Professional Engineers (BPELS) vs. Fred J.

Practice Area: Administrative Law.
Outcome: Accusation Withdrawn, No Discipline on Record .

Description: BPELS filed formal Accusation against Civil and Geotechnical Engineer Licenses for fraud and incompetence in multiple projects. We presented overwhelming evidence to refute all of the charges. In an unprecedented decision, BPELS withdrew the Accusation and case closed.


Board of Registered Nursing vs. Lisa A.

Practice Area: Administrative Law.
Outcome: Complaint dismissed and case closed .

Description: Felony conviction substantially related to the qualifications, functions and duties of a Registered Nurse. After submitting a comprehensive Legal Brief, the BRN determined conviction did not constitute a basis for disciplinary action.


Thole v. Structural Pest Control Bd. of Dept. of Consumer Affairs

CARL T. THOLE, Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
STRUCTURAL PEST CONTROL BOARD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, Defendant and Respondent

Civ. No. 43346.

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 5, California.

October 28, 1974.

SUMMARY

In disciplinary proceedings before the Structural Pest Control Board, a structural pest control operator had his license suspended for 60 days for various violations of statutes and regulations involving six separate residences, and in an administrative mandate proceeding, the court entered judgment denying relief. (Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. C 50315, David A. Thomas, Judge.)

The Court of Appeal affirmed, finding that the conclusions of the board and the trial court were supported by substantial evidence. The court rejected the contention that Bus. & Prof. Code, § 8516, requiring an operator to disclose and diagram termite infestation and structural conditions likely to lead to termite infestation and to recommend corrective measures for the reported conditions, and Cal. Admin. Code, tit. 16, §§ 1900, 1991, further defining conditions likely to lead to infestation and specifying acceptable corrective measures, were unconstitutionally vague. The court further held that the specification of a “grossly negligent” act (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 8642) as grounds for discipline was not unconstitutionally vague, and that whether certain failures by the operator to conform to applicable statutes and regulations constituted “gross negligence” was properly treated as a question of fact left to the board’s expert determination. In respect to acts of the operator which were found to constitute failures “to complete any operation or construction repairs for the price stated in the contract …,” in violation of Bus. & Prof. Code, § 8638, and contrary to reports filed under penalty of perjury that the repairs had been completed, the court held that the fact that the operator eventually completed the work was no defense, stating that the Structural Pest Control Act contains no requirement of pecuniary loss to support the charge, and does not make *733restitution a defense. (Opinion by Kaus, P. J., with Stephens and Ashby, JJ., concurring.)

HEADNOTES

Classified to California Digest of Official Reports

(1) Buildings § 4.1—Building Regulations—Structural Pest Control— Validity of Statute.

Bus. & Prof. Code, § 8516, and Cal. Admin. Code, tit. 16, §§ 1900, 1991, relating to a structural pest control operators’ duty to disclose and diagram termite infestation and structural conditions likely to lead to termite infestation and to recommend corrective measures for the reported conditions, are not unconstitutionally vague. The fact that particular words in the statute or regulations are subject to more than one interpretation does not make the statute or regulation “void for vagueness.”

(2) Buildings § 4.1—Building Regulations—Structural Pest Control—Gross Negligence.

In disciplinary proceedings against a structural pest control operator in which testimony by various homeowners and expert witnesses demonstrated that the operator failed to observe what should have been obvious to an expert, failed to make necessary recommendations, and failed in some cases to follow up on those recommendations that were made, with actual or potentially serious consequences to the property, the conclusion that those failures constituted “gross negligence” within the meaning of Bus. & Prof. Code, § 8642, specifying a “grossly negligent” act as grounds for discipline, was properly treated as a question of fact left to the board’s expert determination; there is nothing unconstitutionally vague in the term “grossly negligent” act in the context of the termite inspection business.

(3) Buildings § 4.1—Building Regulations—Structural Pest Control—Breach of Contract.

In disciplinary proceedings against a structural pest control operator in which several of the operator’s acts were found to constitute failure “to complete any operation or construction repairs for the price stated in the contract …,” in violation of Bus. & Prof. Code, § 8638, which violations were no mere technical mistakes, the fact that the operator eventually completed the work was no defense. The Structural Pest Control Act contains no requirement *734 of pecuniary loss to support the charge of breach of contract, nor does it make restitution a defense.
[See Cal.Jur.3d, Building Regulations, § 5; Am.Jur.2d, Buildings, §§ 29, 30.]

