ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2025A-01926-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-09-17

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Elise Seaman,

COMPLAINANT

v.

D.S. Welding Services LLC

License No. ROC 342103,

RESPONDENT

No. 2025A-01926-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: August 11, 2025

APPEARANCES:

Complainant: Elise Seaman

Respondent: David Smith

Registrar of Contractors: Patricia Schuette, Investigator

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nedra-Su Kawasaki

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative notice was taken of the Notice of Hearing and Hearing Packet submitted by the Registrar of Contractors.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

D.S. Welding Services LLC (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 342103 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on December 8, 2022.

On or about November 27, 2024, Elise Seaman (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, construction and installation of a custom wrought iron fence.

On or about February 27, 2025, Complainant filed a Licensed Complaint Form with the Registrar, claiming abandonment and poor work.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Patricia Schuette, who issued a Jobsite Inspection Notice on April 2, 2025, scheduling the inspection for April 18, 2025.

Investigator Schuette conducted the jobsite inspection on April 18, 2025, and Respondent was not present. Following the inspection, Investigator Schuette issued a Written Directive From the Registrar to Respondent on April 28, 2025 that provided as follows:

You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:

Complaint Item: 1 - Posts not set the correct distance apart causing some of the panels to not fit and extra add-on pieces to be needed.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. There are several locations where pieces were welded in to bridge gaps. The pieces are not aligned or aesthetically pleasing. Respondent to identify areas and correct within appropriate means.

Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Complaint Item: 2 - Incomplete welds-only welded on the top and one side on almost all panels.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. There are several locations where the weld is not complete. This is leaving exposed edges susceptible to rust. Respondent to identify locations and correct within appropriate means.

Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards

Complaint Item: 3 - The connection from the panel to my house on the right side is crooked.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The return panel to the house on the West side is installed out of square. There is also spray paint on the siding from the painting. Respondent to correct within appropriate means.

Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Complaint Item: 4 - The panel connected to the gate on right side of house screwed into my paver.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The return to the house on the West side of the home is bolted into a paver. This is not properly secured. Respondent to correct within appropriate means.

Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Complaint Item: 5 - Contractor agreed to come back and set post in concrete for the gate panel and did not.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. This is same complaint as item 4. The side return with gate on the West side is not properly secured. Respondent to correct within appropriate means.

Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Complaint Item: 6 - 2nd panel on right side has add on piece due to posts being set too far apart and weld is crooked.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. This is a duplication to item 1. Respondent to correct within appropriate means.

Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Complaint Item: 7 - Contractor agreed to come back and fix incomplete welds and used caulking to fix on panels 5, 8, 9, 10, 14 & 15.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. There appears to be a caulking applied at some of the joints that were not welded. Respondent to identify areas and correct within appropriate means.

Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Complaint Item: 8 - 10th panel along back side of property has an added piece due to posts being incorrectly placed.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Duplication to item 1. Respondent to correct within appropriate means.

Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Complaint Item: 9 - 11th panel has an added piece due to posts being incorrectly placed Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Duplication to item 1. Respondent to correct within appropriate means.

Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Complaint Item: 10 - On last panel next to block wall there is an added piece that was welded on crooked.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Duplication to item 1. Respondent to correct within appropriate means.

Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Complaint Item: 11 - The panel on the left side of house the connection to the house is not secure and caulking was used.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The return to house on the East side is not installed square and does appear to have caulking. The section does not appear to be secured properly. Respondent to correct within appropriate means.

Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards

Complaint Item: 12 - Contractor agreed to replace 2 panels due to piecework-4 and 13, but 11, 10 and 2 also have piecework.

Investigator’s Observation: Partial duplication to item 1. These are sections where small pieces were welded on and not aesthetically pleasing and not flush with existing rail. Respondent to correct within appropriate means.

Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Complaint Item: 13 - Incomplete paint on the entire fence. In some areas specifically on the back side, there is no paint at all.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. There are multiple locations where there is thin paint, paint runs, and no paint with some rusting starting to appear. Respondent to correct within appropriate means.

Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Complaint Item: 14 - Contractor did not sand any welds before painting.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. It does not appear that any welds were sanded prior to painting. Respondent to correct within appropriate means.

Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Complaint Item: 15 - On small gate between house and shed the connection between the gate and house was not trimmed down and is sticking out.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. There is a small piece that protrudes out about an inch or more. This could create a safety issue. Respondent to correct within appropriate means.

Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

The Written Directive required Respondent to notify Investigator Schuette of Respondent’s compliance with the directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on May 15, 2025.

On May 21, 2025, Investigator Schuette issued a Compliance Inspection Notice, setting the inspection for June 2, 2025. During the inspection, though attempts were made on nearly all compliance items, all compliance items were deemed not completed, and in fact, some new issues were created due to Respondent’s corrective actions.

On June 20, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, finding cause to charge Respondent with violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a), and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Respondent submitted an Answer to the Citation on June 21, 2025. Respondent’s Answer asserted that it took full responsibility for its work and that the instant matter did not reflect its highest standards. Additionally, Respondent noted it had made multiple efforts to correct the complaint issues both prior to and after the complaint was filed.

The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.

On July 2, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing on Contested Case setting the hearing for August 11, 2025.

The hearing was held via Google Meet on August 11, 2025.

Investigator Schuette testified in support of her jobsite inspection findings, the written directive, compliance inspection findings, and the Citation. Investigator Schuette further testified that she received a video from Respondent on May 4, 2025 depicting corrective action taken and an email from Complainant, same day, advising that Respondent had attempted corrective action, but the repairs were not adequate and created additional issues.

Complainant testified in agreement with Investigator Schuette’s testimony.

Respondent admitted that despite efforts to correct its work, issues remained. However, in light of this experience, it had made significant changes to its business practice to include hiring subcontractors for assistance.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on August 30, 2025. According to that record, Respondent’s License No. 342103 was Active; and there was one open complaint (instant matter), no disciplined cases, and no resolved/settled complaints against Respondent’s license.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. Respondent bears the burden of proof to establish an affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence.

“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent failed to perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A).

The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a written directive from the Registrar in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

“The registrar may impose a civil penalty of not to exceed $500 on a contractor for each violation of subsection A, paragraph 22 of this section.” If a licensee fails to pay the civil penalty, their license is automatically revoked “thirty days after the effective date of the order providing for the civil penalty.” Additionally, any “person who is or was named on a license . . . may not receive a new license under this chapter until the entire civil penalty is paid.”

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall suspend Respondent’s License No. 342103 for three business days.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $500.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E).

It is further recommended that within thirty days of the effective date of the Order Respondent shall provide an amended contract to the Registrar which establishes compliance with the requirements in A.R.S. § 32-1158. If Respondent fails to comply, Respondent’s license shall be suspended until it provides a compliant contract.

In the event of certification of the Administrative Law Judge Decision by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the effective date of the Order will be forty (40) days from the date of that certification.

-54864001

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

001

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

-137160-45720000Done this day, September 17, 2025.

/s/ Nedra-Su Kawasaki

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

[email redacted]

Patricia Schuette

[email redacted]

D.S. Welding Services LLC

[email redacted]

Elise Seaman

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff