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 No permits were applied for or secured.
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”.
The Issue Whether despondent had violated Section 479.07(1), Florida Statutes, in that no permits were secured for subject sign for the years 1972-1975.
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.
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 The issues are whether, under section 440.107, Florida Statutes, Petitioner may calculate a penalty assessment for a failure to secure the payment of workers' compensation for one day as though the failure persisted over two years and whether Petitioner may calculate a penalty assessment based on double the statewide average weekly wage (AWW) when the lone uncovered employee earned $10 per hour.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was incorporated in 2008 by Ineido Soler, Sr., and his son, Ineido Soler, Jr. Since the corporation began operations, the wife of Mr. Soler, Jr., Idalmis Pedrero, has served as the office manager of this family-owned company. At all material times, Respondent has contracted with a personnel leasing company to handle employee matters, such as securing the payment of workers' compensation. Ms. Pedrero's responsibilities include informing the employee leasing company of new hires, so the company can obtain workers' compensation coverage, which typically starts the day following notification. On the afternoon of November 22, 2015, Mr. Soler, Jr., telephoned his wife and told her that he and his father had hired, at the rate of $10 per hour, a new employee, Geony Borrego Lee, who would start work the following morning. Customarily, Ms. Pedrero would immediately inform the employee leasing company. However, Ms. Pedrero was working at home because, six days earlier, she had delivered a baby by caesarian section, and she was still recuperating and tending to her newborn. A fatigued Ms. Pedrero did not notify the employee leasing company that day of the new hire. Late the next morning, Ms. Pedrero was awakened by a call from her husband, who asked her if she had faxed the necessary information to the employee leasing company. Ms. Pedrero admitted that she had not done so, but would do so right away. She faxed the information immediately, so that the employee leasing company could add Mr. Lee to the workers' compensation policy, effective the next day, November 24. Uncovered for November 23, Mr. Lee joined three other employees of Respondent and performed roofing work at a worksite. Late in the afternoon of November 23, one of Petitioner's investigators conducted a random inspection of Respondent's worksite and determined that Respondent had secured the payment of workers' compensation for the three other employees, but not for Mr. Lee. The investigator issued an SWO on the day of the inspection, November 23. The SWO contains three parts. First, the SWO orders Respondent to cease work anywhere in the state of Florida. Second, the SWO includes an Order of Penalty Assessment, which does not contain a specific penalty, but instead sets forth the formula by which Petitioner determines the amount of the penalty to assess. Tracking the statute discussed below, the formula included in the SWO is two times the premium that the employer would have paid when applying approved manual rates to the employer's payroll "during periods for which it has failed to secure the payment of compensation within the preceding 2-year period." Third, the SWO includes a Notice of Rights, which advises Respondent that it may request a chapter 120 hearing. On November 24, Petitioner released the SWO after Respondent had secured the payment of workers' compensation for Mr. Lee. On November 25, the investigator hand delivered to Respondent a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation (Request). The Request covers November 24, 2013, through November 23, 2015, and demands records in eight categories: identification of employer, occupational licenses, payroll documents, account documents, disbursements, contracts for work, identification of subcontractors, and documentation of subcontractors' workers' compensation coverage. The Request identifies "payroll documents" as: all documents that reflect the payroll of the employer . . . including . . . time sheets, time cards, attendance records, earning records, check stubs and payroll summaries for both individual employees and aggregate records; [and] federal income tax documents and other documents reflecting the . . . remuneration paid or payable to each employee . . . . The Request adds: The employer may present for consideration in lieu of the requested records, proof of compliance with F.S. 440 by a workers' compensation policy or coverage through employee leasing for all periods of this request where such coverage existed. If the proof of compliance is verified by the Department the