STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND ) EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, DIVISION ) OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, )
BUREAU OF COMPLIANCE, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 00-1748
)
GREGORY DENNIS NELLY, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was held in this case on January 31, 2001, by video teleconference with connecting sites in West Palm Beach and Tallahassee, Florida, before Errol H. Powell, a designated Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: David C. Hawkins, Esquire
Department of Labor and Employment Security
2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Hartman Building, Suite 307 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189
For Respondent: Orrin R. Beilly, Esquire
105 South Narcissus Avenue
The Citizens Building, Suite 705 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-5529
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
Whether Respondent was required and failed to obtain workers' compensation insurance coverage for his employees during the period from March 7, 1997 through March 7, 2000, and, if so, what penalty should be assessed, pursuant to Section 440.107,
Florida Statutes.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
On March 7, 2000, the Department of Labor and Employment Security, Division of Workers' Compensation, Bureau of Compliance (Petitioner), issued a Stop Work Order (SWO) to Gregory Dennis Nelly (Respondent) for his alleged failure to secure workers' compensation insurance for his employees, in violation of Subsections 440.10 and 440.38, Florida Statutes, at a job site in Lake Worth, Florida. Subsequently, on March 8, 2000, Petitioner issued a Notice and Penalty Assessment Order (NPAO) against Respondent, assessing a penalty in the amount of $18,824, after receiving information from Respondent regarding Respondent's business, including the identity and number of employees, and payroll. Respondent challenged the assessment and requested a hearing. On April 25, 2000, this matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings.
Subsequently, following discovery, Petitioner was permitted to amend the NPAO by Order dated August 15, 2000. The Amended NPAO increased the assessment to $48,757. By Order dated
October 20, 2000, Petitioner was granted leave for a Second Amended NPAO, increasing the assessment to $69,569, following further discovery.
At hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of three witnesses and entered 17 exhibits (Petitioner's Exhibits numbered 1-15 and 17-18) into evidence. Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 16 was rejected. Respondent testified in his own behalf, presented the testimony of one witness, and entered 14 exhibits (Respondent's Exhibits numbered 1-2, 10-19, and 21-22) into evidence. Respondent's Exhibit numbered 22 was deposition testimony and Respondent was permitted to late-file the Exhibit. Respondent's Exhibit numbered 10 was conditionally admitted in that it had to be admissible within the context of the deposition testimony of Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 22. The deposition testimony was late-filed as a Joint Exhibit and, accordingly, Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 22 is changed to Joint Exhibit numbered 1.1 Respondent's Exhibits numbered 3-9 and 20 were not offered into evidence.
Subsequent to the hearing, Respondent filed a Motion to Supplement the Record, requesting the undersigned to permit him to file and admit invoices into evidence, as Respondent's Exhibit numbered 23. The invoices purported to represent work performed by subcontractors during the three-year period prior to the
issuance of the SWO. Respondent objected to the motion. The motion was denied.2
A transcript of the hearing was ordered. At the request of the parties, the time for filing post-hearing submissions was set for more than ten days following the filing of the transcript.
The Transcript, consisting of one volume, was filed on February 19, 2001. The parties were granted two extensions of time in which to file their post-hearing submissions. The parties timely filed their post-hearing submissions, which were considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order.
Petitioner in its post-hearing submission requests the undersigned to re-consider several rulings made. Petitioner's requests are denied.
Additionally, Petitioner requests that Respondent's Exhibit numbered 10 not be admitted into evidence on the basis that Respondent failed to satisfy the condition placed upon the admission of the said exhibit. The undersigned is persuaded that the condition placed upon admission of the exhibit was satisfied and, therefore, Respondent's Exhibit numbered 10 is admitted.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Petitioner is the state agency charged with enforcing the requirement that employers secure workers' compensation insurance for the benefit of their employees.
On March 7, 2001, one of Petitioner's investigators observed two individuals, Worker 1 and Worker 2,3 painting a sidewalk, curb stops, and lines in the parking lot of a 7-Eleven store in Lake Worth, Florida. At that time, the investigator performed an on-site inspection.
