The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent failed to abide by the coverage requirements of the Florida Workers' Compensation Law embodied in Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by not obtaining a workers' compensation insurance policy and whether the Petitioner properly assessed a penalty against the Respondent pursuant to Section 440.107, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Investigator Pangrass conducted a random inspection of a construction site at 9 Pecan Drive Pass, Ocala, Florida, on December 18, 2002. On that occasion he observed several people working, hanging drywall. Investigator Pangrass spoke to one of the workers, Daniel Maloney, and asked him, to identify his employer. Daniel Maloney identified the Respondent as his employer. When Maloney identified him the Respondent was only 10 feet away and the noise level at the site was such that the Respondent could hear himself being identified as the employer. The Respondent did not then deny that he was Daniel Maloney's employer. Daniel Maloney stated he had worked for the Respondent full-time for two months and was paid by the hour. The Respondent told Mr. Pangrass he was unable to complete the work at the job without additional labor. Mr. Maloney assisted the Respondent by "hanging the ceiling." The Respondent offered a hearsay statement of Mr. Maloney, wherein he stated, "I am the employee." The Respondent confirmed that he had a prior employment relationship with Daniel Maloney and that Daniel Maloney wanted to work with the Respondent. Another worker observed by Mr. Pangrass, Desmond Neil, told Investigator Pangrass that he worked for the Respondent part-time and was paid by the hour. The Respondent had used the services of Desmond Neil on prior occasions and stated "we do a job for Holiday the day before." The Respondent told Mr. Pangrass that he was trying to get workers' compensation for Desmond Neil. The Respondent made a statement against his own interest and said he "re-hired" Desmond Neil because Neil could not get a workers' compensation exemption. The Respondent's use of the word "re-hired" is significant because in a prior compliance matter the Respondent had employed Desmond Neil and agreed to terminate Desmond Neil's employment. The Respondent in testimony, changed his version of the facts and said that he re-hired Desmond Neil, but that Neil worked for Charles Brandon. Investigator Pangrass interviewed the Respondent. During this interview the Respondent stated he had labor expenses connected with his business. He testified he was paid by Holiday Builders and then in turn paid Desmond Neil and Daniel Maloney. Charles Brandon did not employ or was not the sole employer of Desmond Neil or Daniel Maloney on December 18, 2002. Investigator Pangrass contacted Mr. Brandon, who stated he knew the Respondent was going to hire helpers. Mr. Brandon was not at the job-site to direct Desmond Neil or Daniel Maloney and could only be reached by phone. The Petitioner's evidence that the Respondent was the employer of Desmond Neil and Daniel Maloney on December 18, 2002, instead of Mr. Brandon or some other person or entity, is the most persuasive and is accepted. The Respondent offered conflicting evidence regarding who provided money to Desmond Neil and Daniel Maloney. The Respondent offered a hearsay statement of Daniel Maloney that Holiday Builders was Daniel Maloney's employer. The Respondent said that when Holiday Builders pays him (the Respondent) he then pays his employees. The Respondent changed his testimony, however, and then said Charles Brandon gave him checks to give to the employees. (Implying that they were Brandon's employees in this version of his story.) The Respondent submitted a signed statement to the Petitioner indicating that he had no employees between 1999 and 2002, in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 10-B. The Respondent recognized the signature on that statement as being his own, but professed not to remember who wrote it or what it said. The Respondent, however, did admit to having at least one employee in 2001, directly contradicting his own statement. The Respondent also testified that the only times he used Desmond Neil's services were the two times Investigator Pangrass stopped by the Respondent's job sites. It is a trifle too coincidental that the only two times the investigator visited the job sites were the only times when the Respondent purportedly used the services of Desmond Neil. This is especially the case since Desmond Neil's testimony and even that of the Respondent himself tend to contradict that statement. Finally, the Respondent admitted that he did not have a workers' compensation policy for any employees. In summary, the evidence adduced by the Petitioner is deemed more consistent and credible and is accepted. It was thus demonstrated that the Respondent had one or more employees at the times pertinent hereto.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation directing that the Respondent stop work and cease his operations until such time as he secures workers' compensation coverage for employees and directing that the Respondent pay a penalty in the amount of $1,100.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of December, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of December, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: John M. Iriye, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Workers' Compensation 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 Berisford Champagnie 15508 Southwest 34th Avenue Ocala, Florida 34473 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issue is whether the Department's Stop-Work Order and Amended Order of Penalty Assessment were lawful.
Findings Of Fact The Division is a component of the Department of Financial Services. The Department is a state agency charged with the administration of portions of the "Workers' Compensation Law." Among the Division's duties is enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage for the benefit of their employees and corporate officers who are required to be covered. Scotts is a corporation engaged in the business of installing siding on buildings. Scotts is engaged in construction as that term is used in Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. Scotts' headquarters is located at 4130 Bayfront Terrace, Pace, Florida. Angelia Brown has worked for the Department since June 2007. She is a workers' compensation compliance investigator, and on August 23, 2007, she was doing random checks on Pensacola Beach, Florida. In the course of her work, and while accompanied by Investigator Vanessa Hernandez, Ms. Brown came upon 801 Ariola Drive, Pensacola Beach, Florida. There the two investigators observed an individual on the ground floor of a home and another on a ladder on the exterior of the home. These two men were working on the house. Ms. Brown also observed a white van parked by the home that had painted on it the words, "Scotts Exterior, Inc." Ms. Brown exited her vehicle and approached the man using the circular saw and identified herself. The individual identified himself as Timothy Willard, an employee of Scotts. Ms. Brown asked Mr. Willard for contact information, including his social security number. He provided the requested information and stated that he had a workers' compensation exemption form and that it was in the white van. At this time, the man who had been on the ladder descended and stated that he was Scott Henderson and that he was the owner of Scotts. He provided contact information, including his social security number. Using the information provided by the two men, Investigator Hernandez searched the Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS), an online database maintained by the Department. The investigators observed that the CCAS revealed that Mr. Henderson had a current exemption and that Mr. Willard's exemption had expired September 8, 2006. One is eligible for an exemption if one owns at least ten percent of the stock of the corporation for which one is working and is an officer of the corporation. If such a person correctly completes the appropriate form, and pays the required fee, the Department will declare that person exempt from the requirement to obtain workers' compensation insurance. Subsequent to relaying the information she received on the job site to her supervisor, and after obtaining his approval, Ms. Brown issued an SWO, dated August 23, 2007, to Scotts. She served it on Mr. Henderson. She also served a "Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation" (Request for Production), which was provided to Scotts on the same day. Scotts responded to the Request for Production with their ledgers and other business records for the three years prior to August 23, 2007. These documents indicated that Scotts paid Mr. Willard as an employee from at least, September 8, 2006, until August 23, 2007. Ms. Brown used these figures to determine the penalty that should be assessed for Mr. Willard's noncompliance. In 2006, the penalty was $5,644.94 and for 2007, it was $12,936.86. The parties stipulated that these figures were correct, and if owed, would amount to $18,581.80 in the aggregate. On August 24, 2007, Mr. Henderson and Mr. Willard entered into a Penalty Payment Agreement, whereby Scotts agreed to pay ten percent of the