The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) should grant the Petition for Relief, charging the Respondent with discrimination based on handicap (back and knee injuries), in violation of Section 760.10, Fla. Stat. (1989).
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Ulysess S. Uqdah, is a carpenter. He has injured his back on-the-job with a construction company other than the Respondent in 1981 or 1982 and, with another construction company other than the Respondent, in early 1984. On one of those occasions, the Petitioner received worker compensation. On both occasions, after a period of time off, the Respondent returned to work with the same employer without any continuing difficulties. In 1984 or 1985, while working for a construction company other than the Respondent, the Petitioner hurt his knee while on the job. He took time off, received worker compensation, and ultimately required surgery. After recuperating from the surgery, the Petitioner was able to return to work. Other than occasional recurring pain, the Petitioner does not worry about the knee, and his knee does not significantly hamper him in the performance of his work as a carpenter. On or about December 12, 1986, the Petitioner was hired by the Respondent, Pace Construction Corporation of Georgia. The Respondent was aware of the Petitioner's prior injuries. He disclosed them on his written employment application. The application also disclosed that the Petitioner had received worker compensation. The Petitioner worked for the Respondent until June 17, 1988, when he was terminated because of the Respondent's lack of work. During his employment with the Respondent, the back and knee injuries did not cause the Petitioner any difficulties in performing his work, and his work was satisfactory. In fact, the Separation Notice states: "Ulysess has proved himself to be a very good worker and gives 100% at all times. He has leadership qualities and shows his concern for the success of the project." The Respondent's regular practice was 1/ to box up all paperwork relating to a construction project when it is completed and put the paperwork in storage. The paperwork from finished projects was stored off the premises of the main business office and was not accessible to the Respondent for reference in connection with subsequent construction projects. 2/ In approximately late 1989 or early 1990, when the Respondent started a major new project in Tampa, the Petitioner applied to again work as a carpenter for the Respondent. His application was held, along with others applying for work, until the Respondent was ready to begin hiring. In approximately March, 1990, the project superintendent reviewed the applications, selected those he wanted to hire, and forwarded those applications to the Respondent's business office for processing. The Petitioner's application was among those selected. In accordance with the Respondent's normal practices, arrangements were made to have the Petitioner and the other chosen applicants undergo a drug and physical examination. The Petitioner's examinations took place on or about March 16, 1990. Meanwhile, the Respondent's personnel office verified the answers given by the Petitioner and the other chosen applicants to the question on the employment application asking whether the applicant had ever received worker compensation. The Respondent located a worker compensation claim report from April, 1989, which noted as to the Petitioner: "10/13/83 West Coast Form. LT- Back" and "4/24/86 Johnson Glen LT-Left leg/ft." 3/ This indicated that the Petitioner had received worker compensation on those two occasions. The Respondent's personnel office forwarded the worker compensation report to the project superintendent, who told the Petitioner that he would not be hired. The Petitioner understood the superintendent to say that the Petitioner was not being hired because of his history of on-the-job injuries and because it would not be in the best interest of the Respondent to hire the Petitioner. The Petitioner understood the superintendent to mean that the prior injuries, which had resulted in worker compensation, would handicap the Petitioner in his ability to perform his assigned duties as carpenter and that the Respondent did not want to have to pay worker compensation if the Petitioner reinjured himself. The superintendent testified that he told the Petitioner he was not being hired because he had falsified his answer to the question on the employment application concerning worker compensation history. It was the Respondent's company policy not to hire any applicant who failed to disclose on his employment application the receipt of worker compensation in the past. This is because a special disability fund would pay worker compensation for such employees only if the receipt of worker compensation in the past was disclosed on the written employment application. The Petitioner claims that he in fact disclosed on his application his receipt of worker compensation in the past and that the Respondent's claim to the contrary is a pretext for intentional discrimination on the basis of a perceived handicap. The Respondent's evidence was that, at that point in time, the Respondent's policy was to discard the application and similar paperwork on applicants who were not hired. Now, after the claims the Petitioner made in this case, the Respondent keeps this documentation. Neither party could produce the Petitioner's application at the final hearing to clarify whether the Petitioner had in fact disclosed on his application his receipt of worker compensation in the past. 4/ The Petitioner concedes that, on or about April 11, 1990, he was advised by an investigator with the Florida Commission on Human Relations that the Respondent was contending it declined to hire the Petitioner due to false statements on his employment application relating to worker compensation. The Respondent submitted persuasive evidence that, besides hiring the Petitioner in 1986 with knowledge of past injuries, it has continued to hire other individuals with a history of on-the-job injuries. The Respondent also submitted persuasive evidence that it has fired employees when it later came to the attention of the Respondent that the employee had falsified an employment application, particularly by falsely stating that worker compensation had not been received in the past. It is found that the Respondent declined to hire the Petitioner based on the Respondent's perception that the Petitioner had falsified his employment application by stating that he had not received worker compensation in the past. It is specifically found that the Respondent did not discriminate against the Petitioner due to a handicap or perceived handicap. There is no evidence of any reason why the Respondent would have discriminated against the Petitioner due to a handicap or perceived handicap. To the contrary, the evidence is clear that the Respondent viewed the Petitioner as being fully capable of performing the job of carpenter satisfactorily notwithstanding his prior back and knee injuries. 5/ In light of the findings made in this case, it would appear that the Petitioner misunderstood the statement made by the job superintendent as to the reasons why the Petitioner was not being hired. This proceeding resulted from the Petitioner's misunderstanding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order denying the Petition for Relief filed in this case. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of December, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 20th day of December, 1991.
