Leon FL Lawyers | Thomas Howland Duffy -- eLawyers

07-003948 S.A.C., LLC vs DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION (2007)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 29, 2007

The issue is whether Respondent, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, properly assessed a penalty of $90,590.42 against Petitioner, S.A.C., LLC.Petitioner failed to maintain workers` compensation coverage for one of its employees and did not provide payroll records for employee. Therefore, Petitioner is liable for penalty assessment for a three-year period.

08-003078 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION vs JESUS SOSA, D/B/A JESUS SOSA CORP. (2008)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 24, 2008

Whether Respondent has committed the acts alleged in the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment and Stop Work Order and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.Petitioner showed that Respondent failed to secure adequate workers` compensation insurance and that Respondent`s records were inadeqaute to determine payroll. However, the penalty needs to be recalculated to reflect demonstrated dates of employment.

08-001925 AMERICAN COATINGS, INC., A/K/A A. C. PAINTING, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION (2008)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 15, 2008

The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner corporation's workers' compensation insurance policy was in compliance with the provisions of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, cited below, despite not having a specific Florida endorsement; whether the Department properly issued a Stop Work Order against the Petitioner and whether the proposed penalty of $240,927.55 was properly assessed.Respondent showed Petitioner had not secured properly FL endorsed workers` comp. policy. Petitioner showed that it did provide FL level of benefit coverage. Petitioner showed it was entitled to credit in penalty calculation for amount of premium paid.

08-002745 JAMES T. QUINN, D/B/A JAMES QUINN HANDYMAN vs DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION (2008)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 10, 2008

The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner, in the work of his business or trade, operates within the definition of "construction industry" as that term is defined in Chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2008), and the rules of the Respondent Agency. It therefore must be determined whether the Petitioner was required to secure workers' compensation coverage or suffer the disputed penalty for failure to do so.Respondent did not prove that Petitioner`s handyman business was a "construction trade or industry" as defined in statue and rule-adopted manual. Therefore, no workers` compensation coverage is required.

08-004129 REX NEIL, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION (2008)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 21, 2008

The issue in this case is whether Respondent had workers' compensation coverage for his employees pursuant to Chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2008), specifically whether Tabitha Rexford was an employee, and, if so, what penalty should be assessed.Respondent met burden of proof to establish one day of employment without workers` compensation coverage.

08-003779 NU WAY DRYWALL vs DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION (2008)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jul. 31, 2008

The issues in this case are: (1) whether Petitioner, Nu Way Drywall, LLC, was in violation of the workers' compensation requirements of Sections 440.107 and 440.38, Florida Statutes (2007),1 by failing to secure workers' compensation coverage for its subcontractors and/or employees of its subcontractors; and (2) if yes, what penalty should be assessed against Petitioner.Because subcontractor had no workers` compensation coverage or exemption from such coverage, the subcontractor is "employee" of Petitioner. Therefore, Petitioner was required to provide workers` compensation coverage.

07-002041 2 FRIENDS, INC., D/B/A LA PAZ MEXICAN GRILL vs DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION (2007)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 09, 2007

The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner was operating its restaurant business in violation of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, the Florida Workers' Compensation Law, by failing to have required workers' compensation coverage. The related issues are whether the Department should therefore issue a Stop Work Order, whether a penalty should be imposed for so operating and what the correct penalty should be.Respondent established that the stop work order was properly served and that Petitioner was on notice of need to stop work until workers` compensation obtained. Petitioner failed to do so. The fine calculation was shown to be proper.

08-000097 ALL FLORIDA TREE AND LANDSCAPE, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION (2008)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 04, 2008

The issue is whether Petitioner violated Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by not having workers' compensation insurance coverage, and if so, whether the Agency's calculation was proper and accurate based on the methods used to establish the payroll for Petitioner and the resulting penalty.Petitioner failed to have workers` compensation insurance for employees. Recommend that the penalty against Petitioner be recalculated.

07-004869 LIBERTY TOWING AND RECOVERY, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION (2007)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Oct. 24, 2007

The issues are whether Respondent appropriately issued a "Stop Work" Order; whether certain employees were exempt from workers' compensation coverage; whether Respondent correctly calculated the assessed penalty; and whether Petitioner was given three days to produce certain records.Petitioner failed to provide workers` compensation insurance; the penalty is appropriate.

07-002463 CHAMAN TI, INC., D/B/A D.J. DISCOUNT MARKET vs DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION (2007)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 31, 2007

The issue is whether Petitioner violated Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by not having workers’ compensation insurance coverage, and if so, what penalty should be imposed. Petitioner did not have workers` compensation insurance, and Respondent was required to impose a penalty. There is no authority to mitigate the penalty, but it should be reduced to $68,922.18 to correct a calculation error.

Thomas Howland Duffy