requested records for that time period will not be required. The Request warns: If the employer fails to provide the required business records sufficient to enable the . . . Division of Workers' Compensation to determine the employer's payroll for the period requested for the calculation of the penalty provided in section 440.107(7)(d), F.S., the imputed weekly payroll for each employee shall be the statewide average weekly wage as defined in section 440.12(2), F.S., multiplied by 2. The Department shall impute the employer's payroll at any time after ten, but before the expiration of twenty eight business days after receipt by the employer of [the Request]. (FAC 69L-6.028) . . . . On December 11, 2015, Respondent provided the following documents to Petitioner: itemized invoices, including for workers' compensation premiums, from the employee leasing company to Respondent and checks confirming payment, but the invoices and checks are from December 2011; an employee leasing agreement signed by Respondent on August 1, 2014, and signed by the employee leasing company on August 5, 2014; an employee leasing application for Mr. Lee dated November 23, 2015, showing his date of birth as November 20, 1996, his hourly pay as $10, and his hire date as November 23, 2015; and an employee census dated December 1, 2015, showing, for each employee, a date of hire and, if applicable, date of termination. Partially compliant with the Request, this production omitted any documentation of workers' compensation coverage prior to August 1, 2014, and any documentation of payroll except for Mr. Lee's rate of pay. On December 14, 2015, Respondent filed with Petitioner its request for a chapter 120 hearing. On December 30, 2016, Petitioner issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment (Amended Assessment), which proposes to assess a penalty of $63,434.48. On the same date, Petitioner transmitted the file to DOAH. Petitioner issued a Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on February 16, 2016, which is mentioned in, but not attached to, the Prehearing Stipulation that was filed on April 26, 2016, but the second amended assessment reportedly leaves the assessed penalty unchanged from the Amended Assessment. In determining the penalty assessment, Petitioner assigned class code 5551 from the National Council on Compensation Insurance because Mr. Lee was performing roofing work; determined that the entire two-year period covered in the Request was applicable; identified the AWW as $841.57 based on information provided by the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity for all employers subject to the Florida Reemployment Assistance Program Law, sections 443.01 et seq., Florida Statutes, for the four calendar quarters ending June 30, 2014; applied the appropriate manual rates for class code 5551 to $841.57, doubled, and divided the result by 100--all of which yielded a result of $31,717.24, which, doubled, results in a total penalty assessment of $63,434.48. There is no dispute that the classification code for Mr. Lee is code 5551, the AWW is $841.57, and the manual rates are 18.03 as of July 1, 2013, 18.62 as of January 1, 2014, and 17.48 as of January 1, 2015. Because Petitioner determined that Respondent had failed to provide sufficient evidence of its payroll, Petitioner calculated the penalty assessment by using the AWW of $841.57, doubled, instead of Mr. Lee's actual rate of $10 per hour. Petitioner's calculations are mathematically correct. For the 5.27 weeks of 2013, the penalty assessment is $3198.58 based on multiplying the AWW, doubled, by the manual rate of 18.03 divided by 100 multiplied by 2 and multiplied by 5.27. For the 52 weeks of 2014, the penalty assessment is $32,593.67 based on multiplying the AWW, doubled, by the manual rate of 18.62 divided by 100 multiplied by 2 and multiplied by 52. For the 46.44 weeks of 2015, the penalty assessment is $27,326.48 based on multiplying the AWW, doubled, by the manual rate of 17.48 divided by 100 multiplied by 2 and multiplied by 46.44. Adding these sums yields a total penalty assessment of $63,118.73, which approximates Petitioner's penalty assessment calculation of $63,434.48. (Mistranscription of difficult-to- read manual rates or a different rule for handling partial weeks may account for the small difference.) Respondent challenges two factors in the imputation formula: the two-year period of noncompliance for Mr. Lee instead of one day's noncompliance and the AWW, doubled, instead of Mr. Lee's $10 per hour rate of pay. Underscoring the differences between the two-year period of noncompliance and double the AWW and the actual period of noncompliance and Mr. Lee's real pay rate, at the start of the two-year period, Mr. Lee was three days past his 16th birthday and residing in Cuba, and Mr. Lee continues to earn $10 per hour as of the date of the hearing. The impact of Petitioner's use