Leon FL Lawyers | Timothy Leeds Newhall -- eLawyers

17-005562CVL TRACY J. HOFFMAN vs DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES, DIVISION OF STATE PURCHASING (2017)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Oct. 09, 2017

The issues to be determined in this case are whether Petitioner committed a public entity crime as that term is defined in section 287.133, Florida Statutes (2017); and, if so, whether it is in the public interest to place Petitioner's name on the convicted vendor list maintained by the Department of Management Services (DMS).Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proving that it is not in the public interest to place him on the convicted vendor list.

11-002275 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION vs ABASH ENTERPRISES, INC. (2011)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 05, 2011

The issues in this case are whether Respondent failed to provide workers' compensation coverage, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.Company failed to provide workers' compensation coverage for its employees. The assessed penalty was less than $1,000; therefore, the minimum penalty of $1,000 should be assessed.

11-000243 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION vs SERGIO A. BALSINDE (2011)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 14, 2011

At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent, Sergio A. Balsinde ("Respondent") is entitled to elect to be exempt from the workers' compensation insurance coverage requirements of chapter 440, Florida Statutes.Respondent was ineligible to elect exemption from the workers' compensation insurance requirement of chapter 440, due to his affiliation with a person who was delinquent in paying a Stop-Work Order and Penalty Assessment Order.

10-001245 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION vs J. D. TREE SERVICE, INC. (2010)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 15, 2010

The issues in the case are whether J. D. Tree Service, Inc. (Respondent), conducted business in violation of a previously- issued Stop-Work Order, and, if so, whether the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation (Petitioner), properly calculated the applicable penalty assessment.Employer conducted business in violation of a Stop-Work Order. Statute requires $1,000 fine for each day.

09-003391F WILLIAM R. SIMS ROOFING, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION (2009)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 19, 2009

Whether Petitioner is entitled to recover attorney’s fees and costs from Respondent, pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, as a result of the appeal being withdrawn in regard to DOAH Case No. 06-1169.Although Petitioner was the prevailing small business party in prior case, and the amount requested was reasonable, Respondent's investigators were substantially justified in issuing the SWO and Penalty Assessment initially.

09-004760 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION vs SW CYCLE OF LEE COUNTY, INC. (2009)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 01, 2009

The issue is whether Respondent conducted business operations without securing the payment of workers' compensation and, if so, the penalty, pursuant to Section 440.107(7)(d)1., Florida Statutes.Petitioner proved that Respondent operated a motorcycle sales and service business without securing workers' comppensaton; however, one salesperson without service responsibilities was miscoded.

08-006237 MILLENIUM HOMES, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION (2008)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Dec. 16, 2008

Whether Millenium Homes, Inc. (Petitioner) conducted operations in the State of Florida without obtaining workers’ compensation coverage which meets the requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2008), in violation of Subsection 440.107(2), Florida Statutes (2008)1, as alleged in the Stop-Work Order and Order and Penalty Assessment and the Fifth Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. If so, what penalty should be assessed by the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (Respondent), pursuant to Section 440.107, Florida Statutes.DFS proved by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner failed to obtain workers' compensation coverage for at least 3 of its carpenters and all of its clerical help; Petitioner's explanation not credible; recommended penalty of $66,099.37.

09-002409 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION vs COCONUT COVE RESORT AND MARINA, INC. (2009)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 07, 2009

The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Coconut Cove Resort and Marina, Inc., failed to comply with the requirements of Sections 440.10, 440.107, and 440.38, Florida Statutes, and, if so, the appropriate amount of penalty which should be assessed against Respondent.Respondent failed to have workers' compensation insurance for its employees. Petitioner accurately calculated the penalty to be assessed against Respondent.

09-004303 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION vs CAROLINA REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC. (2009)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 14, 2009

The issue is whether the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment entered by Petitioner on July 15, 2009, and subsequently amended twice, should be upheld.Petitioner properly entered a Stop-Work Order and Second Amended penalty assessment for $10,492.92 against Respondent for employing roofers without workers' compensation coverage.

08-004865F CHARLES DEMOSS ENTERPRISES, LLC vs DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION (2008)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 11, 2008

The issues presented are (1) whether Petitioner is entitled to recover its attorney's fees and costs from the Department, and (2) whether the Department is entitled to recover its attorney's fees and costs from Petitioner.Petitioner's waiver in a settlement agreement of its right to seek reimbursement for its attorney's fees and costs prevents such an award in this proceeding, even though Petitioner was the prevailing small business party.

Timothy Leeds Newhall