CSLB Rejects Judges Decision-Is Coming Gunning for DeckTech

CSLB Has Right To Accept or Reject ALJ's Decision

A Witness for DeckTech Has Lied Under Oath in Other Cases & Appears to Have Lied Under Oath Giving Testimony in This Case

DeckTech Remains In Business While Case Is Active

DeckTech Inc remains in business after the CSLB rejected a Administrative Law Judges decision to allow DeckTech to have them pay $28,000+ in damages and $3800 in investigative costs on a case stemming from a complaint filed in 2013. At this time their license remains active as CSLB continues to pursue justice.

On February 23rd, the CSLB announced their decision to decide the case with a "Non-Adopt Order"

CSLB HAS REJECTED THE DECISION OF A
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE & WILL
DECIDE THE CASE THEMSELVES. 

This case is a result of an accusation be filed against DeckTech for violations of the CA Business & Professions Codes. DeckTech was charged with taking to much money up front on a job, getting paid for work not completed, failing to provide lien releases among others. 

The evidence presented by DeckTech Inc via two "experts" David Mazor (aka David Krubinski) and Mark Marsch is tenuous. Marsch's testimony was discounted as the evidence vs his testimony showed he was either ignorant of tile deck applications or he was lying. Mazor testified that the Nevada Coating Systems product was "identical" to the Carboline product that was "substituted" for NCS 6000 UVS. 

I've never laid eyes on a bucket of Nevada Coating System labeled product in 6 years of watching this product be installed by DeckTech. All I've ever seen are red buckets similar to Carboline labeled "DeckTech" or Carboline ET buckets. 

Mazor testified that his product could be installed over a variety of surfaces, but Carboline ET spec's only discuss concrete, not wood or metal. A conversation I had with a Carboline rep in 2015 led to they saying that private labeled materials they sell to someone is under that private labelers responsibility for using it as they see fit, but using Carboline cans would confuse consumers into thinking that Carboline approved the application.   

It is apparent Mazor and Marsch lied under oath. Mazor has a history of doing just that, in a case Krubinski vs Schmutzer and a case where he sued an investment fund after losing a lot of money-REFCO. Mark Marsch left his reputation as a consultant on the dirty floor by providing testimony that was false. 

The case continues and I will be providing evidence to CSLB about the lies told trying to save their friend Ron McKenna.