The Issue The issues in this case are whether the allegations in the Administrative Complaint are correct, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent was certified as a law enforcement officer by the Petitioner. On the evening of July 13, 2010, the Respondent was observed driving erratically by Deputy Mark Buswell, an officer of the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office. After observing the Respondent driving for a distance, Deputy Buswell executed a traffic stop, at which time he smelled the odor of alcohol on the Respondent. In response to Deputy Buswell's inquiry, the Respondent denied having consumed alcohol. Deputy Buswell asked the Respondent to step out of the truck and observed that the Respondent was unsteady on his feet and swaying. Deputy Buswell then administered a series of sobriety tests to the Respondent. Based on his observations, and his training and experience as a law enforcement officer, Deputy Buswell believed that the Respondent had been driving under the influence of alcohol. Deputy Buswell arrested the Respondent for DUI, a violation of section 316.193, Florida Statutes (2010).1/ After the arrest, Deputy Buswell twice asked the Respondent to submit to a breath alcohol test, and, on both occasions, the Respondent declined to take the test. The Respondent had previously been arrested for DUI.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order permanently revoking the certification of Derek C. Floyd as a law enforcement officer. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of November, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of November, 2012.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by failing to secure the payment of workers' compensation, as alleged in the Stop-Work Order and 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and, if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement that employers in the State of Florida secure the payment of workers' compensation for their employees and corporate officers. Respondent, Shriji Krupa, Inc., is a Florida corporation engaged in business operations as a gas station (self-service and convenience-retail) in the State of Florida. Mr. Hemant Parikh, one of Respondent's corporate officers, testified that, on November 20, 2012, Respondent was inspected by Petitioner's Compliance Investigator, Mike Fuller. Mr. Fuller advised Mr. Parikh that Respondent needed to close the store. According to Mr. Hemant Parikh, at the time of inspection, Respondent had two corporate officers and four additional employees. Mr. Parikh explained that, at the time of inspection, Respondent had two store locations with three employees working at each locale. Mr. Shrikant Parikh, another corporate officer, testified that, at the time of inspection, Respondent was operating under the mistaken belief that its corporate officers were exempt from workers' compensation coverage. Pursuant to the record evidence, on November 28, 2012, Mr. Fuller served a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment on Respondent. Pursuant to the Stop-Work Order, Respondent was ordered to cease all business operations for all worksites in the state based on the following: Failure to secure the payment of workers' compensation in violation of sections 440.10(1), 440.38(1), and 440.107(2) F.S., by: failing to obtain coverage that meets the requirements of Chapter 440, F.S., and the Insurance Code. After receiving the Stop-Work Order, on that same date, Respondent obtained workers' compensation coverage with an effective date of November 29, 2012. Respondent has maintained appropriate coverage to date. Following the Stop-Work Order, Respondent submitted various records for Petitioner's review.2/ Petitioner's sole witness was Ms. Lynne Murcia. Ms. Murcia works in Petitioner's Bureau of Compliance wherein she calculates penalties for those employers found in violation of the workers' compensation laws. Ms. Murcia performs approximately 200 penalty calculations per year. Ms. Murcia first became involved with Respondent in January 2013, when she received an assignment to perform a penalty calculation. Ms. Murcia reviewed all records previously submitted by Respondent. From the records received, Ms. Murcia was able to determine that Respondent employed four or more employees on a regular basis. Ms. Murcia explained that "employees" include corporate officers that have not elected to be exempt from workers' compensation. After conducting a search within the Florida Division of Corporations, Ms. Murcia was able to determine that no exemptions existed for Respondent's corporate officers. Ms. Murcia further conducted a proof of coverage search via Petitioner's Coverage and Compliance Automated System ("CCAS"), which is a database that contains all insurance coverage and exemptions for each employer throughout the State of Florida. The search revealed that Respondent possessed appropriate coverage from November 29, 2012, to the present; however, no prior coverage was indicated. Ms. Murcia conducted a penalty assessment for the non- compliance period of November 29, 2009, through November 28, 2012. From the records submitted by Respondent, Ms. Murcia correctly identified Respondent's employees and gross wages paid during the penalty period. All of the individuals listed on the Penalty Worksheet of the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, dated August 27, 2014, were "employees" (as that term is defined in section 440.02(15)(a), Florida Statutes) of Respondent during the period of noncompliance listed on the penalty worksheet. From a description of the Respondent's business operations, Ms. Murcia determined Respondent's classification code. She explained that classification codes are established by the National Council of Compensation Insurance ("NCCI"). A classification code is a four-digit code number that is assigned to a specific group of tasks, duties, and responsibilities for a specific grouping of business. Ms. Murcia further testified that the classification codes are associated with a manual rate which is the actual dollar amount of risk associated with a particular code.3/ The manual rates are also established by NCCI. Class Code 8061, used on the penalty worksheet attached to the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and as defined by the NCCI Scopes Manual, is the correct occupational classification for Respondent. From the assigned classification code number, 8061, Ms. Murcia calculated the appropriate manual rate for the penalty period. The manual rates used on the penalty worksheet attached to the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment are the correct manual rates. The total penalty of $21,205.19 is the correct penalty for the employees listed on the penalty worksheet attached to the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, enter a final order determining that Respondent Shriji Krupa, Inc., violated the requirement in chapter 440, Florida Statutes, to secure workers' compensation coverage, and imposing a total penalty assessment of $21,205.19. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S TODD P. RESAVAGE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of October, 2014.
The Issue Whether despondent had violated Section 479.07(1), Florida Statutes, in that no permits were secured for subject sign for the years 1969-1975.
Findings Of Fact No permits were applied for or secured.
The Issue The issues to be determined in this case are whether Respondent should pay the administrative penalty, investigative costs, and attorney's fees, and undertake the corrective actions that are demanded by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection ("Department") in its Notice of Violation, Orders for Corrective Action, and Administrative Penalty Assessment (“NOV”).
Findings Of Fact The Department is the administrative agency of the state of Florida with the power and duty to protect Florida's air and water resources and to administer and enforce the provisions of chapters 376 and 403, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder in Florida Administrative Code Title 62. Joshua Putnam is a natural person who is currently incarcerated in the Columbia County Correctional Institution. Mr. Putnam has been incarcerated since February 16, 2012, for the theft of diesel fuel. On or about January 20, 2012, Mr. Putnam discharged 25 to 50 gallons of diesel fuel onto the ground in the backyard of a residence located at 433 Lena Street, St. Augustine, Florida (“the property”). The discharge resulted in “contamination,” as defined in rule 62-780.200(9). Mr. Putnam has not initiated a site assessment or remediated the contamination. The property is owned by Tammy Putnam. She and the Department entered into a Consent Order. The Consent Order was not filed with DOAH, but it is reasonable to assume that the Consent Order addresses assessment and remediation of the contamination on her property. The Department states that it provided Mr. Putnam an opportunity to demonstrate that he is financially unable to assess and remediate the contamination, but the Department did not receive all the documentation it requested from Mr. Putnam. Mr. Putnam has not been employed for six or seven years and is currently unable to pay to clean up the contamination or to pay the administrative penalties. Mr. Putnam admitted liability and expressed his intent to remedy the situation as soon as he is released from prison. His current release date is May 5, 2015. While investigating this matter, the Department incurred $1,000 in costs.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in Administrative Complaint, as amended? If so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been since April 30, 1982, certified by the Commission as a law enforcement officer. He holds certificate number 08-82-002- 01. Respondent is now, and has been since early 1982, employed by the Florida Highway Patrol (hereinafter referred to as the "FHP"). He currently holds the rank of sergeant, a rank he has held since 1986, with the exception of a brief period of time in 1990 when he served as a lieutenant. As a sergeant, Respondent is responsible, on a regular basis, for the direct supervision of eight troopers. There are occasions, however, when as many as 40 troopers are under his supervision. During the time that he has been with the FHP, Respondent has received numerous commendations and his overall work performance has been rated as either satisfactory or above. Only twice during the period of his employment has he been disciplined- - in 1983, for the negligent operation of his FHP vehicle, for which he received a written reprimand, and, more recently, for the incidents which gave rise to the issuance of the instant Amended Administrative Complaint. These incidents all occurred during the time Respondent held the rank of lieutenant. Respondent was promoted to the rank of lieutenant and assigned to the investigative section of the FHP's Troop "E" in Miami on or about February 1, 1990. His duties included working out of uniform (in civilian clothes) investigating driver's license fraud. Among the other investigative lieutenants assigned to Troop "E" with whom Respondent worked were Lieutenants Jimmy Hobbie, Paul Sharpe and Kenneth Glass. Respondent shared an office with Lieutenant Hobbie. They each had their own desk. Lieutenants Sharpe and Glass occupied other nearby offices. Respondent enjoyed a congenial, professional relationship with his fellow investigative lieutenants. At no time did he ever have an exchange of angry or threatening words with them. On at least three separate occasions between February 19, 1990 and April 15, 1990, while in his office and in the presence of Lieutenants Hobbie and Sharpe, with whom, at the time, he was engaged in casual, light conversation injected with attempts at humor, Respondent removed his .38 caliber FHP-issued service revolver from his holster, placed it near the side of his head, pulled the hammer partially back, and, without firing any shots, returned the revolver to his holster. On none of these occasions did Respondent intend to harm or threaten anyone. He was simply trying to be funny. Neither Hobbie nor Sharpe, however, were amused by Respondent's careless and potentially dangerous display of his firearm. 