Petitioner tells Structural Pest Control Board he has sought VA treatment; board takes reinstatement petition under submission

Gary Gabriola, the petitioner in a reinstatement proceeding, told the Structural Pest Control Board on Oct. 16, 2018, that he has sought psychiatric care through the Department of Veterans Affairs, completed court-ordered alcohol- and anger-management programs and is currently on probation; the board closed the public record and said it would deliberate in closed session and mail a written decision within 100 days.

The petition hearing concerned operator license OPR 9978 and agency case 2017-55 (Office of Administrative Hearings case 2018-090582). Administrative Law Judge Marilyn Willard opened the proceeding and Deputy Attorney General Tim McDonough summarized the enforcement file, including accusation number 2017-55 and a default decision that revoked the license effective Aug. 23, 2017. McDonough told the board the accusation alleged misrepresentations on applications and multiple convictions substantially related to licensure, and that the default decision also ordered cost recovery of $1,650.

Gabriola, representing himself, submitted two documentary exhibits to the board. He described Exhibit 2 as containing VA medical letters and psychiatric treatment notes and said the VA had “certified me as being having PTSD.” He also described letters and certificates showing enrollment or completion of alcohol treatment and anger-management programs, weekly drug- and alcohol-testing custody-control forms, and a church letter supporting his rehabilitation activities. Gabriola said, “I've been running my pest control business since 1998,” and that treatment and counseling have been ongoing over roughly the past year.

Willard told Gabriola that because Exhibit 2 included medical material the board would place it under a protective order to preserve confidentiality and make it available to board members for deliberation. Willard also warned Gabriola that he would not receive a decision at the hearing, explaining: “The board will go into a closed session to deliberate on your petition. So you're not going to receive a decision in this matter today.”

McDonough’s overview recited the accusation’s allegations and underlying convictions as reflected in the prosecution file. The documentary summary the deputy attorney general read into the record reported convictions and sentences in Los Angeles County court records, including a February 16, 2017 conviction (listed in the file as a felony vandalism count and a misdemeanor driving-while-intoxicated count) and other convictions the accusation alleged were substantially related to the qualifications and duties of a licensee. The deputy attorney general also identified the prior license and company registration histories included in the petitioner’s file.

During questioning Gabriola described his medical and rehabilitation work with the VA: regular meetings with a VA psychiatrist (Elena Shabash, M.D., per the documents he submitted), enrollment in alcohol- and anger-management classes, and ongoing weekly testing ordered in relation to a child-welfare matter that he said was scheduled to conclude Oct. 22, 2018. He said he had been sober since July 4 of the prior year: “Yes, sir. I've been sober since 4th July last year.” He told the board he remained on formal probation, that his brother has provided financial support, and that he had declined to perform pest-control work while unlicensed.

Board members asked about continuing education, license history and outstanding cost recovery. Gabriola acknowledged he had not completed continuing-education courses since leaving the field and that the board’s cost-recovery order remained unpaid; he told the board he could pay and said he would take the operator’s exam again if the board required it.

No formal vote or licensing determination was taken at the hearing. Willard closed the record, and the board moved to closed session to deliberate. The administrative law judge told Gabriola he should expect the board’s decision by mail within 100 days.

The record admitted Exhibit 1 (the petition packet and related licensing and court records) and Exhibit 2 (medical and rehabilitative documentation), the latter under protective order for confidentiality. The board’s consideration will be limited to the evidence in the submitted administrative record and the reinstatement standard described at the hearing: the petitioner bears the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that reinstatement would be safe.

Next steps: the board will deliberate in closed session and issue a written decision by mail; no further public action or vote occurred at the Oct. 16 proceeding.