The investigator interviewed the two workers and completed a worksheet to determine if they were independent contractors. Worker 1 and Worker 2, among other things, worked for and were paid weekly by Respondent as painters, did not maintain a separate business from Respondent, did not control the means of performing their work, did not incur the expenses of their work, and did not incur the principal expenses related to their work. The investigator determined that the two workers were not independent contractors but were employees of Respondent.
Neither Worker 1 nor Worker 2 was granted a workers' compensation exemption. Both workers were unprotected by workers' compensation insurance.
Respondent provided to Petitioner's investigator federal tax Form 1099s for the years 1998 and 1999, pertaining to Worker
1 and Worker 2 and a handwritten note indicating the compensation paid to them during the year 2000. The documents indicated that Respondent paid the workers for the years 1998 through 2000 the following: Worker 1--$9,685 for 1998, $19,180 for 1999, and
$3,330 for 2000; and Worker 2--$2,790 for 1999, and $240 for 2000.
A compilation of approved classifications that groups employers according to their operations is published by the National Council of Compensation Insurance (NCCI). The publication is Scopes Manual, Scopes of Basic Manual Classifications (Scopes Manual). NCCI is a rating organization in Florida, which represents workers' compensation carriers.
NCCI seeks approval from Florida's Department of Insurance of rates charged by workers' compensation carriers. NCCI and Professional Insurance Associates, as well as other sources, publish tables of approved rates for each classification code.
It is undisputed that NCCI's publication of class codes and rates is relied upon and used by Petitioner to determine an employer's class code and the workers' compensation insurance rate.
On March 7, 2000, Petitioner's investigator issued a SWO to Respondent.
On March 8, 2000, Petitioner issued a NPAO to Respondent, indicating an assessment and penalty of $18,824. The investigator determined that, based upon what he had observed and the information that he had obtained, the work being performed by Worker 1 and Worker 2 was painting and was classified under
Scopes Manual Code 5474. The investigator determined the evaded premium, or the premium that Respondent would have paid had he secured workers’ compensation insurance, by multiplying the gross compensation to employees each year by the premium rate for that Code for that year. The statutory penalty on the evaded premium is twice the evaded premium. The calculated penalty was $18,724. Added to the $18,724 was $100, which represented the penalty for the one day, March 7, 2000, that Respondent was not in compliance with the workers’ compensation requirement.
On October 20, 2000, Petitioner issued a Second Amended Notice and Penalty Assessment Order, which was the final assessment, against Respondent assessing a penalty of $69,569, which included the $100 penalty.
Pursuant to an agreement, Respondent performs general maintenance and preventative maintenance (GMPM) for Southland Corporation at 100 or more 7-Eleven stores in Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties.
Petitioner was able to interview 13 of Respondent's employees, Worker 1 through Worker 13.4
As not a part of the GMPM agreement, Respondent's employees paint curbs, bumpers, and lines in the parking lot of each 7-Eleven store once each year. Respondent’s employees also engaged in the following: painting of buildings’ exterior and interior, parking lots, and loading docks; hanging drywall;
setting of tile; paving of parking lots; repairing stucco and concrete; minor plumbing; carpentry, including trim, installation of doors and locks; filling potholes; and installing walls and cabinets.
For example, Worker 10, who was employed with Respondent between June 1996 and January 1998, initially performed a daily activity of painting lines and curbs in parking lots at 7-Eleven stores. He could be assigned three stores in one day performing this activity. Later, Worker 10 performed under the GMPM agreement doing the following: painting the exterior and interior of stores, which could be the entire outside or a storeroom; tiling floors and ceilings; patching blacktop and repairing asphalt; and engaging in carpentry work, including putting up wooden shelves in storage rooms, cutting, nailing and screwing boards, and operating saws.
Worker 10 also assisted Worker 6, who was a carpenter, repairing enclosures for dumpsters. The repairs consisted of sinking four-by-four posts into the ground, replacing slats, and occasionally replacing the entire enclosure due to damage caused by a truck backing into the enclosure.
