Leon FL Administrative law, Appeals and Banking Lawyers

04-001174 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION vs HERNANDEZ ENTERPRISES (2004)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 07, 2004

The issue is whether Respondent complied with Sections and 440.38, Florida Statutes, with regard to workers' compensation insurance for his subcontractors, and if not, the appropriate amount of penalty that should be assessed.Petitioner filed a Stop Work Order on the theory that employess of two subcontractors were Respondent`s employees. The subcontractors showed workers` compensation insurance. Recommend that the Order be lifted, no penalties assessed, and the money repaid.

05-000958 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION vs AFS, LLC (2005)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 14, 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.The statute does not authorize imposition of an administrative penalty to two employers for the same infraction.

04-002369F RIVERA AND COMPANY OF S.W. FLORIDA, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION (2004)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 02, 2004

04-001021 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION vs JEREMY BUTZLER (2004)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 22, 2004

The issues are whether Respondent was required to obtain workers' compensation coverage for himself pursuant to Section 440.107, Florida Statutes (2002), during the penalty period designated in the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment; and, if so, whether Petitioner should impose a penalty against Respondent in the amount of $120,467.88.Under the current law, Respondent was required either to file for workers` compensation exemption or to carry coverage on himself as an employee of his sole proprietorship. He did not file either one and was liable for the penalty requested by Petitioner.

04-004569 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION vs BRAVO CONSTRUCTION, INC., (2004)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Dec. 21, 2004

The issues are: (1) Whether Respondent, Bravo Construction, Inc. ("Respondent"), was in violation of the workers’ compensation requirements of Chapter 440.107, Florida Statutes (2003),1/ by failing to secure workers’ compensation coverage for its workers; (2) Whether such individuals possessed current valid workers’ compensation exemptions; and (3) Whether Respondent paid its workers remuneration outside of Respondent’s employee leasing company. Where Respondent paid construction workers directly, they were its employees. Respondent was required to provide the employees with workers` compensation coverage unless such employees had workers` compensation coverage or were exempt from coverage.

04-003188 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION vs RONNIE W. MARSTON, JR., D/B/A MARSTON BUILDERS (2004)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 08, 2004

Has Respondent failed to secure that payment of workers' compensation for his employees, Section 440.107(2), Florida Statutes (2004), justifying the entry of a stop-work order, Section 440.107(7)(a), Florida Statutes (2004), and the entry of a financial penalty against Respondent, Section 440.107(7)(d), Florida Statutes (2004)?Respondent failed to secure workers` compensation coverage for his employees.

04-001723 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION vs DAVID ROUQUET (2004)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 14, 2004

The issues are whether the individuals included in the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment were employees of Respondent during the penalty period designated therein and, if so, whether Respondent failed to secure workers' compensation coverage in violation of Section 440.107, Florida Statutes (2003); and whether Petitioner should impose a penalty against Respondent in the amount of $156,880.87.Four workers were properly included in the penaly assessment as they were "employees" of Respondent. Respondent`s sole officer was not an employee and was incorrectly included in the calculation of the penalty assessment.

04-002477 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION vs GMD CARPET, INC. (2004)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jul. 16, 2004

Whether GMD Carpet, Inc., failed to comply with coverage requirements of the workers’ compensation law, Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.Respondent`s failure to provide workers` compensation insurance, although not intentional, warrants the penalty of $1,916.65 as calculated by Petitioner.

04-001107 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION vs RIVERA AND COMPANY OF S.W. FLORIDA, INC. (2004)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 31, 2004

The issues are whether Respondent materially understated payroll in violation of Section 440.107, Florida Statutes (2003), and, if so, what penalty, if any, should be imposed against Respondent; and whether Respondent's workers are not employees defined in Section 440.02, Florida Statutes.Subcontractors who were not independent contractors after October 1, 2003, and neither elected out nor paid for compensation coverage after December 12, 2003, were Respondent`s employers for which Respondent owed penalties assessed by Petitioner.

01-004826GM SALLY O`CONNELL, DONNA MELZER, AND MARTIN COUNTY CONSERVATION ALLIANCE, INC. vs MARTIN COUNTY AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS (2001)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Dec. 13, 2001

The issue is whether plan amendments 00-1, 97-4, and 01-7 adopted by Ordinance No. 598 on September 25, 2001, are in compliance.Local government properly collected and analyzed data to support commercial land inventory used in demand projections and Future Land Use Map changes; amendments in compliance.

Colin Mark Roopnarine