|
Inquiries are routinely sent to both registrants and non-registrants for alleged violations of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) and Nevada Administrative Codes (NAC).
There were seven cases this period that were submitted for board consideration and approved. Additionally, 10 cases were closed because there was no basis for the allegations or the complaint did not fall within the board's jurisdiction.
The following case was closed by means of settlement agreement. As part of the agreement respondents agreed to assure compliance with Chapter 623. Should the respondents be involved in a subsequent case and found to have again violated NRS, NAC or Rules of Conduct, the case may be used as an aggravating factor.
Every effort is made to ensure that the following information is correct. Before making any decision based on this information you should contact the NSBAIDRD.
Deviation from Standard of Professional Care and Violating a Law, Regulation or Code of Ethics: NRS 623.270.1(c)(f)
Case 25-001R
The allegation against Michael Peterson (147-RD) was that he was negligent by not doing his due diligence on a project. The matter was resolved through a settlement agreement incorporating a $2,000 administrative penalty and $1,400 in investigative costs.
Not in Responsible Control and Violating a Law, Regulation or Code of Ethics: NRS 623.270.1(d)(f)
Case 24-040R
The allegations against Nathan Tolbert (399-RD) and Form Consulting were that they over-stamped plans that were originally submitted by a contractor under the contractor’s exemption. The matter was resolved through a settlement agreement incorporating a $2,500 administrative penalty and $1,500 in investigative costs.
Violating a Law, Regulation or Code of Ethics and Unlicensed Practice of Architecture and Residential Design: NRS 623.270.1(f) and NRS 623.360.1(c)
Case 24-032R
The allegations against Rene Rolin Hassenzahl (007-ID) and MIXT Consulting, LLC were that they engaged in the practices of architecture and residential design, which is outside the scope of practice of their registration as a registered interior designer. The matter was resolved through a settlement agreement incorporating a $2,500 administrative penalty and $2,000 in investigative costs.
Advertising and Unlicensed Practice of Architecture, Registered Interior Design or Residential Design: NRS 623.360.1(b)(c)
Case 25-006N
The allegations against Neha Singh and NS Design Studio were that they held themselves out as being qualified to provide services that fall under the practices of residential design and architecture and engaged in the practices of residential design and architecture without having a certificate of registration with the board. The matter was resolved through a settlement agreement incorporating a $2,000 administrative penalty and $1,200 in investigative costs.
Holding Oneself Out, Advertising, and Unlicensed Practice of Architecture, Registered Interior Design or Residential Design: NRS 623.360.1(a)(b)(c)
Case 25-011N
The allegations against Piere Burton Jr. and Dzindit LLC were that they held themselves out as being qualified to provide services that fall under the practices of residential design and architecture and engaged in the practices of residential design and architecture without having a certificate of registration with the board. The matter was resolved through a settlement agreement incorporating a $4,500 administrative penalty and $1,600 in investigative costs.
Unlicensed Practice of Architecture, Registered Interior Design or Residential Design: NRS 623.360.1(c)
Case 25-019N
The allegations against Joel Baumgardner and Baumgardner Architecture, an Architectural Corporation were that they engaged in the practice of architecture without having a certificate of registration with the board. The matter was resolved through a settlement agreement incorporating a $3,000 administrative penalty and $1,500 in investigative costs.
Case 25-020N
The allegations against Christine Lampert and Lampert Dias Architects were that they engaged in the practice of architecture without having a certificate of registration with the board. The matter was resolved through a settlement agreement incorporating a $3,000 administrative penalty and $1,200 in investigative costs.
| 