As another example, Worker 11 was employed with Respondent during 1998 and 1999 for 14 months and worked under the GMPM agreement. Worker 11 performed all activities under the agreement in maintaining the 7-Eleven stores, except for
electrical and internal plumbing. The work to which he was assigned generally lasted four days a week, but for one day a week, he was assigned to handling service calls or performing line striping. Worker 11 performed the following: resurfacing asphalt; painting the entire parking lot, including lines for parking spaces and curbs; replacing or repairing ceiling and floor tile; laying tar on the roof; performing carpentry, including building shelves in storing rooms, reinforcing shelving, hanging new doors, replacing door hardware, and performing carpentry alongside Worker 6; and repairing enclosures for dumpsters by re-hanging doors, replacing slats, and replacing four-by-four posts.
Even though Respondent stated that he subcontracted the repair of roofs and dumpsters, the installation of doors and electrical and plumbing work, he failed to present evidence showing to whom and when the work was subcontracted.5 Petitioner presented evidence demonstrating that Respondent’s employees performed all of the work described, except for electrical work.
The work performed by Respondent’s employees included multiple class codes. NCCI requires the assignment of the highest rated classification under such circumstances. Carpentry is the highest-rated classification for all the work performed by Respondent’s employees, and the Scopes Manual Code for carpentry
is 5403. Scopes Manual Code 5403 is also the code for the enclosure of a dumpster and the installation of a pre-hung door.
The corresponding rate per $100 of payroll assigned to Scopes Manual Code 5403 is different for the applicable years 1997 through 2000. The rate for 1997 was 29.77; for 1998 was 29.09; for 1999 was 26.66; and 2000 was 27.96.
Worker 1 through Worker 13 did not maintain a separate business from Respondent, did not control the means of performing their work, did not incur the expenses of their work, and did not incur the principal expenses related to their work. None of Respondent’s 13 employees had a valid workers’ compensation exemption. None of them were protected by workers’ compensation insurance.
Respondent’s usual and customary practice was to pay his employees on a weekly basis. His usual and customary practice was to employ four or more employees during a weekly pay period. Respondent’s usual and customary practice was to employ four or more employees during any payroll period.
Respondent asserts that he relied upon subcontractors for some of the work. The identity of the subcontractors, the service performed, and the frequency of their work are unknown. Whether the subcontractors had workers’ compensation insurance is also unknown. As a result, a determination cannot be made as to what Respondent’s responsibility, if any, was to the
subcontractors as to workers’ compensation insurance, which in turn would affect an assessed penalty under worker’s compensation.
To establish what his payroll was for the three years preceding the issuance of the SWO on March 7, 2000, Respondent used federal tax Form 1099s and cancelled business checks. For the years 1997 through 2000, Respondent’s payroll was as follows: Worker 1--1998 was $9,685, 1999 was $19,180, and 2000 was $3,330; Worker 2--1999 was $2,790, and 2000 was $240; Worker 3--1997 was
$2,100, 1999 was $2,035, and 2000 was $3,045; Worker 4--1999 was
$2,100; Worker 5--1997 was $1,900; Worker 6--1997 was $4,620, 1998 was $15,965, 1999 was $5,100, and 2000 was $3,303; Worker 7-
-1999 was $610; Worker 8--1997 was $1,380, 1998 was $5,640, 1999 was $7,640, and 2000 was $350; Worker 9--1997 was $3,120; Worker 10--1997 was $8,450, and 1998 was $960; Worker 11--1998 was
$7,095, and 1999 was $7,225; Worker 12--1998 was $2,883; and Worker 13--1999 was $2,675. Consequently, Respondent’s total payroll for 1997 was $21,570, for 1998 was $42,228, for 1999 was
$49,355, and for 2000 was $10,268.
Respondent’s payroll of $21,570 for 1997, was for the entire year. Petitioner made no reduction for the time period in the year 1997 prior to March 8, 1997, which would have been three years prior to the SWO on March 7, 2000.