penalty, provide proof of compliance, and make periodic payments for 60 months. After Mr. Willard correctly completed a Notice of Election to be Exempt, the Department agreed to allow them to work. The Department did not require the payment of another $50 fee. Mr. Willard's previously obtained exemption expired on September 8, 2006, and subsequent to that date he worked for Scotts without an exemption and without making any effort to obtain one until December 5, 2006. On December 7, 2006, he filed a Notice of Election to be Exempt in the Bureau of Compliance Office in Pensacola that was notarized on December 5, 2006. The Pensacola Office of the Bureau of Compliance is authorized to receive such notices. Mr. Willard paid the $50 fee, and the Department eventually negotiated the money order he submitted with the form. The application of Mr. Willard failed to note the scope of business or trade, the Federal Employer Identification Number was incorrect, and the fraud notice was not signed. The failure to accomplish the foregoing rendered the application unacceptable. The Department informed Scotts by mail that the form was incomplete. This information was accompanied by the incomplete application he submitted. Mr. Henderson provided the letter informing Mr. Willard that his application was incomplete and returned the application to Mr. Willard. Although Mr. Willard testified that he received this material, completed it, and returned it to the Department via the U. S. Postal Service, there is no record that the Department received it. There is no evidence in the record that Mr. Willard, or anyone on behalf of Scotts, thereafter inquired as to the status of the exemption request. On more than one occasion Mr. Willard had previously applied for exemption, was determined to be exempt, and received a card reflecting exemption from the Department. Mr. Willard testified that he understood that it was his responsibility to know when his exemptions expired. It was not the fault of the Department that Mr. Willard failed to obtain an exemption. It was Scotts' or Mr. Willard's failure. It is a fact that Mr. Willard was eligible for an exemption from September 9, 2006, until he actually obtained one on August 24, 2007. If officially exempt, he was responsible for his own medical expenses should he suffer an injury while on the job. If he failed to get an exemption, he was likewise responsible for his own expenses should he suffer an injury while on the job. This situation is very different from that where an employer fails to obtain coverage for workers not having an ownership interest in the employer.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order requiring Scotts Exteriors, Inc., to pay a penalty of $18,581.80. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of February, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER 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 7th day of February, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Kristian E. Dunn, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Workers' Compensation 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 Michael James Rudicell, Esquire Michael J. Rudicell, P.A. 4303 B Spanish Trail Road Pensacola, Florida 32504 Daniel Sumner, General Counsel Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 Honorable Alex Sink Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is liable for a penalty of $286,400.01 for the alleged failure to maintain workers’ compensation insurance for its employees in violation of Subsection 440.107(7)(d), Florida Statutes (2008).1
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure the payment of workers’ compensation for the benefit of their employees in accordance with the requirements of Section 440.107. Respondent is a Florida corporation engaged in the construction business. On May 19, 2009, Petitioner's investigator inspected one of Respondent's job sites located at 6665 Mirabella Lane, Naples, Florida. The purpose of the inspection was to determine whether Respondent was in compliance with workers' compensation requirements. The investigator observed workers laying concrete block in a residential development under construction. The investigator interviewed the workers and learned the identity of the individual owner of Respondent. The investigator determined through the Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) that Respondent had secured workers' compensation coverage. However, Respondent maintained minimum coverage identified in the record as an "if any" policy. An "if any" policy imposes a premium based on zero employees and zero payroll and requires Respondent to notify the insurer of any new employees within three days of being hired. Respondent had reported no workers to his workers' compensation carrier, but had reported 54 employees for purposes of unemployment compensation taxes.2 None of the individuals reported for unemployment compensation taxes had secured workers' compensation coverage for themselves. Respondent is liable for workers' compensation for the 54 workers described in the preceding paragraph, which the trier of fact finds are employees of Respondent. None of the workers has an exemption from workers' compensation coverage. Petitioner correctly calculated the amount owed by Respondent, which is $286,400.01.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order imposing a penalty assessment in the amount of $286,400.01. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of July, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 13th day of July, 2010.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Simpro Homes, Inc., conducted business operations in the State of Florida without obtaining workers’ compensation coverage meeting the requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and, if so, whether the penalty in the amount of $326,861.58, was properly assessed by Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, pursuant to Section 440.107, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 69L.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure the payment of workers' compensation for the benefit of their employees. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. Insurers are required by law to report all workers’ compensation policies to Petitioner. Respondent is a corporation domiciled in Georgia. Respondent is engaged in the business of framing, which is a construction activity, pursuant to Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6. On August 10, 2005, Petitioner's investigator, Allen DiMaria, visited 4307 Edgewater Drive, Jacksonville, Florida, on a random site visit, and interviewed a number of workers at the work site. Mr. DiMaria documented his investigation in the narrative of his Initial Investigative Report. Based upon these field interviews, Petitioner determined that the workers were employed by Respondent. Mr. DiMaria asked the superintendent on site whether Respondent had provided him with a certificate of liability insurance indicating workers’ compensation coverage, and was informed that Respondent had provided one. Mr. DiMaria was subsequently provided with the Certificate of Insurance by the general contractor on the work site. Mr. DiMaria also obtained a copy of Respondent’s workers’ compensation insurance policy which had a policy period of October 30, 2004, to October 30, 2005. The policy and the information contained in the Certificate of Insurance were consistent. Subsequent to the site visit, Mr. DiMaria continued the investigation of Respondent utilizing the Department’s Compliance and Coverage Automated System (“CCAS”) database that contains information on all workers' compensation insurance policy information from the carrier to an insured, and determined that Respondent did not have a State of Florida workers' compensation insurance policy. Petitioner, which maintains a database of all workers’ compensation exemptions in the State of Florida, also did not find any current, valid exemptions for Respondent. The St. Paul Travelers insurance policy held by Respondent at the time of Petitioner's site visit on August 10, 2005, did not contain an endorsement which utilizes Florida class codes, rates, rules, and manuals that comply with Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and the Florida Insurance Code, satisfy the standard. Specifically, the insurance policy did not have Florida listed as a covered state under Section 3A. There is also no evidence that Respondent secured Section 3C coverage for Florida. The premium was based on a rate that was not the Florida premium rate and on a class code that was not indicative of the actual work being performed by Respondent. The policy shows that Respondent was insured for operations under National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) class code 5645 at a premium utilizing Georgia premium rates. Class code 5645 refers to framing of one- or two- family homes. Mr. DiMaria utilized class code 5651 in his review of Respondent because Respondent was framing a dwelling that consisted of more than a two-family dwelling, pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.021(1). On August 11, 2006, after consulting with his supervisor, Mr. DiMaria issued and served on Respondent a stop- work order and order of penalty assessment for failure to comply with the requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and more specifically on the grounds that Respondent did not secure the payment of workers’ compensation based on Florida class codes, rates, rules, and manuals. Employers on job sites in Florida are required to keep business records that enable Respondent to determine whether the employer is in compliance with the workers' compensation law. Mr. DiMaria issued a request for production of business records to Respondent on August 11, 2006. The request asked the employer to produce, for the preceding three years, documents that reflected payroll and proof of insurance. Respondent produced check stubs for a number of employees who were not on the investigated work site, and an affidavit that stated the employees on the work site were performing framing work for Respondent. Respondent failed to produce the requested records for the employees working in Florida. Hans Prosser, Respondent's president, testified that he had provided the records to his attorney who was charged with reviewing the records and turning them over to Petitioner. Apparently, the attorney never delivered the records to Petitioner. Once Respondent failed to provide the requested information, Petitioner imputed the payroll of the employees and calculated a penalty for the time period of August 11, 2002, through August 11, 2005. Mr. DiMaria assigned a class code to the type of work performed by Respondent utilizing the SCOPES Manual, multiplied the class code’s assigned approved manual rate by the imputed payroll per one hundred dollars, and then multiplied that by 1.5. The payroll was imputed back to October 1, 2003. Pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.028(4), for the period prior to October 1, 2003, Petitioner assessed a penalty of $100 per day for each calendar day of noncompliance. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment ("Amended Order") which assessed a penalty of $327,969.47, was served on Respondent on September 1, 2005. The Department issued and served a second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment (“Second Amended Order”) with an assessed penalty of $326,861.58, via a Motion to Amend Order of Penalty Assessment to Respondent on January 6, 2006. The reduction was the result of an error in the calculation of the penalty in the Amended Order. The motion was granted by this Administrative Law Judge on March 20, 2006. Respondent contends that it had been dissolved as a corporation on February 24, 2001, and was reinstated as a corporation on January 23, 2003, and thus should not be penalized for any time prior to that date. In support of this contention, Respondent offered into evidence a certified copy of a document entitled "Certificate of Reinstatement," demonstrating that Respondent had been administratively dissolved on February 24, 2001, "for failure to comply with the requirements of Title 14 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated." The document further explains that all taxes have been paid and that Respondent "may resume its business as if the administrative dissolution had never occurred." This document was not presented to counsel for Petitioner prior to the final hearing as required by the Order of Pre-hearing Instructions issued in this matter.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Assessment Order assessing a penalty of $326,861.58. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of August, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 4th day of August, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Colin M. Roopnarine, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Workers' Compensation 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 Hans Prosser Simpro Homes, Inc. 5055 Old Winder Highway Braselton, Georgia Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Carlos G. Muñiz, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, correctly assessed and collected an assessment of penalty against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact On March 25, 2008, the Agency's investigator, Torry McClellan, conducted a compliance check at 6472 Tracy Lane, Tallahassee, Florida, to verify compliance with the workers' compensation statutes. At the worksite, Mr. McClellan observed three men carrying out carpentry work. Mr. McClellan interviewed John Harrell and Bradley Sheffield, II, and requested proof of workers' compensation coverage. John Harrell did not have proof of a current valid election to be exempt from workers' compensation. The Agency's Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) lists active workers' compensation policies and exemptions throughout Florida. Utilizing CCAS, Mr. McClellan was unable to locate a current valid election to be exempt from the requirement of securing the payment of workers' compensation for John Harrell. John Harrell's previous exemption had expired in 2003. Mr. McClellan was also unable to locate proof of either John Harrell or Respondent LLC securing the payment of workers' compensation through the purchase of an insurance policy or by any other means. Mr. McClellan testified that John Harrell admitted, and Horace Bradley Sheffield, Sr., confirmed, to Mr. McClellan that John Harrell was a subcontractor of Respondent Horace Bradley Sheffield Builders LLC, on March 25, 2008. Mr. Sheffield Sr.'s statement is accepted in evidence as an admission by Respondent LLC via its corporate principal and agent. Mr. Harrell's alleged statement is not even supplemental hearsay, pursuant to Section 120.57 (1) (c), Florida Statutes. On March 25, 2008, Mr. McClellan issued and served a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment on Respondent through Horace Bradley Sheffield, Jr., for failure of Respondent to meet the requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and the Florida Insurance Code. Thereby, the LLC was ordered to cease all business operations, and a $1,000.00 penalty was assessed against the LLC, pursuant to Section 440.107(7)(d)1., Florida Statutes. On March 25, 2008, Mr. McClellan also issued and served on Respondent a Division of Workers' Compensation Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation. Respondent complied with the Department's request and submitted the required records. Utilizing the SCOPES Manual, published by the National Council of Compensation Insurance and adopted by Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.021 as guidance, Mr. McClellan determined that carpentry is within the construction industry and assigned Occupation Code 5651 to Respondent's activities. Based on Respondent's business records, Mr. McClellan issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and served it on Respondent LLC through Horace Bradley Sheffield, Sr., on April 11, 2008, in the amount of $1,000.00, which is an amount greater than the calculated amount due per Respondent LLC's payroll. One thousand dollars is the statutory minimum. At some point, Respondent paid the $1,000.00, in order to get the Stop-Work Order lifted but did not withdraw the request for hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Financial Services that affirms, approves, and adopts the Stop-Work Order and Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment at $1,000.00, and which permits the Agency's retention of the $1,000.00 penalty. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of August, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 28th day of August, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas Dolan, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Horace Sheffield Horace B. Sheffield Builders, LLC 4564 Ambervalley Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32312 Honorable Alex Sink Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Daniel Sumner, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307
The Issue Whether Respondent, Gulf Coast Site Prep, Inc., failed to comply with the coverage requirements of the Workers’ Compensation Law, chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by not obtaining workers’ compensation insurance for its employees, and, if so, what penalty should be assessed against Respondent pursuant to section 440.107, Florida Statutes (2014).1/