Conclusions This cause came on before Tom Gallagher, as Chief Financial Officer of the State of Florida, for consideration of and final agency action on the Recommended Order issued herein on October 4, 2003, by Administrative Law Judge J.D. Parrish. No exceptions to that Recommended Order were filed. , Having reviewed the Recommended Order and the record of this proceeding, and being otherwise apprised in all material premises, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law made and announced by the Administrative Law Judge in the Recommended Order are adopted without exception as the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law of the agency. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that Janusz Kraj shall pay to the Division of Worker's Compensation a civil penalty in the amount of $1,100, within thirty days from the date hereof, said sum to thereafter bear interest at the rate of 9% per anum until paid. IT {S$ HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the Stop Work And Penalty Assessment Order entered by the Division of Worker's Compensation is affirmed, and that Janusz Kraj shall cease all business operations unless and until he provides evidence satisfactory to the Division of Worker's Compensation of having now complied with the workers compensation law by securing the necessary worker's compensation for covered employees and, pursuant to Section 440.107(7)(a), Florida Statutes, paid the civil penalty imposed herein. Lh DONE AND ORDERED this 3° — day of November, 2003. ST ) Sie \eouw Tom Gallag Chief Financial Officer Tomy “ay a PEF LAO
The Issue The issues in this matter are whether Countrywide Siding and Windows, Inc., failed to secure workers compensation that meets the requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and, if so was correctly assessed a penalty for violating, the workers’ compensation laws of Florida.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure workers’ compensation for the benefit of their employees. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. (2009). Respondent is a corporation domiciled in Florida and engaged in the construction industry. On February 13, 2009, Petitioner’s investigator, Carl Woodall, stopped to spot check a house in the Cabrille Lane area of Panama City, Florida, where he saw workers installing siding. Petitioner’s investigator is the only employee for Petitioner who investigated and developed the substantive evidence in this case. Other employees, who have no direct knowledge of the underlying facts, calculated the amounts of the proposed penalties. Mr. Woodall inquired of the workers and ascertained that they worked for Respondent. The investigator then contacted the Respondent to determine whether Respondent had secured or obtained workers’ compensation insurance under Florida’s workers’ compensation law. Respondent’s representative indicated that it maintained workers’ compensation insurance through Employee Leasing Service (ELS), an employee-leasing company. There is no dispute that in February 2009, Respondent leased its workers from ELS and that under the lease agreement, ELS provided workers’ compensation coverage to Respondent and its leased workers. Other evidence suggested that in past years, Respondent had leased its workers from other employee-leasing companies. The evidence was not specific as to who those companies were. The evidence, while not specific, also suggested that Respondent paid its leased employees bonuses and sometimes loaned them money.1/ In general, employee-leasing agreements provide clerical duties to client companies including tax deduction and workers’ compensation, in exchange for a fee. Client companies’ workers who are registered with the leasing company are employees of the leasing company, not the client company. In this case, the specific contract between ELS and Respondent was not introduced into evidence. Likewise, neither the contract nor the proof of coverage between ELS and its workers’ compensation insurer was introduced into evidence and it is unknown who the actual workers’ compensation insurer was or is. Therefore, there is no credible evidence regarding the specific terms of the contract between ELS, Respondent or the workers’ compensation insurer. Importantly, there is no evidence regarding any fee arrangement between ELS and Respondent showing that workers’ compensation coverage was provided based on payroll or that direct payments to Respondent’s workers constituted payroll under the terms of the lease contract for which workers’ compensation had not been secured. Petitioner’s investigator telephoned ELS and learned from some person (purportedly Ellen Clark) that it did have an employee-leasing contract with Respondent and did maintain workers’ compensation on Respondent’s workers. The investigator was also told that ELS intended to or had cancelled its employee-leasing contract with Respondent effective either February 14 or 15, 2009. No one from ELS testified at the hearing and the substance of the above conversation, as with all the testimony about purported ELS statements, constitutes hearsay that was not corroborated by other credible evidence in the record. As such, the substance of these conversations is not found as facts, other than to establish that Petitioner’s investigator had a conversation with a person purporting to Represent ELS. However, on February 14, 2010, the investigator did not take any action against Respondent since he felt Respondent was in compliance with Florida’s workers’ compensation law. On February 17, 2009, Mr. Woodall again returned to the Cabrille Lane area and observed Respondent’s workers installing siding on a house. One of the workers, Mike Moore, revealed to Mr. Woodall that he was a subcontractor of Respondent, but that the other worker, Ryan Grantham, was Respondent’s employee. The subcontractor was in compliance with Florida’s workers’ compensation laws. In order to find out if the other worker was covered by workers’ compensation insurance, Mr. Woodall met with Ronnie