1/ To the contrary, they were troubled by Respondent's actions, but they did not express their concerns to Respondent. On March 30, 1990, Respondent displayed a firearm in arresting an individual named Mark Barken for driver's license fraud. Prior to locating and arresting Barken, Respondent had been told by Barken's brother that Barken was a heroin addict and that Barken had recently threatened the brother with a shotgun and told the brother that he was going to kill him and his wife. Based upon the information he had been provided by the brother, Respondent considered Barken to be an unstable, dangerous and violent individual. Therefore, when he received a tip that Barken was at a drug treatment and rehabilitation facility in Perrine, he asked Lieutenant Hobbie to accompany him to the facility to assist in arresting Barken. Hobbie agreed to provide such backup support. Respondent and Lieutenant Hobbie drove to Perrine and waited together outside the facility for Barken to leave. After a while, Respondent left the surveillance area for brief moment. When he returned, Hobbie advised him that Barken, or at least someone who looked like Barken, had just left the facility. Respondent thereupon got into his FHP vehicle and drove off in the direction Hobbie had told him Barken was headed. Hobbie remained behind in the surveillance area. Shortly thereafter Respondent spotted Barken, who was with a companion. As Respondent approached the two, they ran across the street into a parking lot. Respondent followed them. As he pulled into the lot, he identified himself as a law enforcement officer 2/ and ordered Barken and his companion to stop, turn around and face him with their hands up. The pair stopped, but they did not comply with Respondent's other directives, even after these directives had been given several times. Believing that it would be prudent to do so, Respondent took a shotgun with him as he exited the vehicle and initially held it in a port-arms position in an effort to gain control of the situation. Ultimately, Respondent did gain control of the situation. When Lieutenant Hobbie arrived on the scene, Barken and his companion were laying face down on the pavement and Respondent was pointing a shotgun in their direction. 3/ Following Hobbie's arrival, Respondent placed the shotgun back in his vehicle and Barken and his companion were taken into custody. On or sometime between April 16, 1990, and April 20, 1990, while seated at his desk in the office he shared with Lieutenant Hobbie, Respondent jokingly pointed his revolver out the open doorway of the office and in the direction of a reception area. As he did so, he commented to Hobbie, who was in the office with him, "Wonder what he would do if he would, you know, look up and see me pointing this gun at him." From where he was situated, Hobbie was unable to see the person to whom Respondent was referring. After making this comment, Respondent put the gun back in his holster. At around lunchtime, on or sometime between April 16, 1990, and April 20, 1990, Respondent walked into Lieutenant Sharpe's office and the two began to engage in a friendly conversation. Their discussion centered upon their plans for lunch. During the conversation, Respondent was standing immediately in front of the desk at which Sharpe was seated. At some point in their discussion, Respondent decided that he needed to tuck his shirt in his pants. Before loosening his pants, he unholstered his service revolver and laid the revolver on Sharpe's desk. As Respondent placed the revolver on the desk, he carelessly pointed the barrel of the gun in Sharpe's direction and pulled the hammer partially back. Sharpe reacted by quickly changing his position to avoid being in the line of fire in the event the revolver discharged. Respondent saw Sharpe's reaction. He immediately removed the revolver from the desk and placed it back in his holster without bothering to tuck in his shirt. Although concerned about this incident, Lieutenant Sharpe did not discuss his concerns with Respondent; 4/ however, he did report the incident shortly after it had occurred to Randy Snow, who was his, as well as Respondent's, immediate supervisor. 5/ On April 25, 1990, Respondent and Lieutenants Hobbie, Sharpe and Glass were standing in close proximity to one another in the secretarial area of Troop "E" headquarters and engaged in informal and friendly conversation when Respondent, in response to a remark make by Hobbie and in an effort to be humorous, removed his service revolver from his holster, pointed it at Hobbie's head and pulled the hammer partially back. Hobbie turned his head to the side and ducked. Glass threw his hands up and exclaimed, "That's loaded," in response to which Respondent stated, "I know it is." Respondent then put the revolver back in his holster. At the time of this April 25, 1990, incident, an internal investigation of Respondent's conduct was already underway. During the course of the investigation, Respondent, who had not yet completed his probationary period as a lieutenant, was returned to the rank of sergeant and placed on "administrative duty." Following the conclusion of the investigation, Respondent was dismissed by the FHP on the ground that he was unfit for duty. The FHP subsequently determined that it did not have just cause to dismiss Respondent for fitness deficiencies. Accordingly, pursuant to a settlement agreement with Respondent, it rescinded Respondent's dismissal and instead suspended Respondent for ten days without pay for the improper display of a weapon. In accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement, Respondent successfully participated in the FHP's Employee Assistance Program. He also took a firearms retraining course, which he also successfully completed. Since Respondent's return to work, his overall work performance has been rated as exceeding performance standards and he has received a letter of commendation from his supervisor. There have not been any reoccurrences of the improper conduct for which he was suspended. Apparently, he has mended his ways. He is today considered to be an effective, hard working and honest law enforcement officer who is an asset to the FHP.