of the two-year period of noncompliance and double the AWW is significant. If the calculation were based on a single day, rather than two years, the assessed penalty would be less than the statutory minimum of $1000, which is described below, even if double the AWW were used. One day is 0.14 weeks, so the penalty assessment would be $82.38 based on multiplying the AWW, doubled, by the manual rate of 17.48 divided by 100 multiplied by 2 and multiplied by 0.14. If the calculation were based on the entire two years, rather than a single day, the assessed penalty would be about one-quarter of the proposed assessed penalty, if Mr. Lee's actual weekly rate of pay were used instead of double the AWW. Substituting $400 for twice the AWW in the calculations set forth in paragraph 15 above, the penalty would be $760.14 for 2013, $7746.92 for 2014, and $6494.17 for 2015 for a total of $15,001.23. Explaining why Petitioner treated one day of noncompliance as two years of noncompliance, one of Petitioner's witnesses referred to Mr. Lee as a "placeholder" because the real focus of the imputation formula is the employer. The same witness characterized the imputation formula as a "legal fiction," implying that the formula obviously and, in this case, dramatically departs from the much-smaller penalty that would result from calculating exactly how much premium that Respondent avoided by not covering the modestly paid Mr. Lee on his first day of work. Regardless of how Petitioner characterizes the imputation formula, the statutory mandate, as discussed below, is to determine the "periods" during which Respondent failed to secure workers' compensation insurance within the two-year period covered by the Request. The focus is necessarily on the employee found by the investigator to be uncovered and any other uncovered employees. Petitioner must calculate a penalty based on how long the employee found by the investigator on his inspection has been uncovered, determining how many other employees, if any, in the preceding two years have been uncovered, and calculating a penalty based on how long they were uncovered. There is evidence of one or two gaps in coverage during the relevant two years, but Petitioner has failed to prove such gaps by clear and convincing evidence. One of Petitioner's witnesses testified to a gap of one month "probably" from late January to late February 2015. This witness relied on Petitioner Exhibit 2, but it is completely illegible. Ms. Pedrero testified that Respondent had workers' compensation coverage since 2011, except for a gap, which she thought had occurred prior to August 2014, which is the start date of the current policy. This conflicting evidence does not establish by clear and convincing evidence any gap, and, even if a gap had been proved, no evidence establishes the number of uncovered employees, if any, during such a gap, nor would such a gap justify enlarging the period of noncompliance for Mr. Lee. Ms. Pedrero testified that her mother-in-law, Teresa Marquez cleaned the office and warehouse on an occasional basis, last having worked sometime in 2015. Respondent never secured workers' compensation coverage for Ms. Marquez, but she did no roofing work and appears to have been a casual worker, so her periods of employment during the two-year period covered by the Request would not constitute additional periods for which Respondent failed to secure workers' compensation insurance. Based on the foregoing, Petitioner has proved by clear and convincing evidence only a single day of noncompliance, November 23, concerning one employee, Mr. Lee, within the relevant two-year period for the purpose of calculating the penalty assessment. Likewise, Petitioner has proved by clear and convincing evidence a rate of pay of only $10 per hour for the purpose of calculating the penalty assessment. At no time has Respondent provided payroll records of all its employees for November 23, 2015. Respondent Exhibit E covers payroll for Respondent's employees for a two-week period commencing shortly after November 23, 2015. But the evidence establishes that Mr. Lee's rate of pay was $80 for the day, which, as discussed below, rebuts the statutory presumption of double the AWW.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order determining that Respondent has failed to secure the payment of workers' compensation for one employee for one day within the two-year period covered by the Request and imposing an administrative penalty of $1000. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of July, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 19th day of July, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Jonathan Anthony Martin, Esquire Trevor S. Suter, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 (eServed) Daniel R. Vega, Esquire Robert Paul Washington, Esquire Taylor Espino Vega & Touron, P.A. 2555 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 220 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 (eServed) Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 (eServed)
