Title: Mid-South Road Builders, Inc. v. Arkansas Contractors Licensing Bd.

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

MID-SOUTH ROAD BUILDERS, Inc. v. ARKANSAS
CONTRACTORS LICENSING BOARD

96-447                                             ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
                 Opinion delivered May 27, 1997


1.   Administrative law & procedure -- administrative decisions -- standard of
     review -- appellant's burden. -- Administrative decisions should be
     upheld if they are supported by substantial evidence and are
     not arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by an abuse of
     discretion; to set an agency decision aside as arbitrary and
     capricious, an appellant must demonstrate that the decision
     was made without consideration and with a disregard of the
     facts; the supreme court reviews the entire record to
     establish whether the decision is supported by relevant
     evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
     support a conclusion; an administrative agency, like a jury,
     is free to believe or disbelieve any witness and, on review,
     the evidence is given its strongest probative force to support
     the administrative ruling; a court may not reverse a decision
     of an agency if there is substantial evidence to support that
     decision; the appellant has the burden of proving an absence
     of substantial evidence.

2.   Appeal & error -- appellant may not change grounds for objection on
     appeal. -- An appellant may not change the grounds for his or
     her objection on appeal.

3.   Administrative law & procedure -- Contractors Licensing Board may
     reconsider decisions to correct previous error in granting license. -- The
     Arkansas Contractors Licensing Board may reconsider its own
     decisions, especially where there is evidence of fraud or
     misrepresentations, in order to correct any previous error in
     granting a license; the ability of the Board to reconsider its
     previous decisions is particularly necessary in a case such as
     this, where it was through the Board's investigation of a 1995
     renewal application that it was discovered that there were
     false statements contained in the 1994 application.

4.   Appeal & error -- failure to object at administrative hearing -- issue
     could not be raised on appeal. -- Where appellant never requested
     an evidentiary hearing nor made application to the circuit
     court for such pursuant to Ark. Code Ann.  25-15-212(f)
     (Repl. 1996) for leave to present additional evidence, it
     could not raise the issue for the first time on appeal.

5.   Appeal & error -- supreme court will not reverse absent demonstration of
     prejudice. -- Where appellant was given the opportunity to
     correct any alleged discovery or notice violations by moving
     for a continuance but did not, the supreme court could not see
     where it had demonstrated any prejudice on appeal; the supreme
     court will not reverse absent a demonstration of prejudice. 

6.   Appeal & error -- appellant waived bias challenge to Board. -- Where
     appellant argued that appellee Board's members were biased
     against it and, as such, that it was error for the circuit
     court not to conduct an evidentiary hearing, the supreme court
     turned aside appellant's argument because there was no
     evidence that it ever requested the circuit court for leave to
     present additional evidence on the allegation, holding that
     appellant had effectively waived any challenge to the Board
     based upon its pronounced satisfaction with the composition of
     the Board during a December 1995 hearing.

7.   Evidence -- Board's decision denying license renewal supported by
     substantial evidence. -- Based upon the evidence in the record
     concerning false statements in appellant's license-renewal
     application, the supreme court concluded that appellee
     Contractors Licensing Board's decision denying appellant's
     license renewal was supported by substantial evidence and was
     neither arbitrary nor capricious and could not be
     characterized as an abuse of discretion.


     Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Sixth Division; David
Bogard, Judge; affirmed.
     Bowden Law Firm, by: David O. Bowden; and Walker, Campbell,
Ivory, Dunklin & Davis, by: Larry G. Dunklin, for appellant.
     Williams & Anderson, by: Leon Holmes; and Winston Bryant,
Att'y Gen., by:  M. Wade Hodge, Asst. Att'y Gen., for appellee.
     
     Donald L. Corbin, Justice.
     Appellant Mid-South Road Builders, Inc., appeals the judgment
of the Pulaski County Circuit Court affirming the denial of its
license renewal by Appellee Arkansas Contractors Licensing Board. 
This is an administrative review pursuant to Ark. Code Ann.  17-
25-312  (Repl. 1996), which provides that all appeals shall follow
the provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act, Ark. Code Ann.
 25-15-201þ214 (Repl. 1996).  Our jurisdiction is pursuant to
Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 1-2(a)(17)(vi) (as amended by per curiam July 15,
1996).  On appeal, Mid-South argues that it was denied procedural
and substantive due process in a license-renewal hearing before the
Board and that there is insufficient evidence to support the
revocation of its contracting license.  We find no error and
affirm.
                I.  Facts and Procedural History
     Mid-South first applied for a license with the Arkansas
Contractors Licensing Board on June 10, 1994.  On July 22, 1994,
the application was reviewed, but due to numerous questions, it was
given further consideration at the August 12, 1994 board meeting,
during which Mid-South was allowed to present any evidence in
support of the application.  The license was denied due to the
Board's inability to verify information on the application.  Mid-
South filed an action in circuit court for review of the Board's
denial, which was later dismissed when a second application was
filed on August 16, 1994.  The Board then granted a license to Mid-
South on August 26, 1994.
     In August of 1995, Mid-South applied for license renewal. 
Notice was sent by the Board to Mid-South on or about October 11,
1995, apprising Mid-South that a hearing would be conducted on
their license-renewal application based on the allegation that Mid-
South provided false information in obtaining its license.  On
October 27, 1995, a hearing was scheduled on the allegations of
false information, but Mid-South objected to the notice on the
ground that it did not sufficiently apprise Mid-South of the
particular allegations against it.  In response to the objection,
the Board reset the hearing to December 1, 1995, and issued an
amended notice of hearing.
     On December 1, 1995, a hearing was conducted, during which the
Board voted against granting Mid-South's renewal on the bases of
several false statements contained in the license-renewal
application.  The Board presented one witness and Mid-South
presented six witnesses.  During the hearing, the Board presented
evidence of a variety of false statements on Mid-South's license-
renewal application.  Mid-South appealed to Pulaski County Circuit
Court, which affirmed the decision of the Board to deny the license
renewal.  This appeal followed.
                     II.  Standard of Review
     Administrative decisions should be upheld if they are
supported by substantial evidence and are not arbitrary,
capricious, or characterized by an abuse of discretion.  Arkansas
State Highway & Transp. Dep't v. Kidder, 326 Ark. 595, 933 S.W.2d 794 (1996); Wacaser v. Insurance Comm'r, 321 Ark. 143,