COUNSEL

G. G. Baumen for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Evelle J. Younger, Attorney General, and Samuel E. Spital, Deputy Attorney General, for Defendant and Respondent.

KAUS, P. J.

Administrative mandate. Carl Thole, petitioner, appeals from a superior court judgment denying a writ of mandate, after respondent Structural Pest Control Board, in a decision after reconsideration, suspended his license as a pest control operator for 60 days.

Facts

Since this disciplinary action involves six separate residences and a total of two dozen violations of four Business and Professions Code sections plus two Board regulations, some background about the regulatory scheme for structural pest control operators will be helpful.

Structural pest control operators are licensed by the state. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 8560 et seq.) [FN1] Their methods of operations are also regulated. (§ 8500 et seq.) They are subject to discipline by the Board. (§ 8620 et seq.) Petitioner was subject to discipline for the following conduct: failure to prepare required reports (§ 8516); failure to complete an operation for the contracted price (§ 8638); commission of a grossly negligent act (§ 8642); and failure to comply with an applicable statute or regulation (§ 8641).

FN1 All statutory references are to the Business and Professions Code.

The applicable statute and regulations with which petitioner failed to comply concerned the contents of termite inspection reports. (§ 8516; Cal. *735 Admin. Code, tit. 16, §§ 1900, 1991.) [FN2] Briefly, the operator must disclose and diagram termite infestation and structural conditions likely to lead to termite infestation (§ 8516, subds. (b) 6, 7, 8) and recommend corrective measures for the reported conditions (§ 8516, subd. (b) 9). Copies of these reports must be filed with the Board. (§ 8516, subd. (b).) After the work is completed, a notice of completion must be filed with the Board. (§ 8518.) The reporting requirements are amplified by Board regulations. (Reg., §§ 1900, 1991.) As relevant here, the regulations further define conditions likely to lead to infestation (reg., § 1990, subd. (h)) and specify acceptable corrective measures (reg., § 1991, subd. (a).)

FN2 All references to regulations are to California Administrative Code, title 16.

Petitioner in some instances failed to report conditions or to recommend corrective measures, thus violating the reporting requirements. Some of these failures were considered to constitute grossly negligent acts. All of the failures violated the duty to comply with applicable statutes and regulations. Also, in some instances, where conditions were disclosed, petitioner filed completion reports stating falsely that corrective action had been completed; such conduct constituted breach of contract and in some instances gross negligence.

The Violations

The violations, involving six separate properties for which inspection or completion reports were filed, covered a period from July 1968 through September 1969.

(1) Manning Property . [FN3] Petitioner stipulated that his inspection report failed to describe and recommend corrective treatment for fungus in the subfloor area and in the abutments and for cellulose debris in the subarea. He stipulated that he filed a completion report which stated, contrary to fact, that he had installed concrete plugs to seal defects, fumigated the attic, and treated termites in the garage. Petitioner later corrected these conditions. He also stipulated that he failed to remove or cover termite pellets. [FN4]

FN3 Both petitioner and the Board have submitted helpful tabular presentations of the accusations and evidence. Several items do not appear in the proposed decision which formed the basis both for the Board’s decision and the court’s judgment denying a writ. We assume that these accusations were found to be not true.

FN4 Termite pellets are a euphemism for termite feces, the presence of which may indicate live termites.

(2) Kilkea Property . The Board’s evidence showed that petitioner failed to report and recommend correcting a faulty grade level, that is, defective *736 flashwalls [FN5] and had filed a notice of completion that stated, contrary to fact, that work involving a shower installation had been completed; further, petitioner failed to replace damaged boards and timbers in the area of the shower.

FN5 A flashwall is a low outer wall, partly underground, constructed when the outside grade is about equal to or higher than the foundation. (See reg., § 1990, subd. (h) (1).)

(3) Manhattan Property . Petitioner stipulated that he failed to report and to recommend corrective action for cellulose debris in the subarea. The Board’s evidence showed that petitioner filed a completion report representing, contrary to fact, that a porch had been sealed. He stipulated that he failed to cover or remove termite pellets. He later completed this work.

(4) 95th Street Property . The Board’s evidence showed that petitioner failed to cover or remove termite pellets after fumigating the attic.

(5) Oaklawn Property . The Board’s evidence showed that petitioner failed to report excessive moisture on a garage slab roof.

(6) Oakhurst Property . Petitioner stipulated that he described but failed to recommend corrective action for faulty grade levels and that, contrary to his completion report, he failed to remove cellulose from the subarea. The Board’s evidence showed that petitioner failed to report damage to joists and studs in the attic and failed to remove boards, timbers and other debris from the subarea.