The statutory penalty assessed by Petitioner in its Second Amended Notice and Assessment Order against Respondent was
$69,569, which included the penalty of $100. Petitioner’s assessment should be reduced to compensate for the Respondent’s payroll during the period of January 1, 1997 through March 7,
1997.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this proceeding and the parties thereto pursuant to Section 120.569 and Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
It is undisputed that Petitioner has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the workers’ compensation law and that the penalty assessed against Respondent is correct.
Section 440.10, Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part:
(1)(a) Every employer coming within the provisions of this chapter, including any brought within the chapter by waiver of exclusion or of exemption, shall be liable for, and shall secure, the payment to his or her employees, or any physician, surgeon, or pharmacist providing services under the provisions of s. 440.13, of the compensation payable under ss. 440.13, 440.15, and 440.16. Any contractor or subcontractor who engages in any public or private construction in the state shall secure and maintain compensation
for his or her employees under this chapter as provided in s. 440.38.
Section 440.38, Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part:
Every employer shall secure the payment of compensation under this chapter:
(a) By insuring and keeping insured the payment of such compensation with any stock company or mutual company or association or exchange, authorized to do business in the state.
Section 440.107, Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part:
The Legislature finds that the failure of an employer to comply with the workers' compensation coverage requirements under this chapter poses an immediate danger to public health, safety, and welfare. The Legislature authorizes the division to secure employer compliance with the workers' compensation coverage requirements and authorizes the division to conduct investigations for the purpose of ensuring employer compliance.
The division and its authorized representatives may enter and inspect any place of business at any reasonable time for the limited purpose of investigating compliance with workers' compensation coverage requirements under this chapter. Each employer shall keep true and accurate business records that contain such information as the division prescribes by rule. The business records must contain information necessary for the division to determine compliance with workers' compensation coverage requirements and must be maintained within this state by the business, in such a manner as to be accessible within a reasonable time upon request by the division. The business
records must be open to inspection and be available for copying by the division at any reasonable time and place and as often as necessary. The division may require from any employer any sworn or unsworn reports, pertaining to persons employed by that employer, deemed necessary for the effective administration of the workers' compensation coverage requirements.
* * *
(5) Whenever the division determines that an employer who is required to secure the payment to his or her employees of the compensation provided for by this chapter has failed to do so, such failure shall be deemed an immediate serious danger to public health, safety, or welfare sufficient to justify service by the division of a stop-work order on the employer, requiring the cessation of all business operations at the place of employment or job site. The order shall take effect upon the date of service upon the employer, unless the employer provides evidence satisfactory to the division of having secured any necessary insurance or self-insurance and pays a civil penalty to the division, to be deposited by the division into the Workers' Compensation Administration Trust Fund, in the amount of $100 per day for each day the employer was not in compliance with this chapter.
* * *
In addition to any penalty, stop-work order, or injunction, the division may assess against any employer, who has failed to secure the payment of compensation as required by this chapter, a penalty in the amount of:
Twice the amount the employer would have paid during periods it illegally failed to secure payment of compensation in the preceding 3-year period based on the
employer's payroll during the preceding 3- year period; or
One thousand dollars, whichever is greater.
Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, requires every employer, as well as a contractor or subcontractor who engages in private construction, to secure and maintain compensation for the employer's employees, and to maintain business records to enable Petitioner to determine whether the employer is in compliance with the workers' compensation law.
Section 440.02, Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent
part:
When used in this chapter, unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the following terms shall have the following meanings:
* * *
(7) "Construction industry" means for-profit activities involving the carrying out of any building, clearing, filling, excavation, or substantial improvement in the size or use of any structure or the appearance of any land. When appropriate to the context, "construction" refers to the act of construction or the result of construction. However, "construction" shall not mean a landowner's act of construction or the result of a construction upon his or her own premises, provided such premises are not intended to be sold or resold.
* * *
(11) "Department" means the Department of Labor and Employment Security.
* * *
(13) "Division" means the Division of Workers' Compensation of the Department of Labor and Employment Security.
(14)(a) "Employee" means any person engaged in any employment under any appointment or contract of hire or apprenticeship, express or implied, oral or written, whether lawfully or unlawfully employed, and includes, but is not limited to, aliens and minors.
