Leon FL Administrative law, Appeals and Banking Lawyers

06-003639 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION vs WILLIAM F. FURR (2006)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 21, 2006

Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation's (Department's) Stop Work Order and Second Amended Penalty Assessment and if so, what penalty should be imposed?Petitioner has demonstrated that Respondent failed to obtain workers` compensation insurance, and the "life-time`` exemption previously obtained expired as a matter of law December 31, 1999. The penalty in the Second Amended Penalty Assessment is correct.

06-004198 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION vs BLUE DIAMOND DECO STONE, INC. (2006)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Oct. 31, 2006

The issues are whether Respondent failed to obtain required workers' compensation insurance and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.Petitioner proved that Respondent failed to obtain workers` compensation coverage for its independent contractors in the construction industry. Recommend that Respondent be fined $5,532.94.

06-002259 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION vs RICHARD WHITEHURST, D/B/A ALLIED QUALITY CARPET AND TILE (2006)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 23, 2006

The issue in this case is whether Respondent had sufficient or complete workers' compensation coverage for his employees pursuant to Chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2006).1The imposition of a fine for failure to have appropriate workers` compensation coverage is supported by the evidence.

06-003297 MONCRIEF BAIL BONDS, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION (2006)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 01, 2006

Whether Petitioner, Moncrief Bail Bonds, Inc., conducted business operations in the State of Florida without obtaining workers' compensation coverage, meeting the requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2005), in violation of Subsection 440.107(2), Florida Statutes (2002 through 2005). If so, what penalty should be assessed by Respondent, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, pursuant to Section 440.107, Florida Statutes (2005),1 and Florida Administrative Code Rule, Chapter 69L.Petitioner failed to secure workers` compensation coverage for its employees, as required by statute.

05-003190 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION vs CLARK GREEN, D/B/A CLARK W. GREEN PAINTING (2005)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 01, 2005

The issue is whether The Department of Financial Services properly imposed a Stop Work Order and Amended Order of Penalty Assessment pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes.Respondent`s exemption as a sole proprietor expired by operation of law in 1999.

06-001078F HERNANDEZ ENTERPRISES vs DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION (2006)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 23, 2006

The issue is whether Respondent should reimburse Petitioner for the attorneys' fees and costs Petitioner expended in its successful defense of Respondent's Stop-Work Order.Respondent must pay Petitioner`s attorney fees, as Petitioner is a prevailing small business party. Respondent`s actions were not substantially justified.

06-000731 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION vs SIMPRO HOMES, INC. (2006)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Feb. 27, 2006

The issue is whether Respondent, Simpro Homes, Inc., conducted business operations in the State of Florida without obtaining workers’ compensation coverage meeting the requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and, if so, whether the penalty in the amount of $326,861.58, was properly assessed by Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, pursuant to Section 440.107, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 69L.Respondent failed to secure the required workers` compensation coverage for his employees who were engaged in work in Florida and is assessed a penalty of $326,861.58.

04-002965 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION vs H.R. ELECTRIC, INC. (2004)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 20, 2004

The issues presented are (1) whether Respondent properly secured the payment of workers’ compensation insurance coverage and, if not, what penalty is warranted for such failure; and (2) whether Respondent conducted business operations in violation of a stop-work order and, if so, what penalty is warranted for such violation.The penalty is assessed against Respondent, a Georgia Company, for performing work in Florida without proper workers` compensation insurance is appropriate.

05-002966 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION vs BICON, INC. (2005)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 18, 2005

The issue in this case is whether Respondent materially understated payroll and thus should be deemed to have failed to secure payment of workers' compensation, which is a sanctionable offense.The evidence failed to show that Respondent had materially understated the payroll; consequently, Respondent could not be deemed to have failed to secure payment of workers` compensation.

05-002651 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION vs WMW ENTERPRISES, D/B/A FAMILY FLOORING (2005)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jul. 26, 2005

The issue for determination is whether Respondent failed to secure workers’ compensation coverage for his subcontractors, thereby, failing to abide by the coverage requirements of the Workers’ Compensation Law, Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and, if so, what penalty should be assessed.Respondent failed to secure payment of Workers` Compensation coverage for its subcontractors who were its employees. Recommend that the Stop-Work Order and the Amended Penalty Assessment were appropriate.

Colin Mark Roopnarine