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order (1) finding Respondent guilty of having failed to maintain "good moral character," in violation of Section 943.1395, Florida Statutes, by virtue of his having engaged in the conduct described in Findings of Fact 10, 18, 19 and 21 of this Recommended Order, and (2) issuing him a written reprimand and placing him on probation for a period of two years, during which time he shall be required to undergo firearms training and meet any other terms and conditions deemed appropriate by the Commission. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 27th day of April, 1993. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of April, 1993.
The Issue Whether Respondent had violated section 479.07(1), Florida Statutes, in that no permits were secured for subject sign for the years 1973-1975.
Findings Of Fact 13. The factual allegations contained in the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment issued on December 15, 2009, the Amended Stop-Work Order issued on January 5, 2010, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on January 8, 2010, the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on March 11, 2010, and the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on March 31, 2010, attached as “Exhibit A”, “Exhibit C”, “Exhibit D“, “Exhibit E”, and “Exhibit F”, respectively, and fully incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted as the Department’s Findings of Fact in this case.
Conclusions THIS PROCEEDING came on for final agency action and Alex Sink, Chief Financial Officer of the State of Florida, or her designee, having considered the record in this case, including the request for administrative hearing received from KALT CONSTRUCTION, INC., the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment, the Amended Stop-Work Order, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby finds that: 1. On December 15, 2009, the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (hereinafter “Department”) issued a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 09-507-D3 to KALT CONSTRUCTION, INC. The Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein KALT CONSTRUCTION, INC. was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Stop-Work Order and "Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, and must conform to Rule 28-106.2015, Florida Administrative Code. 2. On December 15, 2009, the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment was personally served on KALT CONSTRUCTION, INC. A copy of the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit A” and incorporated herein by reference. 3. On December 31, 2009, KALT CONSTRUCTION, INC. filed a petition for administrative review (“Petition”) with the Department which was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned DOAH Case No. 10-0353. A copy of the Petition is attached hereto as “Exhibit B”. 4. On January 5, 2010, the Department issued an Amended Stop-Work Order to KALT CONSTRUCTION, INC. 5. On January 9, 2010, the Amended Stop-Work Order was served by certified mail on KALT CONSTRUCTION, INC. A copy of the Amended Stop-Work Order is attached hereto as “Exhibit C” and incorporated herein by reference. 6. On January 8, 2010, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to KALT CONSTRUCTION, INC. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $173,448.64 against KALT CONSTRUCTION, INC. 7. On January 25, 2010, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings. A copy of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit D” and incorporated herein by reference. 8. On March 11, 2010, the Department issued a 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to KALT CONSTRUCTION, INC. The 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $70,939.06 against KALT CONSTRUCTION, INC. 9. On March 18, 2010, the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings. A copy of the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit E” and incorporated herein by reference. 10. On March 31, 2010, the Department issued a 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to KALT CONSTRUCTION, INC. The 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $66,864.41 against KALT CONSTRUCTION, INC. 11. On April 5, 2010, the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings. A copy of the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit F” and incorporated herein by reference. 12. On April 12, 2010, counsel for KALT CONSTRUCTION, INC. filed a Voluntary Dismissal of KALT CONSTRUCTION, INC.’s Petition with the Division of Administrative Hearings. As a result, Administrative Law Judge Carolyn S. Holifield entered an Order Closing File, relinquishing jurisdiction of this matter to the Department. A copy of the Order Closing File is attached hereto as “Exhibit G”.