* * *
"Employee" includes a sole proprietor or a partner who devotes full time to the proprietorship or partnership and, except as provided in this paragraph, elects to be included in the definition of employee by filing notice thereof as provided in s.
440.05. Partners or sole proprietors actively engaged in the construction industry are considered employees unless they elect to be excluded from the definition of employee by filing written notice of the election with the division as provided in s. 440.05. However, no more than three partners in a partnership that is actively engaged in the construction industry may elect to be excluded. A sole proprietor or partner who is actively engaged in the construction industry and who elects to be exempt from this chapter by filing a written notice of the election with the division as provided in
s. 440.05 is not an employee. For purposes of this chapter, an independent contractor is an employee unless he or she meets all of the conditions set forth in subparagraph (d)1.
"Employee" does not include:
1. An independent contractor, if:
The independent contractor maintains a separate business with his or her own work facility, truck, equipment, materials, or similar accommodations;
The independent contractor holds or has applied for a federal employer identification number, unless the independent contractor is
a sole proprietor who is not required to obtain a federal employer identification number under state or federal requirements;
The independent contractor performs or agrees to perform specific services or work for specific amounts of money and controls the means of performing the services or work;
The independent contractor incurs the principal expenses related to the service or work that he or she performs or agrees to perform;
The independent contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of work or services that he or she performs or agrees to perform and is or could be held liable for a failure to complete the work or services;
The independent contractor receives compensation for work or services performed for a commission or on a per-job or competitive-bid basis and not on any other basis;
The independent contractor may realize a profit or suffer a loss in connection with performing work or services;
The independent contractor has continuing or recurring business liabilities or obligations; and
The success or failure of the independent contractor's business depends on the relationship of business receipts to expenditures.
* * *
(15) "Employer" means the state and all political subdivisions thereof, all public and quasi-public corporations therein, every person carrying on any employment, and the legal representative of a deceased person or the receiver or trustees of any person. If the employer is a corporation, parties in actual control of the corporation, including, but not limited to, the president, officers who exercise broad corporate powers, directors, and all shareholders who directly or indirectly own a controlling interest in
the corporation, are considered the employer for the purposes of ss. 440.105 and 440.106.
(16)(a) "Employment," subject to the other provisions of this chapter, means any service performed by an employee for the person employing him or her.
(b) "Employment" includes:
Employment by the state and all political subdivisions thereof and all public and quasi-public corporations therein, including officers elected at the polls.
All private employments in which four or more employees are employed by the same employer or, with respect to the construction industry, all private employment in which one or more employees are employed by the same employer.
* * *
(24) "Sole proprietor" means a natural person who owns a form of business in which that person owns all the assets of the business and is solely liable for all the debts of the business.
Petitioner demonstrated that Respondent is an employer, as well as a contractor or subcontractor, and a sole proprietor as defined by Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. Petitioner further demonstrated that Respondent is an employer in construction and the construction industry as defined by the said chapter.
Considering the definition of employment, as defined by Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, whether Respondent has four or more employees must be examined. Whether an employer has four or more employees is determined by the employer's usual and customary practice. Randell, Inc. v. Chism, 404 So. 2d 175, 177
(Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Subterranean Circus v. Lewis, 319 So. 2d
600, 602 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), cert. denied, 333 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 1976). Respondent's usual and customary practice was to employ four or more employees and, therefore, the definition of employment, as defined in the said chapter, has been met.
Whether Worker 1 through Worker 13 were employees, as defined by Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, must also be examined. None of the workers met all of the requirements of an independent contractor, as defined by the said chapter, and, therefore, none of the workers were independent contractors, as defined by the said chapter.
Additionally, none of the workers were excluded as an employee due to being a sole proprietor, as defined by Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, because none of them were issued a valid workers' compensation exemption. Smith v. Larry Rice Construction, 730 So. 2d 336, 339 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Arruda v. Gold Crest Kitchens, 642 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).
Furthermore, not having been issued a valid workers' compensation exemption excludes the workers from being considered independent contractors within the meaning of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes.