Creed, Respondent’s owner and officer, who was exempt under Florida’s workers’ compensation law. Mr. Creed was unaware of Respondent’s workers’ compensation status but put Mr. Woodall in contact with his wife, India Creed, who was also exempt from Florida’s workers’ compensation law. Ms. Creed told Mr. Woodall that Respondent had received a letter from ELS that day, purportedly notifying it that ELS intended to cancel or had cancelled its employee-leasing contract with Respondent. The letter was not introduced into evidence and it is unclear whether the letter discussed the workers’ compensation insurance coverage ELS maintained on its employees that it leased to Respondent. Again, no one from ELS or its workers’ compensation insurer testified at the hearing regarding its lease or which workers were covered under the lease. The record is devoid of any evidence that these employees were no longer employed by ELS and, more importantly, not covered by ELS’s workers’ compensation coverage on February 17, 2009.2/ Mr. Woodall also checked the Department’s Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) database. CCAS is a database that maintains information on business entities in Florida and whether they have secured workers’ compensation and /or whether exemptions from workers’ compensation have been granted to eligible company officers. CCAS did not reflect that Respondent had a workers’ compensation insurance policy in place. However, the investigator did not check to see if ELS or another employee-leasing company had such a policy. Similarly, the investigator did not investigate the terms of those contracts and whether those contracts considered any bonuses or loans paid by Petitioner to its employees to be payroll, and if it was, whether any workers’ compensation coverage was dependent on such payments being reported to these companies. As such, the information in that system is hearsay which may or may not indicate a need to investigate further. Moreover, CCAS is simply a database of information reported by others and maintained by the Petitioner. Its reliability is questionable in this case given the multiple contractual entities involved in the provision of workers’ compensation to Respondent and the lack of any direct evidence from those contractual entities. Therefore, the fact that CCAS did not reflect that Respondent had workers’ compensation insurance is not given weight in this Order and is neither clear nor convincing evidence demonstrating that Respondent failed to secure workers’ compensation insurance on February 17, 2009, or for prior years. Based on his belief that Respondent had not secured workers’ compensation on its workers, Mr. Woodall issued a Stop- Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment and a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation to Respondent (Request) asking for Respondent’s business and financial records related to Respondent’s business and employee leasing for the last 3 years. The records were requested to construct Respondent’s alleged payroll and determine the employees of Respondent. There was no evidence that there was any inquiry into past employment leasing companies that Petitioner contracted with or the terms of those contracts. As with the contract with ELS, there was no inquiry into whether loans or bonuses or any other money paid by Respondent to its workers was considered payroll, required to be reported, or had any impact on workers’ compensation coverage that the leasing companies provided on the employees they leased to Respondent. Respondent complied with the Request and provided the requested business records to Petitioner. Mr. Woodall forwarded the financial records to Petitioner’s penalty calculator, Monica Moye. Beyond checking CCAS, Ms. Moye was not responsible for factually determining whether Respondent had properly secured workers’ compensation insurance during the period under review. Using Respondent’s financial records, Ms. Moye calculated a penalty to be assessed to Respondent based on class code 5645 for siding installation as established by the National Council on Compensation Insurance in the Scopes Manual. She also separated Respondent’s periods of alleged noncompliance based on periodically changing approved manual rates. Approved manual rates are set by the National Council on Compensation Insurance and represent the amounts employers would pay in workers’ compensation premiums for tasks performed by their employees. On March 13, 2009, Petitioner issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, assessing a penalty of $159,002.46 to Respondent. Based on additional records submitted by Respondent, Petitioner recalculated the previously-assessed penalty and issued a 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to Respondent on June 9, 2009, reducing the assessed penalty to $130,914.99. Additionally, following the hearing, the Department revised the assessed penalty and issued a 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment (3rd Amended Order) reducing the assessed penalty to $130,135.03.3/ The list of employees attached to the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment contains several incidents of imputed employment listed as “cash,” “unknown” or “Star H.” There is nothing in the record that supports a finding that these amounts were paid for employment purposes. However, the evidence did not establish that Petitioner did not secure workers’ compensation coverage and the issues regarding the correctness of the amount of penalty assessed against Respondent is not addressed in this Recommended Order. Since the evidence did not establish that Respondent failed to secure workers’ compensation, the Stop-work order should be cancelled and the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a Final Order that Petitioner failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner failed to secure workers’ compensation to its employees and canceling the Stop Work Order and dismissing the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of April, 2010.