“Weight of the Evidence ”

We can quickly dispose of petitioner’s contention that the trial court’s – and the Board’s – conclusions are not supported by the “weight of the evidence.” First, substantiality, not weight, is the standard of review in this court. (E.g., Patty v. Board of Medical Examiners , 9 Cal.3d 356, 367 [107 Cal.Rptr. 473, 508 P.2d 1121].) [FN6] Second, interpreting petitioner’s argument to mean there is no substantial evidence, the contention is patently without merit. Most of the facts alleged in the accusation were admitted by stipulation. Where the finding was based on the Board’s evidence, petitioner’s complaint is that the court and the Board listened to the wrong people. *737

FN6 The trial court exercised its independent judgment and reweighed the evidence.

Vagueness

(1) Petitioner contends that Business and Professions Code section 8516 and California Administrative Code, title 16, sections 1990 and 1991, are unconstitutionally vague.

In particular petitioner points out that the parties disputed whether a report that there was fungus in the subfloor joists sufficiently disclosed fungus in the subfloor area (see § 8516, subd. (b) 7; reg. § 1990, subd. (k)); [FN7] whether broken flashwalls ( ante , fn. 5) meant a faulty grade level (see § 8516, subd. (b) 7; reg. § 1990, subd. (i)); and whether a concrete slab which served as both a patio and a garage roof was subject to inspection. (See § 8516, subd. (b) 7; reg. § 1990, subd. (j).) It appears to be petitioner’s contention that whenever a word in a statute or regulation is subject to more than one interpretation, the statute or regulation is “void for vagueness.” Fortunately, the law has never required perfection. (E.g.,Pacific Coast Dairy v. Police Court , 214 Cal. 668, 676 [8 P.2d 140, 80 A.L.R. 1217]; cf. Pacific Gas & E. Co. v. G. W. Thomas Drayage etc. Co ., 69 Cal.2d 33, 38 [69 Cal.Rptr. 561, 442 P.2d 641, 40 A.L.R.3d 1373].)

FN7 A slightly reorganized regulation was issued apparently after the briefs were filed.

Gross Negligence

(2) Petitioner next contends that the specification of a “grossly negligent” act (§ 8642) as grounds for discipline is equally void for vagueness because no one knows what constitutes “gross negligence.” Since the phrase is well-defined (e.g., Weber v. Pinyan , 9 Cal.2d 226, 231 [70 P.2d 183, 112 A.L.R. 407]), we assume that petitioner is contending that “grossly negligent” act in the context of the termite inspection business is unconstitutionally vague.

In addition to testimony by the various affected homeowners, the Board was furnished considerable expert testimony. Lewis Owen, a licensed pest control operator inspected the Manning property. Joseph Schwartz, a pest control operator with a master’s degree in bacteriology, inspected the Kilkea property. Clarence Foster, a special investigator assigned almost exclusively to Structural Pest Control Board complaints, inspected the Kilkea, Manhattan, Oaklawn, Oakhurst and 95th Street properties.

Their testimony demonstrates that petitioner failed to observe what should have been obvious to an expert, failed to make necessary recommendations, and failed in some cases to follow up on those recommendations that were made, with actual or potentially serious consequences to the property. *738

The conclusion that these failures constituted “gross negligence” is, properly, treated as a question of fact left to the Board’s expert determination (cf. Martin v. Alcoholic Bev. etc. Appeals Bd ., 52 Cal.2d 287, 293-294 [341 P.2d 296];McLaughlin v. Board of Medical Examiners , 35 Cal.App.3d 1010, 1017-1018 [111 Cal.Rptr. 353]).

Breach of Contract

(3) Several of petitioner’s acts were found to constitute failures “to complete any operation or construction repairs for the price stated in the contract …,” a violation of section 8638. Petitioner contends that he cannot be found in violation of that section, because in all cases he completed the work, and, in some cases performed work at considerable expense to himself.

Besides the fact that petitioner’s version of his belated compliance is more favorable than the facts presented to the Board, that he eventually put matters aright is no defense, although doubtless the Board considered his efforts in imposing the mild penalty of only 60 days suspension. Moreover, petitioner’s breach in all cases was no mere technical mistake. He reported, under penalty of perjury, that work on the Manning property was completed in January 1969; in fact, work was not completed until January 1971, after the homeowner had filed and petitioner had settled a lawsuit. The completion report on the Kilkea property was filed in April 1969; work was not completed. The completion report on the Manhattan property was filed in August 1968; the work was completed in April 1969. The completion report on the Oakhurst property was filed in January 1969; this work was never properly completed.

Petitioner relies on Terminix Co. v. Contractors’ State etc. Bd ., 84 Cal.App.2d 167 [190 P.2d 24], for the proposition that a structural pest control licensee cannot be disciplined for breach of contract if the contract is eventually performed. His reliance is misplaced. The licensee in that case was disciplined under the Contractor’s License Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7000 et seq.) (84 Cal.App.2d at p. 169). The court pointed out: “The … alleged violations … must fall because an essential element of each of them, material prejudice or substantial injury, is lacking. … [Of] sections 7109, 7113, 7116 and 7119, such prejudice or injury is expressly required, save for section 7113.” ( Id . at p. 172.) [FN8] (See also,Hutchinson *739 v. Contractors’ State etc. Bd ., 143 Cal.App.2d 628, 633 [300 P.2d 216] construing Terminix to require performance before an accusation is filed.)

FN8 The relevant portions of the Business and Professions Code sections referred to inTerminix read as follows: “Wilful … disregard of plans … prejudicial to another . …” (§ 7109); “… any wilful or fraudulent act … in consequence of which another is substantially injured . …” (§ 7116); “wilful failure or refusal … to prosecute a construction project … causing material injury to another ….” (§ 7119. Italics added.) Given to explicit inclusion of prejudice or loss in the quoted sections, the court in Terminix reasonably construed the requirement to be “implicit” in the remaining section, 7113. (84 Cal.App.2d at p. 172.)

The Structural Pest Control Act, however, contains no such requirement of pecuniary loss to support the charge or restitution as a defense. Rather, section 8638 states in full: “Failure on the part of a licensee to complete any operation or construction repairs for the price stated in the contract for such operation or construction repairs or in any modification of such contract is a ground for disciplinary action.” Moreover, the history of section 8638 suggests that the Legislature recognized the importance of full and complete compliance in a timely fashion by deleting the phrase “Failure in a material respect …” from the statute as originally enacted. (Compare Stats. 1941, ch. 1163, § 1, p. 2907 with Stats. 1961, ch. 1192, § 3, p. 2926.)

The importance of compliance with the Structural Pest Control Act and supporting regulations was made clear in Imperial Termite Control, Inc. v. Structural Pest Control Bd ., 275 Cal.App.2d 685, 689 [80 Cal.Rptr. 156]: “The existence of wood-destroying pests and organisms, and the measures appropriate to their control, are, usually, beyond the expertise of the individual property owner; but, in the climatic and geological condition of California, those pests and organisms represent a special and serious danger to property and to the health and safety of the occupants of property.”

Petitioner inadvertently underscores the importance of requiring prompt contract compliance, by pointing out that five of the six complaints were subsequent owners and not the parties with whom he had directly contracted.

The requirement of a termite inspection “is commonplace in the sale of homes” in California. (Real Estate Sales Transactions (Cont.Ed.Bar 1967) § 12.8, p. 466; see also, § 6.73 et seq.) Thus, combined with the problem of the lack of the property owner’s expertise, noted in Imperial Termite Control , is the problem that failures of a structural pest control licensee to note deficiencies, to recommend corrections, to perform the contracted work and to report work not completed, are not visited upon the *740 seller who might have some idea of lurking problems, but upon the unwary buyer. [FN9]

FN9 We do not suggest that the buyer has no recourse against the seller; however, a salutary effect of licensing and disciplining experts is to minimize the need for litigation.

Conclusion

The evidence that petitioner failed, in six “inspections” each involving several items to inspect or to recommend or to perform, or all of the above, is overwhelming. The statutes under which petitioner was disciplined – Business and Professions Code sections 8516, 8638, 8641, 8642 – and relevant regulations, California Administrative Code, title 16, sections 1990 and 1991 are not unconstitutionally vague, as written or as applied.

The judgment of the trial court denying the peremptory writ of mandate is affirmed.

Stephens, J., and Ashby, J., concurred.

Appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied December 26, 1974. *741

Cal.App.2.Dist.,1974.

Thole v. Structural Pest Control Bd. of Dept. of Consumer Affairs

Your First Telephone or Office Consultation Is Free!

619-583-0350


Medical Board of California v. Winscott

Outcome: Public Reprimand Only
Description: MBC filed formal Accusation to revoke physician license for repeated negligent acts and incompetence in patient care and treatment. RESULTS: We presented a comprehensive Mitigation Legal Brief. Medical Board issued a Public Reprimand only.