Leon FL Administrative law and Criminal defense Lawyers

17-004353FL ANGEL CHILD HOME CARE CORPORATION, INC. vs AGENCY FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES (2017)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 02, 2017

The issue for determination in these proceedings is whether Petitioner’s application for licensure of an additional group home facility should be approved by Respondent, the Agency for Persons with Disabilities (“APD”).Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that its application for an additional group facility license should be approved.

17-005630FL AGENCY FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES vs SHIBOR GROUP, INC., SHIBOR GROUP HOMES NO. 1, NO. 3, AND NO. 4 OWNED AND OPERATED BY ABIMBOLA ORUKOTAN (2017)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Oct. 16, 2017

The issue is whether Petitioner may revoke the license of Respondent to operate three group home facilities for failing a background screening due to a conviction of a felony for the possession of Cannabis with an intent to sell or deliver and a failure to disclose this conviction on his license application.Resp. guilty of misdemeanor, not felony marijuana possession, so background screening run by DCF erroneously reported disqualifying offense. Resp. justifiably confused as to conviction so omission from app inadvertent. APD should dismiss case.

17-003557EXE EUGENIA MAYS vs AGENCY FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES (2017)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 20, 2017

Whether Petitioner, Eugenia Mays, has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that she should not be disqualified from employment in a position involving direct contact with developmentally disabled persons; and, thus, whether Respondent’s intended action to deny Petitioner’s request for an exemption from employment disqualification is an abuse of discretion.Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that she was rehabilitated. APD's intended decision to deny the exemption from disqualification was an abuse of discretion.

16-007184 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION vs DAVID FELICIANO, D/B/A D AND S HANDYMAN, INC., A DISSOLVED FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND D AND S HANDYMAN, INC. (2016)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Dec. 07, 2016

Whether Respondents,1/ David Feliciano, d/b/a D and S Handyman, Inc., a Dissolved Florida Corporation, and D and S Handyman, Inc., failed to provide workers’ compensation coverage; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed?Respondent did not have workers' compensation insurance coverage for its sole employee, nor an exemption. The Department correctly calculated the penalty assessment, as found in the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment.

16-007591 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION vs MATT'S QUALITY PAINTING, INC. (2016)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Dec. 23, 2016

The issues in this proceeding are whether Respondent, Matt’s Quality Painting, Inc. ("Respondent"), failed to abide by the coverage requirements of the Workers' Compensation Law, chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by not obtaining workers' compensation insurance for its employees; and whether Petitioner properly assessed a penalty against Respondent pursuant to section 440.107, Florida Statutes.The Department established by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent, a company engaged in the construction industry, failed to obtain workers' compensation coverage for its employees during the penalty period.

16-004378 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION vs S AND S OF FLORIDA, LLC (2016)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 01, 2016

Whether Respondent violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2016), by failing to secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage, as alleged in the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment; and, if so, what penalty is appropriate.Respondent, a small family-owned gas station/convenience store, violated Chapter 440 by failing to secure workers' compensation coverage. Recommend penalty assessment in the total amount of $23,936.62.

16-002659 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION vs PERMA-SEAL, INC. (2016)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 17, 2016

Whether Respondent violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2016), by failing to secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage, as alleged in the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment; and, if so, what penalty is appropriate.Respondent violated section 440 by failing to secure workers' compensation coverage for its roof coating business. Department incorrectly included in the penalty calculation loan repayments to the owners and amounts paid to independent contractors.

16-001863 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION vs FANTASTIC CONST. OF DAYTONA, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION (2016)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 01, 2016

Whether Fantastic Construction of Daytona, Inc. (“Respondent”), failed to secure the payment of workers’ compensation coverage for its employees; and, if so, whether the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (“Petitioner” or “Department”), correctly calculated the penalty to be assessed against Respondent.Department proved the Respondent failed to provide workers' compensation insurance for certain of its employees, but failed to prove the penalty calculation was correct.

15-003653 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION vs GEORGE WASHINGTON BEATTY, III (2015)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 24, 2015

At issue in this proceeding is whether the Respondent, George Washington Beatty, III, failed to abide by the coverage requirements of the Workers' Compensation Law, chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by not obtaining workers' compensation insurance for himself and/or his employees, and, if so, whether the Petitioner properly assessed a penalty against the Respondent pursuant to section 440.107, Florida Statutes.The Department established by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent, an unincorporated sole proprietor engaged in the construction industry, failed to obtain workers' compensation coverage for himself during the penalty period.

16-001266 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION vs TAMPA BAY ROOFING, LLC (2016)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 04, 2016

Whether Respondent timely filed a written request for an administrative hearing, and, if not, whether the doctrine of equitable tolling provides a defense to the applicable deadline for filing a petition for hearing.Petition for hearing was filed with the agency eight days late, and therefore dismissal is required. Equitable tolling is not available as a defense to the untimely filing.

Trevor S Suter