The Issue The issues are: (1) Whether Respondent, Bravo Construction, Inc. ("Respondent"), was in violation of the workers’ compensation requirements of Chapter 440.107, Florida Statutes (2003),1/ by failing to secure workers’ compensation coverage for its workers; (2) Whether such individuals possessed current valid workers’ compensation exemptions; and (3) Whether Respondent paid its workers remuneration outside of Respondent’s employee leasing company.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement of Section 440.107, Florida Statutes, which requires that employers secure the payment of workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. Respondent is a company engaged in the construction industry. Specifically, Respondent's business is framing houses. At all time relevant to this proceeding, Elias Bravo was president of the company. On May 26, 2004, the Department’s investigators, Carol Porter and Kelley Dunning, conducted a random visit of a work site in Grassy Point, a gated community in Port Charlotte, Florida, and discovered Mr. Bravo and his workers on site as the house-framers. When the investigators arrived at the site, they spoke with Mr. Bravo, who advised the investigators that Respondent utilized a personnel leasing company, Time Management, which was actually a brokerage firm for Southeast Personnel Leasing, Inc. ("SEPL"), to secure workers’ compensation coverage. On May 26, 2005, Mr. Bravo was the only person in his crew who had coverage with SEPL. At the time of the site visit, the other men were not listed with SEPL because Mr. Bravo still had their applications in his car. After Respondent was unable to provide proof that the men had workers' compensation coverage pursuant to Subsections 440.107(3) and (7)(a), Florida Statutes, the investigators issued a Stop Work Order to Respondent while at the work site on May 26, 2004. On the same day that the Stop Work Order was issued, Investigator Dunning served Mr. Bravo with a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation ("Request for Production of Business Records"). The Department requested copies of Respondent's business records in order to determine whether Respondent had secured workers' compensation coverage; whether Mr. Bravo or Respondent's employees had workers' compensation exemptions; and, if not, to determine the penalty assessment. In response to the Request for Production of Business Records, Mr. Bravo provided certificates of insurance, Respondent's check stubs written to various entities or individuals on behalf of Respondent, payroll records, and Form 1099s for the year ending 2003. Many of the documents provided by Mr. Bravo indicated that Respondent made payments directly to the entities and individuals. The Department maintains records regarding the workers' compensation coverage of individuals and entities in a statewide database called Compliance and Coverage Automated System ("CCAS"). The CCAS database is utilized by the Department to verify if an individual or entity has workers' compensation coverage or a valid exemption from coverage. As part of the Department's investigation, Investigator Porter conducted a CCAS search for Respondent's workers’ compensation insurance coverage records. This search verified that Mr. Bravo had workers' compensation coverage. However, many of the workers or entities to whom Respondent made direct payments did not have workers’ compensation coverage or current valid workers’ compensation exemptions. Based on a review of the payroll records, check stubs, and the Form 1099s that Respondent provided to the Department, Investigator Porter determined that Respondent was an "employer" as that term is defined in Subsection 440.02(16), Florida Statutes. Subsequently, the Department reassessed the original penalty and issued the Amended Order with the attached penalty worksheet which detailed the basis of the penalty assessment. In determining the amended penalty assessment, Investigator Porter disregarded and did not include Respondent's payments to any individual or entity that had workers’ compensation coverage or an exemption from such coverage. The Amended Order, which reflected a penalty assessment of $97,416.68, was issued to Respondent on May 28, 2004.2/ Respondent paid remuneration to the individuals listed on the penalty worksheet of the Amended Order for work they performed. Nonetheless, during the period covered by the penalty assessment, Respondent did not secure workers' compensation coverage for the individuals listed on the penalty worksheet, and none of them had workers' compensation coverage or exemptions from such coverage. The individuals listed on the penalty worksheet of the Amended Order were Respondent's employees during the relevant period, in that they were paid by Respondent, a construction contractor, and did not have workers’ compensation coverage or an exemption from such coverage. Mr. Bravo had workers' compensation coverage through SEPL. However, none of the employees listed on the Amended Order had workers' compensation coverage through SEPL, because they were paid directly by Respondent. A personnel leasing company provides workers' compensation coverage and payroll services to its clients, then leases those employees back to the clients for a fee. Respondent was a client of SEPL, and based on that relationship, Mr. Bravo believed that he and his workers received workers' compensation coverage through that personnel leasing company. However, the workers' compensation coverage provided by SEPL applied only to those employees SEPL leased to Respondent. In the case of leased employees, Respondent would have to make payments to the leasing company and not directly to his workers. The leasing company would then, in turn, pay the leased employees. When, as in this case, the construction company makes direct payments to individuals performing construction work, those workers are not leased employees and, thus, are not secured by the workers’ compensation coverage provided by the personnel leasing company. See § 468.520, Fla. Stat. Some of the individuals listed on the penalty worksheet may have been "dually employed"; that is, sometimes they were employed by Respondent and at other times, they were employees of SEPL and were leased to Respondent. However, during the periods in which individuals worked for Respondent and were paid by Respondent, and were not paid by SEPL, they were without workers’ compensation coverage unless Respondent provided such coverage. With regard to the individuals listed on the penalty worksheet, Respondent provided no such coverage. Respondent, through Mr. Bravo, paid its employees directly, thus, circumventing SEPL and losing the coverage that the employees may have had through it. The Department assessed the penalty against Respondent based on the remuneration Respondent gave directly to the employees outside of SEPL, the class code assigned to each employee utilizing the SCOPES Manual adopted by the Department in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.021, and the guidelines in Subsection 440.107(7)(d), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based upon 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 that affirms the Stop Work Order and the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, which imposes a penalty of $97,416.68. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of May, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 10th day of May, 2005.
