Murphy v. Electrical and Elevator Board

338 Or. App. 448

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Decided: March 5, 2025
• Docket: A182645
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

448 March 5, 2025 No. 185

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

Sean MURPHY, dba Murphy Family Electric, Petitioner, v. ELECTRICAL AND ELEVATOR BOARD, Respondent. Electrical and Elevator Board 2023ABC05780; A182645

Submitted January 22, 2025. Sean Murphy filed the briefs pro se. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Inge D. Wells, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Aoyagi, Presiding Judge, Egan, Judge, and Joyce, Judge. AOYAGI, P. J. Affirmed. Nonprecedential Memo Op: 338 Or App 448 (2025) 449

AOYAGI, P. J. Petitioner seeks judicial review of a final order of the Electrical and Elevator Board. The board found that petitioner committed several violations and, as a result, suspended his electrical contractor’s license and general supervising electrician license for two years, imposed a civil penalty of $21,500, and reinstated a previously suspended civil penalty of $2,750. On review, petitioner argues that the board erred by (1) finding that petitioner attempted to deceive city inspectors by asking a homeowner to make a false statement; (2) finding that an unlicensed individual employed by petitioner performed electrical work; and (3) imposing disproportionately severe penalties for the viola- tions. The board maintains that it did not err. On judicial review of a final administrative order, “we review the board’s findings of fact for substantial evi- dence and its legal conclusions for errors of law.” Public Utility Commission v. Tillotson, 210 Or App 433, 439, 150 P3d 1083 (2007). We review the decision on license sus- pension and civil penalties for abuse of discretion, Read v. Oregon Medical Board, 244 Or App 603, 614-15, 260 P3d 771 (2011), rev den, 351 Or 649 (2012), recognizing that, “under a totality of the circumstances review, a punishment dis- proportionate to the offense can constitute an abuse of dis- cretion,” Sachdev v. Oregon Medical Board, 312 Or App 392, 409, 494 P3d 1018 (2021). Applying those standards, we affirm. As an initial matter, the board points out, and we acknowledge, that peti- tioner’s arguments to this court are quite summary. Given our neutral role, we will not develop legal arguments for a party, instead addressing only properly presented and suffi- ciently developed arguments. See Johnson v. Mullen, 331 Or App 112, 118, 545 P3d 1261 (2024) (rejecting an argument that was raised but not sufficiently developed in the appel- lant’s brief); Beall Transport Equipment Co. v. Southern Pacific, 186 Or App 696, 700 n 2, 64 P3d 1193, adh’d to on recons, 187 Or App 472, 68 P3d 259 (2003) (rejecting a “con- clusory” argument as “it is not this court’s function to spec- ulate as to what a party’s argument might be[, n]or is it our proper function to make or develop a party’s argument when 450 Murphy v. Electrical and Elevator Board

that party has not endeavored to do so itself”). We therefore limit ourselves to addressing the arguments that are prop- erly presented and at least minimally sufficiently developed in petitioner’s briefing. With respect to the two challenged factual find- ings—that an unlicensed individual employed by petitioner performed electrical work, and that petitioner attempted to deceive city inspectors by asking a homeowner to make a false statement—those findings are supported by substan- tial evidence. The parties stipulated, and the board found, as fol- lows.1 At all relevant times, Stan Grubbs worked for peti- tioner’s business “as an electrician” and “did not hold a valid Oregon supervising electrician license, journeyman elec- trician license, or limited residential electrician license.” In February 2021, at the 9th Place property, Grubbs installed a new electrical panel and new GFCI outlets. In June 2021, at the SE 70th Avenue property, Grubbs installed the final wir- ing to connect a hot tub to power, replaced the interior cir- cuit breaker box, installed a new service line mast on the roof, replaced an external meter box from the main service line, and installed electrical wire from the meter to the rear of the house. In August and September 2021, regarding the Concord Avenue property, petitioner’s business emailed the property owner on three separate occasions to confirm that Grubbs would be his electrician on a particular date, then sent invoices for the work. Petitioner then texted the owner on September 15, 2021, asking him to tell the city inspector that Curtis Stone, a licensed journeyman electrician, performed the electrical installations at the property. When the owner replied that he had already told the inspector that Grubbs performed them, petitioner responded, “It’s okay, we can say Stan helped”; told the owner that Grubbs was about to take his journeyman’s test and worked under petitioner’s license; and stated, “We need to tell the inspector Curtis is our licensed tech on the job.” In challenging the board’s findings regarding Grubbs performing electrical work while unlicensed and 1 The board made more extensive findings, but we discuss only those findings that are most relevant to the issues on judicial review. Nonprecedential Memo Op: 338 Or App 448 (2025) 451

petitioner attempting to deceive city inspectors in relation to the Concord Avenue property, petitioner essentially asks us to adopt a version of the facts that is contrary to the board’s findings and his own stipulations. That is inconsistent with the standard of review. The challenged findings are sup- ported by substantial evidence. We next address the license suspensions and civil penalties that the board imposed for the violations. Petitioner argues that the board abused its discretion, cit- ing the length of the license suspensions and the amount of civil penalties as disproportionate “given the absence of any demonstrated harm or significant risk to public safety.” We are unpersuaded that the board abused its discretion. “[T]here is often more than one legally permissible choice when discretion is at play.” Dept. of Human Services v. T. J. L., 335 Or App 477, 483, 558 P3d 855 (2024). Although the board might have had discretion to impose shorter sus- pensions or lesser civil penalties, that does not mean that it abused its discretion by choosing the length of suspensions and amount of civil penalties that it did. Considering “the totality of the circumstances” as established by the factual findings of the board, Sachdev, 312 Or App at 409, and the limited arguments made by petitioner, we are unpersuaded that the board abused its discretion. Affirmed.