The opinion
Annabelle Clinton Imber, Justice, concurring. I concur with the majority but write to further expand on the majority’s analysis of Mid-South’s claims that it was denied due process because the alleged false statements made on the June 1994 application were mentioned in the December 1, 1995 hearing.
The June 1994 application was initially reviewed on July 22, 1994. It was again considered on August 12, 1994, at which time Mid-South was allowed to present evidence in support of the application. The Board then voted to deny the June 1994 application. A second application was filed on August 16, 1994. The Board granted a license to Mid-South on August 26, 1994.
Certain representations were made by Mid-South in both the June 1994 application and the August 1994 application. Specifically, Mid-South represented in both applications that Vincent Jackson was the president of the corporation and that “a principfal]” of Mid-South owned the equipment and leased it to .the corporation. Mid-South also submitted the same financial statement for the year ending May 31, 1994, with both applications.
The 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. See e.g., North Hills Mem’l Gardens v. Simpson, 238 Ark. 184 , 381 S.W.2d 462 (1964); Earp v. Benton Fire Dep’t, 52 Ark. App. 66 , 914 S.W.2d 781 (1996); McCarty v. Board of Trustees, 45 Ark. App. 102 , 872 S.W.2d 74 (1994). Similarly, Ark. Code Ann. § 17-25-308 (Repl. 1995) provides:
The Board shall have the power to revoke the certificate of license of any contractor licensed under this chapter who is found guilty of any fraud or deceit in obtaining a license or for aiding or abetting any contractor or person to violate the provisions of this chapter or for gross negligence, incompetence, or misconduct in the conduct of the contractor’s business.
(Emphasis added.)
The Board was entitled to reconsider its August 1994 decision to grant a license to Mid-South by reviewing Mid-South’s August 1994 application. The August 1994 application repeated many of the same representations previously made in the June 1994 application. Thus, the Board’s review of the June 1994 application was merely cumulative and not an abuse of discretion.
In conclusion, I join in the majority opinion, but also concur for the above reasons.
Glaze, J., joins in the concurrence.