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.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent failed to provide workers' compensation insurance coverage for employees, and, if so, what penalty should be assessed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for, inter alia, monitoring businesses within the state to ensure that such businesses are providing the requisite workers' compensation insurance coverage for all employees. The Division's headquarters are located in Tallahassee, Florida, but its investigators are spread throughout the state in order to more effectively monitor businesses. Respondent is a construction company that has been operating in excess of 30 years. It is a small company and usually only has a few employees at any given time. The company is located in Charlotte Harbor, Florida. Workers' compensation coverage is required if a business entity has one or more employees and is engaged in the construction industry in Florida. Workers' compensation coverage may be secured via three non-mutually exclusive methods: 1) The purchase of a workers' compensation insurance policy; 2) Arranging for the payment of wages and workers' compensation coverage through an employee leasing company; or 3) Applying for and receiving a certificate of exemption from workers' compensation coverage, if certain statutorily-mandated criteria are met. On January 8, 2009, Ira Bender, investigator for the Division, was doing on-site inspections in Port Charlotte, Florida. Bender stopped at the site on Edgewater Drive where new construction was underway at a YMCA. Bender observed a man (later identified as Thomas Woodall) sweeping the floor. Bender questioned Woodall and was told that Woodall worked for Respondent. When asked about his workers' compensation insurance coverage, Woodall advised that his insurance was maintained through Frank Crum Leasing Company ("Crum"). Bender called Crum and found that although Woodall had been carried as an employee of Respondent in the past, he had been released from coverage. The reason for his release was that his employment had been terminated for lack of business. Bender called Respondent to inquire about workers' compensation coverage. He was told that Respondent did not realize Woodall had been dropped from the Crum insurance coverage and that he would be reinstated immediately. In fact, coverage was restarted on that same day. Based on his finding that an employee had been working without coverage, Bender called his supervisor and provided his findings. The supervisor authorized issuance of a SWO based on the findings. The SWO was served on Respondent via hand- delivery at 11:45 a.m., on January 8, 2009. The SWO was also posted at the work site. The Division then requested business records from Respondent in order to determine whether there were any violations. If there were violations, then the Division would ascertain the amount of penalty to assess. Respondent cooperated and submitted the business records, as requested. After review of the business records, the Division issued its first Amended Order of Penalty Assessment ("Order") on January 14, 2009. The process employed by the Division was to locate all uncovered employees, i.e., those working without workers' compensation insurance for any period of time. The employees were then assigned a class code from the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) publication. Each trade or type of employment is assigned a code which sets the rate to be applied to an individual depending on the type of work he/she is performing. The Division assigned codes to the employees, determined how much the employee had been paid during the period of non-coverage, assigned the rate to the gross pay, and calculated the insurance premium needed to cover the worker for the time in question. A penalty of 1.5 times the premium was then assigned. The Order assessed a total penalty of $21,165.98 against Respondent. Respondent objected to the amount and refused to sign it due to errors contained in the Penalty Worksheet attached to the Order. Signing the Order would have allowed Respondent to return to work, but he refused to sign because he knew it was not correct. Pursuant to discussions between the parties and "additional records received," the Division issued a second Order on January 16, 2009, assessing a penalty of $6,501.27. Respondent believed that the Division was still in error and provided yet additional information--some verbal--to the Division. A third Order was issued on January 21, 2009, reducing the penalty to $3,309.56. However, Respondent still believed the penalty worksheet contained errors. Again, Respondent refused to sign and provided additional information to the Division. The Division issued a fourth Order on January 28, 2009, assessing a penalty of $2,822.24. That Order had an error concerning the spelling of an employee's name, but the penalty amount was correct. Respondent would not sign the fourth Order, because he did not believe he had intentionally violated any statute or rule concerning workers' compensation coverage for his employees. A corrected (fifth amended) Order was ultimately issued on May 19, 2009.1 The fifth Order asserts the amount of penalty now in dispute, which is the same amount appearing in the fourth amended Order. Respondent signed the fifth Order and entered into a payment plan for payment of the penalty, paying a down payment of $1,000 and monthly payments of $30 until paid in full. Respondent takes great offense to the fact that the penalty assessments were not faxed to him more quickly. He maintains that he had every intention to resolve this matter as quickly as possible, but the Division delayed and dragged out the process. The penalty worksheet attached to the fifth Order listed nine "Employee Names" that are subject to the penalty assessment. Each will be discussed below. The first "employee" is listed as "Cash" and is assigned Class Code 5403. This "employee" represents checks found in Respondent's records with the payee listed as "cash- casual labor" totaling $2,178.00 in gross payroll. Code 5403 was assigned because that is the code used by Crum for Respondent's general business. The manual rate for Code 5403 is $24.74. A penalty of $808.26 was assessed for that employee. The second employee is Jacob Prewitt. Prewitt was assigned Class Code 5221, due to the word "driveway" appearing on a check issued to him. Driveway work falls under a lower approved manual rate ($10.37) than general construction. The gross payroll amount was $1,960, and the penalty assigned to Prewitt was $304.88. The third employee is Woodall, assigned a Class Code of 5606, with a manual rate of $3.84. That code is used for supervisors and is, again, not as dangerous an occupation as general construction. The gross payroll for this entry was $1,008, and the penalty assessed for Woodall was $58.07. Cash is the fourth employee and has been covered in the discussion in paragraph 16, above. Barry Lawrence is the fifth employee; he is assigned Class Code 5437 as a cabinet maker/installer with a manual rate of $13.01. Lawrence had a Verification Letter issued by the Division indicating he was exempt from workers' compensation coverage. However, that exemption was limited to cabinet- making. By installing the cabinets, Lawrence performed work outside his exemption status. The gross payroll for his work was $6,200, and the penalty assessed for Lawrence was $1,209.33. Respondent was completely unaware that the exemption letter did not cover installation and had, in fact, always allowed cabinet- makers to install the cabinets as well. Brunderman Builders is listed as the sixth employee. It is assigned Class Code 5403 with a manual rate of $14.39. The gross payroll for this entry was $550, resulting in a penalty assessment of $118.73. The seventh employee is Jorge Gonzolas, assigned Class Code 5403, the general contracting code. Gonzolas was the employee of a contractor who was subcontracting with Respondent. The contractor died unexpectedly, and Gonzolas was left without payment for the work he had performed. Respondent generously decided to pay Gonzolas for his work, thereby, effectively making Gonzolas a de facto employee. The amount paid Gonzolas was $599.00; the penalty assessed for Gonzolas was $129.30. Woodall is again listed as employee number eight, this time with Class Code 5610, reflecting casual labor he did on one date that his insurance was not in place. The payroll amount for this work was $37.50. The penalty assessed for Woodall was $4.02. The ninth employee was Julio Garcia, assigned Class Code 8742 for outside sales, with a manual rate of $.64. The payroll amount for Garcia was $1,300. His penalty assessment amount was $12.48. Garcia was another one of the deceased subcontractor's employees that Respondent volunteered to pay for work Garcia had performed. The total payroll at issue for Respondent was $14,477.50. The total premium for that amount of payroll would have been $1,881.48, and the penalty assessed was $2,822.84. This is a fairly insignificant portion of Respondent's $5.5 million annual payroll. Respondent did not intentionally attempt to avoid the payment of workers' compensation insurance for its employees. There is no pattern of avoidance or indication that non-payment was Respondent's goal. Rather, there are plausible and reasonable explanations about the unpaid premiums. For Woodall, Respondent believed he was still covered through the Crum policy. For Gonzolas and Garcia, Respondent was simply attempting to be a nice guy. For Prewitt, the employee's exemption had unknowingly lapsed. For Lawrence, Respondent relied upon a Verification Letter from the state, but misinterpreted its scope. The Division, on the other hand, only pursued Respondent based on an actual finding of non-coverage. But for Woodall's presence at a work site doing manual labor (sweeping the floor), the Division would not have looked at Respondent's records. There is no indication the Division acted other than in strict accordance to its governing rules.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, upholding the assessment of a penalty of $2,822.24 against Respondent, Brunderman Building Company, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of October, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 9th day of October, 2009.