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement of the Workers’ Compensation Law that employers secure the payment of workers’ compensation coverage for their employees and corporate officers. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. Respondent, Gulf Coast Site Prep., Inc., is a Florida for-profit corporation organized on March 3, 2008. Respondent’s registered business address is 952 TR Miller Road, Defuniak Springs, Florida. Ashley Adams is Respondent’s President and Registered Agent. On March 27, 2015, the Department’s investigator-in- training, Jill Scogland, and lead investigator, Sharon Kelson, conducted a random workers’ compensation compliance check at Lot 34 in the Driftwood Estates residential subdivision in Santa Rosa Beach, Florida. Ms. Scogland observed two men on site. David Wayne Gibson was operating a front-end loader spreading dirt on site. Colby Smith was shoveling dirt on site. While Ms. Scogland was inspecting the site, a third man, Ashley Adams, arrived driving a dump truck with a load of dirt. Mr. Adams identified himself as the owner of Gulf Coast, and stated that he had an exemption from the requirement for workers’ compensation insurance and that he thought Mr. Gibson did as well. Mr. Adams advised Ms. Scogland that he hired both Mr. Gibson and Mr. Smith to work at the site.2/ At hearing, Respondent challenged the evidence supporting a finding that Respondent hired Mr. Gibson.3/ Specifically, Respondent argues that Ms. Scogland’s testimony that Mr. Adams told her he hired Mr. Gibson is unreliable because Ms. Scogland did not include that information in her field notes. Respondent claims that Ms. Scogland’s status as investigator-in-training on the date of the inspection is indicative of her unreliability. To the contrary, Ms. Scogland’s testimony regarding both the persons and events on the date of the inspection was clear and unequivocal. While Ms. Scogland admitted her field notes were not as detailed on the date in question as they are for more recent inspections, she was confident that her investigation of the facts was thorough. The fact that Ms. Scogland did not write down what Mr. Adams said does not render her testimony unreliable. The undersigned finds Ms. Scogland’s testimony to be clear and convincing. Ms. Scogland reviewed the Department of State, Division of Corporations’ online information and identified Mr. Gibson as President and Registered Agent of David Wayne Gibson Tractor Service, Inc. According to Ms. Scogland, the online records indicated the corporation had been administratively dissolved in September 2013. Ms. Scogland next accessed the Department’s Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) and determined that Mr. Gibson had obtained a workers’ compensation coverage exemption for himself, but the exemption had expired on February 15, 2015. The information contained in CCAS is information on new policies, cancellations, etc., reported to the Department by insurance agencies as required by administrative rule. Next, Ms. Scogland accessed the Division of Corporations’ website, verified Gulf Coast as an active corporation, and identified Mr. Adams as the sole officer of Gulf Coast. Ms. Scogland then accessed CCAS and determined that, although Gulf Coast did not have workers’ compensation coverage, Mr. Adams had an active exemption effective from February 12, 2014 through February 12, 2016. Mr. Adams had a prior exemption that expired on April 14, 2013, but had no valid exemption in place between April 14, 2013 and February 12, 2014. After contacting her supervisor, Michelle Lloyd, Ms. Scogland served Mr. Adams, on behalf of Gulf Coast, with a site-specific Stop-Work Order for failure to ensure workers’ compensation coverage for its employees. Ms. Scogland also served Mr. Adams with a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation. The request was for Gulf Coast’s payroll, account, and disbursement records, as well as records identifying its subcontractors, payments thereto, and workers’ compensation coverage thereof, from March 28, 2013 through March 27, 2015 (the penalty period).4/ Mr. Adams did not provide any records to the Department in response to the records request. The Department’s penalty auditor, Eunika Jackson, was assigned to calculate the penalty to be assessed against Gulf Coast for failure to secure workers’ compensation insurance during the penalty period. The penalty to be assessed against an employer for failure to secure workers’ compensation coverage is two times the amount the employer would have paid in workers’ compensation insurance premiums when applying approved manual rates to the employer’s payroll during the penalty period. § 440.107(7)(d), Fla. Stat. Ms. Jackson consulted the Scopes Manual, which is published by the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI), and identified class code 6217--Excavation and Drivers-- as the appropriate construction class code for the work being performed at the worksite. Respondent contests the assignment of class code 6217 to Mr. Adams, who was driving a dump truck and delivering a load of dirt to the site. Respondent admits that Mr. Gibson’s operation of the front-end loader was properly classified as Excavation and Drivers. NCCI Scopes Manual provides the following with regard to classification code 6217: Includes burrowing, filling or backfilling. * * * Code 6217 is applied to specialist contractors engaged in general excavation including ditch digging, burrowing, filling or backfilling provided such operations are not otherwise classified in the manual. The operations involve the removal of earth, small boulders and rocks by power shovels, trench diggers or bulldozers and piling it at the jobsite for backfill. The material may also be removed by dump trucks for fill in some other area. Code 6217 includes excavation in connection with building foundations, swimming pools, landscape gardening and waterproofing operations. * * * This classification also is applied to specialist contractors engaged in grading land and landfilling, provided these operations are not otherwise classified in this manual. This classification includes ditch digging, burrowing, filling or backfilling, and operations such as scraping, cutting, piling or pushing the earth to rearrange the terrain. These operations utilize equipment such as bulldozers, motor graders and carryalls. [emphasis supplied]. Mr. Adams’ operation of the dump truck falls squarely within the definition of Excavation and Drivers. The material in the dump truck was fill for the site under excavation, a purpose which is directly addressed in the manual under code 6217. Under Respondent’s interpretation, fill removed from the site by a dump truck would be an excavation activity, but would no longer be excavation when the dump truck arrived at another site (or at another location on the same site) with the fill. That interpretation is illogical. No evidence was introduced to support a finding that typical operation of a dump truck in preconstruction was classified by a different code in the Scopes Manual. It is found that Ms. Jackson properly applied the Scopes Manual in assigning code 6217 to the work being performed by Mr. Adams on the site. Having no payroll records from Gulf Coast, Ms. Jackson had to impute the statewide average weekly wage as Respondent’s payroll for Mr. Adams and his subcontractor, Mr. Gibson. The average weekly wages were calculated based on the Workers’ Compensation and Employers Liability approved rate manual also published by NCCI and adopted by the Department by administrative rule. Ms. Jackson calculated a penalty of two times the workers’ compensation insurance premiums that would have applied to the purchase of insurance for Mr. Adams and Mr. Gibson during periods of non-compliance during the penalty. The period of non-compliance for Mr. Adams was April 15, 2013 to February 11, 2014, during which time his exemption had lapsed. The period of non-compliance for Mr. Gibson was February 16, 2015 to March 27, 2015, during which his exemption had expired. § 440.107(7)(e), Fla. Stat. Utilizing the penalty calculation worksheet adopted by Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.027, Ms. Scogland calculated a penalty of $12,181.42. On May 20, 2015, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment against Gulf Coast in the amount of $12,181.42. The Department correctly calculated the penalty based on the statutory formulas and adopted rules governing workers’ compensation insurance.
Recommendation Having considered 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 upholding the Stop-Work Order and Amended Penalty Assessment against Respondent, Gulf Coast Site Prep., Inc., for its failure to secure and maintain required workers’ compensation insurance for its employees. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of January, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK 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 14th day of January, 2016.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Brian’s Painting and Wall Papering, Inc., conducted operations in the State of Florida without obtaining workers’ compensation coverage, meeting the requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2007),1 in violation of Subsection 440.107(2), Florida Statutes. If so, what penalty should be assessed by Respondent, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, pursuant to Section 440.107, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 69L.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure the payment of workers’ compensation for the benefit of their employees. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. Petitioner is a corporation domiciled in Florida and engaged in the construction industry, providing painting and wallpapering services to private residences in Florida. On December 4, 2007, Investigator Ira Bender conducted a random workers’ compensation compliance check of a new home construction site located at 4009 Twenty-second Street, Southwest, in Lehigh Acres, Florida. Investigator Bender observed two men painting. He later identified the two men as Larry Zoelner and Brian Zack, who were later determined to be Petitioner’s employees. Investigator Bender continued the investigation of Petitioner, utilizing the Respondent’s Compliance and Coverage Automated System (“CCAS”) database that contained all workers’ compensation insurance policy information from the carrier to an insured and lists all the workers’ compensation exemptions in the State of Florida. Based on his search of CCAS, Investigator Bender determined that for the period, December 3, 2004, through December 4, 2007 (“assessed penalty period”), Petitioner did not have a State of Florida workers’ compensation insurance policy or a valid, current exemption for any of Petitioner’s employees, including Zoelner and Zack. Based on his search of CCAS, he also determined that Petitioner did not have a State of Florida workers’ compensation insurance policy or a valid, current exemption for Brian Galvin, Petitioner’s owner and operator, for the assessed penalty period. Galvin admitted that he did not have an exemption prior to December 4, 2007. Section 440.05, Florida Statutes, allows a corporate officer to apply for a construction certificate exemption from workers’ compensation benefits or compensation. Only the named individual on the application is exempt from carrying workers’ compensation insurance coverage. Petitioner was not in possession of a current, valid construction industry exemption for its corporate officer, Galvin, during the three-year search period. To be eligible for the exemption in the construction industry, an employer must pay a $50 processing fee and file a “notice of election to be exempt” application with Respondent for each corporate officer and have that application processed and approved by it. 7. Subsections 440.107(3) and 440.107(7)(a), Florida Statutes, authorized Respondent to issue SWOs to employers unable to provide proof of workers’ compensation coverage, including proof of a current, valid workers’ compensation exemption. Failure to provide such proof is deemed “an immediate serious danger to public health, safety, or welfare . . .” § 440.107(7)(a), Fla. Stat. Based on the lack of worker’s compensation coverage and a current, valid workers’ compensation exemption for its employees, including Galvin, Respondent issued a SWO on Petitioner on December 4, 2007. The SWO ordered Petitioner to cease all business operations for all worksites in the State of Florida. On the day the SWO was issued, Investigator Bender also served Petitioner with a “Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation,” for the purpose of enabling Respondent to determine a penalty under Subsection 440.107(7), Florida Statutes. Pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.015, Investigator Bender requested business records from Petitioner for the assessed penalty period. The requested records included payroll documents, copies of certificates of exemptions, employee leasing records, and other business records. Investigator Bender was satisfied that the records produced by Petitioner were an adequate response to the business records request. Based on Investigator Bender’s review of the business records, he determined that Galvin was dually-employed during the assessed period. Dual employment occurs when an employee is paid remuneration by two different employers. Galvin was simultaneously employed by SouthEast Personnel Leasing, Inc., as a painter and by Petitioner as its chief operating officer. In calculating the assessed penalty, Investigator Bender only took into account Petitioner’s payroll. It was determined that the payroll from the leasing company demonstrated secured payment of workers’ compensation coverage for the two painters and for Galvin, when he was operating as a painter. Pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L- 6.035, Investigator Bender included “dividends” paid by Petitioner to Galvin during the assessed penalty period, in calculating Petitioner’s total payroll amount used in the calculation of the assessed penalty. Galvin argued that dividends paid to him by Petitioner should be excluded from the calculation. However, the dividends that Petitioner paid to Galvin constituted unsecured payment for workers’ compensation coverage, in violation of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and the Florida Insurance Code. Through the use of the produced records, Respondent calculated a penalty for the assessed period. The Amended Order, which assessed a penalty of $45,363.76, was issued and served to Petitioner on December 13, 2007. Based on business records Investigator Bender received from SouthEast Personnel Leasing, Inc., on December 17, 2007, Investigator Bender determined that the classification code assigned for Galvin should be changed from 5474 to 5606. Classification code 5474 represented the designation for a painter while classification code 5606 represented the designation for a manager. In the course of his investigation, Investigator Bender also deleted Charlie Galvin after he determined Charlie Galvin was not Petitioner’s employee. Investigator Bender assigned the new class code to the type of work performed by Galvin while working as a manger for Petitioner, utilizing the SCOPES Manual. He multiplied the class code’s assigned approved manual rate with the payroll per $100, and then multiplied all by 1.5. Consequently, the 2nd Amended Order, which was issued and served to Petitioner on December 18, 2007, assessed a penalty in the amount of $19,943.08. The recalculated penalty, as calculated, was consistent with the method in which the investigator had calculated the previous penalties.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order, as follows: Petitioner failed to secure workers’ compensation coverage for its employees, including its corporate officer, as required by statute; and Petitioner be assessed a penalty of $19,943.08. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of May, 2008 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 22nd day of May, 2008
Findings Of Fact The petitioner Petitioner, Huey G. Manges, was employed as a fire fighter by the Port Everglades Authority (the Port) in September 1961, and over the years rose through the ranks until in 1975 or 1976 he became Chief of the department. Petitioner served as Chief until 1988 or 1989, and was then promoted to Public Safety Director. As an employee of the Port, petitioner was a member of the Florida Retirement System. The Port's deferred compensation plan In 1983, the Port adopted a deferred compensation plan for all employees. The plan provided that employees could "make contributions into the fund in an amount not to exceed 33.3 [percent] of base salary, with a maximum cap of $7500." Under the plan, the Port, as the employer, made no contribution to the plan. In September 1984, the plan was amended to create a special provision for "key management persons," as an incentive to motivate them to perform in an outstanding manner and to encourage their continued commitment to the Port. At the time, it was observed that such employees have "extensive responsibilities," and "are not compensated for the many hours they work beyond the normal '40- hour' work week." As amended, the Port matched the qualified "key management person['s]" contribution on a dollar for dollar basis, not to exceed a maximum of 5 [percent] of base salary." The combined employer/employee contribution was limited to $7,500, annually. Among the positions designated as "key management persons" was the position of Fire Chief. Subsequently, at a date not apparent from the record, but at least 5 years before petitioner's retirement, the plan was amended to its current format, and further refined the classes of participants. For employees, such as petitioner, who had attained senior management Grade 9 or higher under the Port's management pay plan, and who elected to participate in the plan by executing a participation agreement, the Port agreed to contribute, on behalf of the employee, "an annual amount equal to the lesser of (i) $7,500 or (ii) 10 [percent] of such Employee's Compensation," regardless of whether they contribute to the plan. For employees below senior management Grade 9, and who elected to participate in the plan, the Port agreed to make "a matching contribution equal to 100 [percent] of the amount of a Participant's annual Deferred Compensation, up to an annual maximum matching contribution of 5 [percent] of the Participant's Compensation." According to petitioner, he participated in the plan from its inception, and "maxed it" each year. [Transcript, page 56]. By such testimony, it is concluded that the annual contribution to his deferred compensation account was $7,500, and that the Port's contribution varied, over the years, from a "dollar for dollar" match under the September 1984 amendment, to a full $7,500 contribution during the period that included, at least, petitioner's last five years of employment with the Port. Petitioner's retirement and subsequent events In or about June 1994, petitioner applied with respondent, Division of Retirement, for retirement under the Florida Retirement System, and his request was approved effective July 1, 1994. Since that date, petitioner has duly received his monthly retirement benefits, as calculated from the Division's records at the time of his retirement. On March 8, 1995, petitioner, through counsel, wrote to the Division and requested that his retirement benefits be recalculated predicated on an error he felt was committed by the Port in its contributions to the Florida Retirement System on his behalf. Such error, petitioner contended, was the Port's failure to treat the contributions it made to his deferred compensation account as retirement creditable wages, and to make the necessary contributions to the State Retirement Account. Essentially, petitioner wanted the Division to collect the contributions from the Port, and then recalculate his average final compensation to include the $7,500 annual contribution by the Port, and adjust his pension payments accordingly. 