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not the Respondent failed to have in effect written procedures for the implementation of policies and procedures; failed to provide adequate training, staff, recreation areas and facilities as required pursuant to Sections 400.141 and 393.067(5), Florida Statutes, and Rule Sections 10D-38.08; 10D-38.19(2)(c) and (9), (10) and (12), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant findings of fact. Petitioner, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, seeks to impose an administrative fine in the amount of $300 based on allegations set forth more particularly in its Administrative Complaint 1/ filed October 28, 1983, alleging, inter alia, that Respondent failed to have written procedures for the implementation of policies and procedures as enumerated in Rule 10D- 38.08, Florida Administrative Code; that Respondent filed to provide adequate inservice training or professional direct care and other personnel; failed to have recreation and facilities designed and constructed as required by Rules 10D-38.10 and failed to have age-appropriate recreation equipment and supplies to meet patients' direct interests and needs in sufficient quantities and varieties to carry out objectives of its program. Based thereon, it is alleged that Respondent violated minimal standards as required by Petitioner's rules and regulations under Chapters 393 and 400, Part I, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Woodhouse, Inc., has a license to operate Woodhouse, 1001 NE Third Avenue, Pompano Beach, Florida, an intermediate care facility for the mentally retarded. Woodhouse was newly established during approximately April of 1983. On May 17 through 18, 1993, Petitioner conducted a survey of the facility by personnel from its Miami Office of Licensure and Certification. Results of that survey revealed that Respondent did not have into effect written procedures for the implementation of its policies and procedures. These policies dealt with items such as health, hygiene, grooming, equippage and an absence of needed staff including a recreational therapist and a qualified mental retardation employee on its staff. On June 29, 1983, Petitioner conducted a re-survey by members of the initial team who surveyed Respondent's facility during May of 1983 and, at that time, most of the items cited as violations had been corrected. The areas needing improvement related to the specifics as to how the policies and procedures were to be implemented by Respondent. The other area cited as still being in noncompliance was the absence of a trained recreational therapist and a qualified mental retardation employee on Woodhouse's staff. Marcia Trivigno is the Executive Director in charge of the overall administration of Woodhouse. Ms. Trivigno is the person in charge of and who authored the Respondent's Procedures Manual and of making the ultimate decisions respecting the hiring of staff for Woodhouse. Ms. Trivigno compiled and authored the Respondent's manual by reviewing the Policies and Procedures Manual of two other area facilities and based on recommendations from Petitioner's staff. Following the Petitioner's initial survey during May of 1983, Ms. Trivigno made a good faith effort to correct all areas cited as deficiencies during the initial survey. Initially, Ms. Trivigno experienced difficulty securing a trained recreational therapist. She temporarily used a part-time recreational therapist who left the Respondent's staff to work full-time in another position. Ms. Trivigno was successful in hiring a recreational therapist on June 24, 1983, approximately five days prior to Petitioner's re-survey. Respondent's staff sought the advice and consent of Petitioner's survey team members and implemented, to the extent possible, the deficiencies cited as relates tot he Policies and Procedures Manual. (Testimony of Marcia Trivigno and Angela Catarino.) It is not unusual for a newly established intermediate care facility to be cited for multiple violations during an initial survey by Petitioner's staff. During the initial survey, members of Petitioner's staff advise a client as to problem areas and offer ways to correct or otherwise remedy problem areas. In those instances, the usual procedure is for a plan of correction to be implemented by members of the facility and the survey teams. (Testimony of Laverne Dixon, Petitioner's staff person in charge of the surveys conducted at Respondent's facility of 1983.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby recommended that the Administrative Complaint filed herein be DISMISSED. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 30th day of May 1984 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of May 1984.