The Issue Whether Thompson Enterprises of Jacksonville, LLC (Respondent), violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes,1/ by failing to secure the payment of workers' compensation, as alleged in the Stop-Work Order and 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment; and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing workers' compensation coverage requirements applicable to employers under Florida law. Respondent is a Florida limited-liability company organized on October 25, 2011. The managing members listed on Respondent’s State of Florida Articles of Organization are Thomas Thompson, Michael Thompson, and Vicky Thompson. In May 2016, Department Compliance Investigator Ann Johnson was assigned to conduct a job site visit on Respondent’s business because its name appeared on the Department’s Bureau of Compliance’s “lead list.” The “lead list” is one of the Department’s databases listing employers that are potentially out of compliance with Florida's workers' compensation insurance requirements. Prior to the job site visit, Investigator Johnson reviewed the Division of Corporations website, www.sunbiz.org, and confirmed Respondent's address, managing members' names, and that Respondent was a current, active Florida company. Respondent’s website advertised towing, wrecker, mechanic, and body shop services. On May 6, 2016, Investigator Johnson visited Respondent's principal address located at 7600 Bailey Body Road, Jacksonville, Florida 32216. She noted a large commercial sign near Respondent’s address that advertised towing and wrecker services. During her visit, Investigator Johnson spoke with Vicky Thompson and Michael Thompson, both of whom advised that they were owners of Respondent. The Thompsons informed Investigator Johnson that Respondent had six employees, including the three listed as managers on Respondent’s Articles of Organization. When Investigator Johnson asked for proof of workers’ compensation coverage, Michael Thompson admitted that Respondent had no such coverage. Under Florida law, employers in the non-construction industry, such as Respondent, must secure workers' compensation insurance if "four or more employees are employed by the same employer." §§ 440.02(17)(b) and 440.107, Fla. Stat. On the same day as her site visit, Investigator Johnson confirmed Respondent’s lack of insurance with a search of the Department's internal database, Coverage and Compliance Automated System. At the time, Respondent had no active exemptions from the requirements of obtaining workers’ compensation for its three managing members. Based on her investigation, Investigator Johnson served Respondent with the Stop-Work Order and a Request for Production on May 6, 2016. Upon serving the documents, Investigator Johnson explained the effect and purpose of the documents and how Respondent could come into compliance. Respondent came into compliance that same day by paying a $1,000 down payment, reducing Respondent's workforce to three employees, applying for exemptions for its three managing members, and executing an agreed Order of conditional release with the Department. Respondent subsequently complied with the Department’s Request for Production. In June 2016, the Department assigned Penalty Auditor Eunika Jackson to review records obtained from Respondent and calculate the penalty to be assessed against Respondent. In accordance with applicable law, the Department's audit spanned the preceding two-year period, starting from the date of the Stop-Work Order. See § 440.107(7)(d)1., Fla. Stat. The audit period in this case was from May 7, 2014, through May 6, 2016. Based on information obtained during the investigation, Auditor Jackson assigned classification codes 7219, 8380, and 8810 to those identified as employees working for Respondent during the audit period. Classification codes are four-digit codes assigned to various occupations by the National Council on Compensation Insurance ("NCCI") to assist in the calculation of workers' compensation insurance premiums. Classification code 8810 applies to clerical office employees, code 7219 applies to trucking and "towing companies," and code 8380 applies to automobile service or repair centers. According to Respondent, it was out of compliance with the coverage requirements of chapter 440 for only "368 days" during the two-year audit period. Respondent's records, however, do not support this contention. Respondent provided a detailed "Employee Earnings Summary" for each employee stating the employee’s name, pay rate, and pay period. Respondent's payroll records reflect that Respondent employed "four or more employees" during the audit period. Throughout the two-year audit period, Respondent employed four or more employees with the following duties: Anna Lee, mechanic/bodywork; Cedric Blake, mechanic/bodywork; David Raynor, mechanic/bodywork; James Budner, mechanic/bodywork; Jason Leighty, mechanic; Kevin Croker, Jr., porter/detailer; Nicholas Conway, bodywork; Ralph Tenity, bodywork; Rebecca Thompson, secretary/office help; Stephen Collins, shop helper/porter; Todd Gatshore, tow truck driver/shop helper; and Williams Reeves, tow truck driver/shop helper. Evidence further demonstrated that, during the audit period, managing member Michael Thompson worked as a wrecker truckdriver, and worked with the Sheriff's Office to clear traffic accidents. He was assigned class code 7219 — tow truck driver. Managing member Vicky Thompson was given the clerical class code 8810 because she was observed working in the office during Investigator Johnson's site visit. Managing member Thomas Thompson was assigned the clerical class code 8810 based upon the fact that he occasionally does office work for the business. The corresponding approved manual rates for classification codes 8810, 7219, and 8380 were correctly applied to each employee for the related periods of non-compliance to determine the final penalty. In accordance with the Request for Production, Respondent provided the Department payroll summary reports, tax reports, and unemployment tax reports. The payroll summary reports and records provided by Respondent listed the payroll and duties for each employee. The gross payroll amounts for each employee reflected in the penalty in this case were derived from those documents. Upon receiving those reports and records, the Department correctly determined the gross payroll for Respondent's employees. On June 13, 2016, the Department served the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on Respondent, assessing a penalty of $33,788.90. A portion of the first penalty was based on imputed payroll for Respondent’s three managing members. After service of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, Respondent provided additional records showing the payroll of its three managing members, and the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was calculated after removing the imputed payroll. On August 22, 2016, the Department served the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on Respondent, assessing a penalty of $33,112.44, which was correctly calculated in accordance with section 440.107(7)(d)1. and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.027(1). In sum, the clear and convincing evidence demonstrated that Respondent was a tow truck company engaged in the wrecker/tow truck and body shop mechanic industries in Florida during the periods of noncompliance; that Respondent failed to secure the payment of workers' compensation for its employees in violation of Florida's Workers' Compensation Law; and that the Department correctly utilized the methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)1. and rule 69L-6.027(1) to determine the appropriate penalty of $33,112.44.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order, consistent with this Recommended Order, upholding the Stop-Work Order and imposing the penalty set forth in the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment against Thompson Enterprises of Jacksonville, LLC. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of April, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III 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 27th day of April, 2017.