2/ Regarding petitioner's contention, the proof demonstrates that from the inception of the plan until May 1989, the Port, unbeknownst to the Division, had included the contribution it made to an employee's deferred compensation plan in calculating an employee's retirement creditable wages and Florida Retirement System (FRS) contributions. In May 1989, Mary Meynarez, the new director of finance for the Port, wrote to the Division concerning the propriety of such treatment. That letter was in response to a conversation the Port's CPA had with the Division, wherein he was advised that employer contributions to a deferred compensation plan were not subject to FRS contributions because gross or retirement creditable wages do not include matching contributions or fringe benefits. Ms. Meynarez's letter sought written confirmation of the Division's position. By letter of May 19, 1989, the Division advised Ms. Meynarez, consistent with its long established interpretation of the retirement laws, that such was the Division's position. Thereafter, the Port made no further contributions to the FRS based on its contribution to an employee's deferred compensation plan, and it submitted and received from the Division a credit adjustment for the erroneous payments for prior periods. Given the Division's interpretation of the retirement laws, it concluded that the Port properly excluded the contributions it made to his deferred compensation account when calculating FRS contributions, and by letter of July 5, 1995, advised petitioner that his retirement benefits had been correctly calculated and no adjustment would be made. Such letter further advised petitioner of his right to a section 120.57 hearing if he disagreed with the Division's decision. Petitioner timely filed such a request, and this proceeding duly followed. Pertinent legislation and the Division's interpretation Section 121.021(24), Florida Statutes, defines "average final compensation," as that term is used in deriving a members retirement benefits under the Florida Retirement System, to mean: [T]he average of the 5 highest fiscal years of compensation for creditable service prior to retirement, termination, or death . . . The payment for . . . bonuses, whether paid as salary or otherwise, shall not be used in the calculation of the average final compensation. Prior to 1989, section 121.021(22) defined "compensation," as that term is used in the Florida Retirement System, as follows: (22) "Compensation" means the monthly salary paid a member, including overtime payments and bonuses paid from a salary fund, as reported by the employer on the wage and tax statement (Internal Revenue Service form W-2) or any similar form. When a member's compensation is derived from fees set by statute, compens- ation shall be the total cash remuneration received from such fees. Under no circum- stances shall compensation include fees paid professional persons for special or particular services. During the course of the 1989 Legislative session, proposals were made to amend the provisions of section 121.021(22). The reason for amendment was twofold. First, pursuant to subsection 121.021(22) and (24) bonuses were included in the definition of "compensation" but excluded when calculating "average final compensation." This resulted in a conflict because retirement contributions were due on bonuses, but bonuses could not be used in calculating a member's "average final compensation." Second, the definition of "compensation" was silent with regard to the treatment of salaries paid to employees who participated in a deferred compensation, salary reduction, or tax- sheltered annuity program. Consequently, although the Division had consistently interpreted the subsection to so provide, it was felt appropriate to amend the statute to clearly provide that an employee's election to defer a portion of his salary to a deferred compensation plan did not reduce his retirement creditable wages. As a consequence, pursuant to Chapter 89-126, Section 1, Laws of Florida (1989), subsection 121.021(22), effective June 26, 1989, was amended to read as follows: "Compensation" means the monthly salary paid a member by his or her employer for work per- formed arising from that employment, including overtime payments paid from a salary fund. Under no circumstances shall compensation in- clude fees paid professional persons for special or particular services or include salary payments made from a faculty practice plan operated by rule of the Board of Regents for eligible clinical faculty at the Univer- sity of Florida and the University of South Florida. [For all purposes under this chapter, the compensation or gross compensation of any member participating in any salary reduction, deferred compensation, or tax-sheltered annuity program authorized under the Internal Revenue Code shall be deemed to have been the compen- sation or gross compensation which the member would have received if he or she were not participating in such program] [Emphasis added]. Here, while recognizing that the contributions made by the Port to petitioner's deferred compensation plan may be part of a management package designed to encourage employment fidelity, the Division considers such payments fringe benefits, similar to employer paid health and life insurance, and not "compensation," as defined by subsection 121.021(22) for retirement purposes. In reaching such conclusion, the Division first points to the provision of subsection 121.021(22), as amended, which provides that "[f]or all purposes under this chapter, the compensation or gross compensation of any member participating in any salary reduction, deferred compensation, or tax- sheltered annuity program . . . shall be deemed to have been the compensation or gross compensation which the member would have received if he or she were not participating in such program." Since petitioner would not have received the $7,500 Port contribution had he not elected to participate in the Plan, the literal application of the statutory language would exclude such payments from the definition of "compensation or gross compensation" for retirement purposes. In contrast, petitioner points out that the amendment to subsection 121.021(22) relied upon by the Division was not occasioned to address the peculiarities of his situation, but was designed to clarify that the portion of the employee's salary he elected to defer would not reduce his retirement benefits. Such issue is distinct, according to petitioner, from the issue of whether employer contributions to a deferred compensation plan are "compensation" for retirement purposes. While petitioner may be correct as to the purpose of the amendment to subsection 121.021(22), such does not compel the conclusion that the Division's literal application of that subsection, as excluding employer contributions from the calculation of retirement creditable wages, was not consistent with the Legislature's intent. In concluding that the Division's interpretation is reasonable and consistent with the purpose and intent of subsection 121.021(22), it is observed that under that subsection "compensation" is defined to mean "the monthly salary paid a member by his . . . employer for work performed." "Monthly salary," as observed by the Division, is commonly understood and reasonably read to refer to the fixed compensation for services paid to the employee on a regular basis or, as in petitioner's case, his fixed monthly salary under the Port's management pay plan, and does not include fringe benefits, such as employer matching payments or contributions to a deferred compensation plan. 3/ Consequently, the Division's decision to exclude such benefits from the calculation of petitioner's retirement benefits under the Florida Retirement System was reasonable. 4/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered dismissing petitioner's petition for formal hearing, and denying his request for additional retirement benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of June, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK, 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 13th day of June, 1996.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for licensure as a certified public accountant (C.P.A.) should be denied on the grounds set forth in Respondent's order of December 5, 1991, as clarified by the Joint Prehearing Stipulation entered into by the parties on July 1, 1992?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: In October of 1985, after graduating from college, Petitioner went to work as a staff accountant with the public accounting firm of DeLoitte, Haskins and Sells (DH&S). He remained with DH&S until his position was eliminated. His last day of work was February 19, 1988. That same day, Petitioner went to the Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security, Division of Unemployment Compensation's (Division's) office (unemployment office) on Oakland Park Boulevard and U.S. 1 in Fort Lauderdale to inquire as to whether he was eligible for unemployment compensation. 