Petitioner demonstrated that Worker 1 through Worker 13 were employees of Respondent, that none of them held a valid workers' compensation exemption, and that none of them were protected by workers' compensation insurance.
As to the assessed penalty of $69,469, Petitioner failed to take into consideration in its calculation the period of time from January 1, 1997 through March 7, 1997, which was prior the issuance of the SWO and which would not be calculated in the amount of the assessed penalty. Petitioner argues that Respondent bore the burden of demonstrating what Respondent's payroll was during that period of time. However, Petitioner does not deny that it was aware that federal tax Form 1099 includes an entire year. With Petitioner possessing such knowledge, the undersigned is not persuaded by Petitioner's argument, but is persuaded that Petitioner should have requested from Respondent a detailed accounting of what was Respondent's payroll for that period of time. Consequently, the assessed penalty must be reduced to reflect the subtracted payroll for the period from January 1, 1997 through March 7, 1997.
Regarding the $100 penalty assessed by Respondent, Petitioner demonstrated that that particular penalty is
appropriate.
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is
RECOMMENDED that the Department of Labor and Employment Security, Division of Workers' Compensation, Bureau of Compliance enter a final order against Gregory Dennis Nelly:
Sustaining the Stop Work Order.
Sustaining the penalty assessed in the Second Amended Notice and Penalty Assessment Order minus the calculation for the payroll during the period of January 1, 1997 through March 7, 1997.
DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of June, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
ERROL H. POWELL
Administrative Law Judge
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060
(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675
Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of June, 2001.
ENDNOTES
1/ As tendered by Petitioner, the deponent, Mike Smith, is accepted as an expert in the area of classification for workers' compensation insurance.
2/ Respondent contends that the invoices would have supported his assertion that he subcontracted out certain work that Petitioner contends that Respondent had his workers perform. This Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) agreed with Petitioner's objections to Respondent's Motion to Supplement the Record and, accordingly, denied the motion. As a result, the invoices were not admitted into evidence. Petitioner never alleged that the invoices were false or fabricated by Respondent. Notwithstanding the ruling, this ALJ is concerned that Petitioner would not review the documents in determining whether it had imposed the appropriate assessment and whether the assessment was correctly
calculated. Petitioner's conduct in this respect is contrary to the conduct of other agencies which have presented assessment cases before this ALJ and which have reviewed documents, not produced prior to hearing, to ensure that it (the agency) has imposed the appropriate assessment and correctly calculated the assessment.
3/ Worker 1 is Tom Baker. Worker 2 is Gene Finnell.
4/ See Endnote numbered 3 above. Worker 3 through Worker 13 are as follows: Worker 3 is Jerimiah Ailes; Worker 4 is Todd Barry; Worker 5 is Gerald Bickmore; Worker 6 is Mike Cummings; Worker 7 is Gary Freeman; Worker 8 is Pat Graydon; Worker 9 is Douglas Green; Worker 10 is Russel Guntel; Worker 11 is Terrance Palmer; Worker 12 is Thomas Paulicki; and Worker 13 is Bobby Ridenour.
5/ Invoices of subcontractors for three years prior to the SWO were not admitted into evidence. See Endnote numbered 2 above.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Mary B. Hooks, Secretary Department of Labor and
Employment Security
2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Hartman Building, Suite 303 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189
Elizabeth Teegen, General Counsel Department of Labor and
Employment Security
2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Hartman Building, Suite 303 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189
David C. Hawkins, Esquire Department of Labor and
Employment Security
2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Hartman Building, Suite 307 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189
Orrin R. Beilly, Esquire
105 South Narcissus Avenue
The Citizens Building, Suite 705 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-5529
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15 days from the date of this recommended order. Any exceptions to this recommended order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Sep. 20, 2001 | Agency Final Order | |
| Jun. 05, 2001 | Recommended Order | Respondent was an employer, Respondent`s workers were employees, none of the employees held a valid workers` compensation exemption, and none were protected by workers` compensation insurance. Assessed penalty reduced by payroll for certain time period. |
