Leon FL Administrative law, Criminal defense and Litigation -- eLawyers

15-002464 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION vs GULF COAST SITE PREP., INC. (2015)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 01, 2015

Whether Respondent, Gulf Coast Site Prep, Inc., failed to comply with the coverage requirements of the Workers’ Compensation Law, chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by not obtaining workers’ compensation insurance for its employees, and, if so, what penalty should be assessed against Respondent pursuant to section 440.107, Florida Statutes (2014).1/Department proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent failed to secure payment of workers' compensation insurance for its employees.

14-005941 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION vs AMERICAN PRO DIVING CENTER, INC. (2014)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Dec. 16, 2014

The issue in this case is whether Respondent violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes,1/ by failing to secure the payment of workers' compensation, as alleged in the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment; and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty.Department failed to prove that Respondent violated the Workers' Compensation laws as alleged in the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment.

14-002618 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION vs MEX GROUP MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR, INC. (2014)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 03, 2014

The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Mex Group Maintenance and Repair, Inc. (Respondent or Mex Group), failed to secure the payment of workers’ compensation as required by chapter 440, Florida Statutes,1/ and if so, what penalty should be imposed.Respondent failed to secure payment of workers' compensation and materially understated and concealed payroll. Department proved that penalty calculation of $1,213,357.30 was correct.

14-003106 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION vs SUNBURST CONSTRUCTION, INC. (2014)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jul. 03, 2014

The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Sunburst Construction, Inc. ("Sunburst"), failed to properly maintain workers' compensation insurance coverage for his employees and, if so, what penalty should be assessed.The Department did not prove that there were employees who were not covered by Respondent's workers' compensation insurance.

13-003217 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION vs MAD DOG MARKETING GROUP, INC. (2013)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 22, 2013

The issue is whether the Stop-Work Order and the Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment entered by Petitioner on July 25, 2013, and August 13, 2013, respectively, should be upheld.Respondent did not have workers' compensation coverage on its 11 employees at the time the Department conducted a site visit. The Stop-Work Order and Third Amended Penalty Assessment are confirmed.

13-002536 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION vs BARBER CUSTOM BUILDER'S, INC. (2013)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jul. 10, 2013

Whether Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (“Petitioner” or “Department”) properly issued a Stop-Work Order and Penalty Assessment against Respondent, Barber Custom Builders, Inc. (“Respondent” or “Barber”) for failing to obtain workers' compensation insurance that meets the requirements of chapter 440, Florida Statutes.Petitioner proved, by lawful application of classification codes and manual rates, that Respondent is liable for payment of penalty for failure to secure workers' compensation insurance. A stop-work order is not a 120.569(2)(n) immediate final order.

13-002447 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION vs OGLES CONSTRUCTION AND ROOFING, LLC (2013)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jul. 02, 2013

Whether Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (the Department), properly issued a Stop-Work Order and Penalty Assessment against Respondent, Ogles Construction and Roofing, LLC (Respondent), for failing to obtain workers' compensation insurance that meets the requirements of chapter 440, Florida Statutes.1/Petitioner utilized the correct classification codes and manual rates in calculating workers' compensation penalty. Imputation of payroll was necessary where Respondent refused to provide requested business records.

13-004336PL DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BOARD OF NURSING vs SANTANA LASHONDA WILLIAMS, L.P.N. (2013)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Nov. 08, 2013

The issue in this case is whether the allegations set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaint filed by the Department of Health (Petitioner), against Santana Lashonda Williams, L.P.N. (Respondent), are correct, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.Respondent disciplined for inappropriate use of patient information.

13-002515 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION vs CABINETRY BY DESIGN OF COLLIER CO., LLC (2013)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jul. 09, 2013

Whether Respondent violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2013)1/, by failing to obtain workers? compensation insurance coverage, as alleged in the Stop-Work Order and Amended Order of Penalty Assessment; and, if so, the appropriate penalty.Respondent failed to provide workers' compensation insurance coverage for employee.

13-001668 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION vs C AND C AGRICULTURAL FARMS, LLC (2013)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 07, 2013

Whether Respondent violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2012),1/ by failing to obtain workers’ compensation insurance coverage for farm workers, as alleged in the Stop-Work Order and Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment; and, if so, the appropriate penalty.Respondent failed to provide workers' compensation coverage for seven employees, and was not entitled to the agricultural exemption of definition of employment.

Kristian E. Dunn