1/ He brought with him a check (termination check) he had received from DH&S in an amount equal to approximately eight to ten weeks pay. The termination check represented not only severance pay, but also compensation for overtime work and unused sick leave and vacation time paid to Petitioner in one lump sum. 2/ After waiting on line, Petitioner spoke with a Division employee about his situation. He showed the termination check to the employee and explained what it represented. The employee then advised Petitioner that he would not be eligible for unemployment compensation until after the period of time for which he had been paid by DH&S had expired. Having been so advised, Petitioner left the unemployment office without submitting a claim. In the weeks that followed, friends and acquaintances of Petitioner, who believed that he had been given erroneous information regarding his eligibility for unemployment benefits, suggested to him that he further pursue the matter. Not having been successful in finding permanent, full-time employment, Petitioner ultimately followed their suggestion. On March 23, 1988, he returned to the unemployment office, with a copy of the termination check he had received from DH&S, to find out if he had indeed been given erroneous information by the Division employee with whom he had spoken during his initial visit the month before. He discussed his situation with another Division employee who worked in the office. This employee told Petitioner that he was eligible for unemployment benefits and that he would be able to receive "retroactive benefits" for the period following his first visit to the office. She advised Petitioner to fill out an unemployment compensation claim form, while she completed the paperwork that was necessary for him to obtain the "retroactive benefits" due him. Before leaving the office, Petitioner filled out a claim form and submitted it for filing. On the form, Petitioner checked the box indicating that, upon the termination of his employment with DH&S, he had not "received wages in lieu of notice." Nowhere on the form did Petitioner indicate that he was seeking "retroactive benefits;" however, he did not have to do so in order to complete the form inasmuch as no part of the form addressed the subject of "retroactive benefits." Petitioner received his first unemployment compensation check in late April of 1988. Shortly thereafter, on May 2, 1988, he began working for Safeguard Services, Inc. (Safeguard). Petitioner continued to receive unemployment compensation checks until August of 1988, notwithstanding that he was fully employed by Safeguard throughout the period. To receive these payments, Petitioner had to fill out and submit weekly claim certifications. In these certifications, he failed to disclose his employment with Safeguard and falsely certified that he had been "unemployed or partially unemployed" during the time periods covered by the certifications. 3/ He gave such information regarding his employment status knowing it to be false in order to continue to receive unemployment benefits. While still employed by Safeguard, Petitioner was contacted by a "headhunter" from Source Finance, an employment recruiter. The possibility of Petitioner using the services of Source Finance to assist him in finding a new job was discussed. Source Finance thereafter prepared a resume for Petitioner without his authorization, approval or knowledge. The resume indicated that Petitioner was a C.P.A. in the State of Florida. 4/ Petitioner was not then, nor has he ever been, licensed to practice public accounting in this state. Petitioner left the employ of Safeguard in October of 1988. Following his termination he went to the unemployment office to file a claim for unemployment compensation. Under "USUAL OCCUPATION" on the unemployment compensation claim form, Petitioner put down "CPA." In fact, Petitioner did not practice public accounting (although he had worked for a public accounting firm), nor did he regularly hold himself out as a C.P.A. Furthermore, he made clear to the Division employee to whom he handed his completed claim form that he was not yet a C.P.A., although he was hoping to become one and toward that end was leaving town the next day to take the C.P.A. examination. While Petitioner used poor judgment in referring to himself as a C.P.A. on the form, in so doing he did not intend to defraud the Division or to lead potential clients to believe that he was eligible to practice public accounting in this state. In or around December of 1988, the Division notified Petitioner in writing that it was seeking to recoup from him $2,600.00 in unemployment compensation benefits that he had improperly received while he had been employed full-time by Safeguard. In a letter written the latter part of January of 1989, Petitioner responded by asking the Division for clarification. Shortly thereafter the Division sent Petitioner a second letter demanding payment. Petitioner responded by writing another letter to the Division indicating that he would not make payment until he was given what he considered to be an adequate clarification of the Division's position. Subsequently, Petitioner was charged in Broward County Circuit Court (Case No. 89-6975 CF) with unemployment compensation fraud, in violation of Section 443.071(1), Florida Statutes. He retained Martin Jaffe, Esquire, to serve as his defense counsel and agreed to a fee arrangement that was described as follows in a letter dated June 28, 1989, sent to him by Jaffe: In the event this cause is resolved prior to the start of pre-trial depositions, the total fee shall be $10,000.00. The sum of $5,000.00 has been received on this date. The remaining balance of $5,000.00 shall be paid on or before September 1, 1989. In the event that it is necessary to take pre-trial depositions, an additional fee of $5,000.00 shall be due and owing. In the event that this matter shall proceed to trial, there shall be an additional fee of $2,000.00 per day of trial. It is agreed that those fees detailed in paragraphs B and C shall be paid out of any "reward monies" that you receive from the Internal Revenue Service. 5/ You hereby agree to execute the necessary documents to assign said payments to me. It is further understood, of course, that in the event that you do not receive any monies or insufficient monies from the Internal Revenue Service, you shall still be responsible for all payments delineated herein. The State Attorney offered to enter into a plea bargain agreement with Petitioner. Petitioner initially rejected the offer. As time passed, it became apparent that Petitioner would not be able to pay for Jaffe's services. Jaffe therefore suggested that Petitioner reconsider his decision to reject the offer the State Attorney had made, which Jaffe believed, based upon the limited information that he had regarding the case, 6/ to be "very favorable." Petitioner did reconsider and he agreed with Jaffe that it was in his, Petitioner's, best interest to accept the offer. On October 23, 1989, in accordance with the terms of the plea bargain agreement, Petitioner entered a plea of nolo contendre to the felony charge of unemployment compensation fraud that had been lodged against him. Adjudication of guilt was withheld and Petitioner was placed on probation for 18 months and ordered to repay $2,600.00 to the Division within the first year of his probation. Petitioner timely repaid the $2,600.00 and in all other respects successfully completed the terms and conditions of his probation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board of Accountancy enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for licensure based upon his lack of "good moral character," within the meaning of Section 473.306(4), Florida Statutes, without prejudice to Petitioner reapplying for licensure no sooner than one year following the date of this Recommended Order and showing that, in light of his subsequent good conduct and/or other pertinent circumstances, his having committed unemployment compensation fraud in 1988 no longer constitutes a basis upon which to conclude that he lacks the "good moral character" required of applicants for licensure. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 14th day of September, 1992. 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 14th day of September, 1992.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent was required to obtain workers' compensation coverage for himself pursuant to Section 440.107, Florida Statutes (2002), during the penalty period designated in the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment; and, if so, whether Petitioner should impose a penalty against Respondent in the amount of $120,467.88.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure the payment of workers' compensation for the benefit of their employees. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. (2002). On February 9, 2004, while conducting a random site inspection, Department investigator, Eric Duncan, observed three men performing construction work in the form of carpentry and house-framing at 720 Southwest 10th Street, Cape Coral, Florida. One of the workers on the site was Respondent, Jeremy Butzler, a sole proprietor who had employed the other two workers. Mr. Duncan interviewed Mr. Butzler at the site and requested proof of workers' compensation coverage, which Mr. Butzler was unable to provide. Mr. Duncan then issued the first Stop Work and Penalty Assessment Order, directing Mr. Butzler to cease work and pay a civil penalty of $1000.00. Also on February 9, 2004, Mr. Duncan served Mr. Butzler with a "Request for Production of Business Records," seeking copies of business records to determine whether Mr. Butzler had secured workers' compensation coverage, whether he had a current valid workers' compensation exemption, and to determine any civil penalties that may be owed for failing to secure workers' compensation coverage. Mr. Butzler complied in a very limited way. Mr. Duncan testified that most of the documents provided by Mr. Butzler were records of electronic transfer of funds that did not identify their recipients. No company checkbook or ledger was produced. After the penalty was calculated, the Department issued the First Amended Stop Work and Penalty Assessment Order, which increased the assessed penalty to $132,027.64. This assessment was later reduced to $120,467.88 after the Department corrected the workers' compensation premium rate it employed to calculate the penalty. At the time the Stop Work Order was issued and pursuant to Subsection 440.107(5), Florida Statutes (2002), the Department had adopted Florida Administrative Code Rule 4L-6.015,1/ which stated, in relevant part: In order for the Division to determine that an employer is in compliance with the provisions of Chapter 440, F.S., every business entity conducting business within the state of Florida shall maintain for the immediately preceding three year period true and accurate records. Such business records shall include original documentation of the following, or copies, when originals are not in the possession of or under the control of the business entity: All workers’ compensation insurance policies of the business entity, and all endorsements, notices of cancellation, nonrenewal, or reinstatement of such policies. * * * Records indicating for every pay period a description of work performed and amount of pay or description of other remuneration paid or owed to each person by the business entity, such as time sheets, time cards, attendance records, earnings records, payroll summaries, payroll journals, ledgers or registers, daily logs or schedules, time and materials listings. All contracts entered into with a professional employer organization (PEO) or employee leasing company, temporary labor company, payroll or business record keeping company. If such services are not pursuant to a written contract, written documentation including the name, business address, telephone number, and FEIN or social security number of all principals if an FEIN is not held, of each such PEO, temporary labor company, payroll or business record keeping company; and For every contract with a PEO: a payroll ledger for each pay period during the contract period identifying each worker by name, address, home telephone number, and social security number or documentation showing that the worker was eligible for employment in the United States during the contract for his/her services, and a description of work performed during each pay period by each worker, and the amount paid each pay period to each worker. A business entity may maintain such records or contract for their maintenance by the PEO to which the records pertain. * * * All check ledgers and bank statements for checking, savings, credit union, or any other bank accounts established by the business entity or on its behalf; and All federal income tax forms prepared by or on behalf of the business and all State of Florida, Division of Unemployment Compensation UCT-6 forms and any other forms or reports prepared by the business or on its behalf for filing with the Florida Division of Unemployment Compensation. During the period in question, Respondent was a "sole proprietor," as that term was defined in Subsection 440.02(25), Florida Statutes (2002): "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. Subsection 440.02(15)(c)1., Florida Statutes (2002), in effect during the penalty assessment period, stated, in relevant part: "Employee" includes a sole proprietor . . . 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 department as provided in s. 440.05 . . . 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 department as provided in s. 440.05 is not an employee. (Emphasis added). Section 440.05, Florida Statutes (2002), allowed an individual to apply for election to be exempt from workers' compensation benefits. Only the named individual on the application was exempt from carrying workers' compensation insurance coverage. The Department maintains a database of all workers' compensation exemptions in the State of Florida. Mr. Duncan's review of this database revealed that, although Respondent had a valid workers' compensation exemption from November 18, 1999, to November 15, 2001, there were no exemptions for Respondent for 2002, the year constituting the penalty period in this case. At the hearing, Respondent admitted that he did not obtain an exemption for the year 2002. Mr. Duncan's investigation also revealed that Respondent did not have workers compensation insurance coverage during the year 2002. During the investigation, Respondent informed Mr. Duncan that he had contracted with an employee leasing company, Southeast Personnel Services, Inc., that was responsible for paying the salaries of and providing workers' compensation insurance coverage for Respondent and his workers. Pursuant to Subsection 468.520(5), Florida Statutes (2002),2/ an employee leasing company is a business entity engaged in employee leasing. "Employee leasing" is an arrangement whereby a leasing company assigns its employees to a client and allocates the direction of, and control over, the leased employees between the leasing company and the client. § 68.520(4), Fla. Stat. (2002). When the employee leasing company accepts a client, the client becomes an employee of the leasing company. An employee leasing company is the employer of the leased employees and is responsible for providing workers' compensation pursuant to Chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2002). § 468.529(1), Fla. Stat. (2002). Additionally, an employee leasing company assumes responsibility for the payment of wages to the leased employees without regard to payments by the client and for the payment of payroll taxes and collection of taxes from the payroll of leased employees. § 468.525(4)(b) and (c), Fla. Stat. (2002). At the hearing, Respondent demonstrated that he had workers' compensation coverage as an employee of the employee leasing company. However, the Department did not utilize any payments made through the leasing company in its penalty calculation. The evidence demonstrated that Respondent received compensation directly from Holiday Builders, Inc., in the amount of $185,006.50, and Gatco Construction, in the amount of $10,590.00. These amounts, totaling $195,596.50, were utilized by the Department to calculate Respondent's penalty. Mr. Duncan explained that in order for workers' compensation coverage to apply through the employee leasing company, companies such as Gatco Construction would have to make payments to the leasing company, not directly to Respondent. The leasing company would then pay a salary to Respondent, as its employee, and Respondent would be covered by the employee leasing company's workers' compensation insurance. Payments made directly to Respondent would not be secured by the workers' compensation coverage obtained through the employee leasing company. Respondent claimed that the Division utilized the incorrect gross income amount in calculating the penalty. To support this claim, Respondent attempted to introduce what he claimed was his personal income tax return for the year 2002. Respondent claimed this return had been prepared and filed by his bookkeeper some time in February 2004, subsequent to the Department's investigation. However, the return produced at hearing was unsigned and indicated that it had been self- prepared by Respondent. Respondent could not recall the bookkeeper's name without prodding from his counsel. Respondent offered no proof that this return had ever been completed or filed with the Internal Revenue Service. The purported 2002 tax return was not admitted into evidence, and Respondent's testimony as to the information contained on the return is not reliable. The Department correctly calculated the penalty assessment based on the money paid to Respondent as a sole proprietor "employee" who failed to file for a workers' compensation exemption for the year 2002. The Department calculated the total penalty based on Respondent's gross payroll, the class code assigned to Respondent utilizing the SCOPES Manual (a standard classification tool published by the National Council on Compensation Insurance), and the statutory guidelines in Subsection 440.107(7), Florida Statutes (2002). Based on that calculation, the correct penalty assessment in this case is $120,467.88.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, enter a final order confirming the Amended Stop Work Order and imposing a penalty in the amount of $120,467.88. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of May, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 May, 2005.