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 issue in this case is whether Respondent had a sufficient amount of workers’ compensation coverage during the time period in question; and, if not, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Division is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement in chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2015),1/ that employers in Florida secure workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. While an exemption can be obtained for up to three corporate officers, any employer in the construction industry with at least one employee must have workers’ compensation coverage. § 440.02(15), Fla. Stat. Kent Howe works for the Division as a compliance investigator based in Orlando, Florida. As part of his job responsibilities, Mr. Howe visits construction sites in order to verify that employers in the construction industry have obtained workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. Mr. Kehr was the owner and sole corporate officer of JNK. Mr. Howe visited a construction site in Port Orange, Florida, on the morning of December 10, 2015, and saw Mr. Kehr and two other men building the interior walls/frames of a house. Mr. Howe talked to the two men (James Hicks and James Garthwait) working with Mr. Kehr, and they reported that Mr. Kehr was paying them approximately $8.00 an hour. Mr. Kehr told Mr. Howe that Messrs. Hicks and Garthwait had been working for him for approximately two hours that morning. Mr. Kehr also stated that he had not obtained workers’ compensation coverage for Messrs. Hicks and Garthwait. Following those conversations, Mr. Howe returned to his car and accessed the Division’s Coverage and Compliance Automated System (“CCAS”) and learned that JNK had no workers’ compensation coverage. Mr. Howe also determined from CCAS that Mr. Kehr had obtained an exemption from workers’ compensation coverage that had been in effect from November 18, 2014, through November of 2016.2/ After relaying that information to his supervisor, Mr. Howe received authorization to serve Mr. Kehr with a Stop- Work Order, and he did so on December 10, 2015. That Stop-Work Order required JNK to “cease all business operations for all worksites in the State” based on the Division’s determination that JNK had failed to obtain workers’ compensation coverage. In addition, the Stop-Work Order stated that JNK would be penalized an amount “[e]qual to 2 times the amount [JNK] would have paid in premium when applying approved manual rates to the employer’s payroll during periods for which it [had] failed to secure the payment of compensation within the preceding 2-year period.” Along with the Stop-Work Order, Mr. Howe also served a “Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation” (“the BRR”) on Mr. Kehr. In order to ascertain JNK’s payroll disbursements during the relevant time period and the resulting penalty for JNK’s failure to obtain workers’ compensation coverage, the BRR requested that JNK remit several different types of business records covering the period from November 10, 2014, through December 10, 2015. Mr. Howe explained during the final hearing that the Division usually reviews business records pertaining to the two years preceding the Stop Work Order.3/ Because JNK came into existence on November 10, 2014, the Division’s review was limited to examining the period between November 10, 2014, and December 10, 2015. The business records sought by the Division included items such as time sheets, payroll summaries, check journals, certificates of exemption, and evidence that any JNK subcontractors had obtained workers’ compensation coverage. Section 440.107(7)(e) provides that if an employer fails to provide business records sufficient to enable the Department to ascertain the employer’s actual payroll for the time period in question, then the Division will estimate the employer’s actual payroll for that time period by imputing the employer’s payroll based on the statewide average weekly wage. The Division then multiplies that amount by two. JNK did not provide business records typically sought by the Division. Instead, JNK responded to the BRR by producing a written statement from Mr. Kehr indicating that he founded JNK in November of 2014, but did no work until July of 2015. That initial job involved fixing a set of stairs for $200. Afterwards, Mr. Kehr performed three separate small jobs between July and November of 2015, earning approximately $550. Because the Division could not ascertain JNK’s actual payroll from the documentation provided by JNK, the Division imputed JNK’s payroll for the time period in question and issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on January 19, 2016, seeking to impose a penalty of $61,424.04. Phillip Sley calculated the aforementioned penalty amount by filling out a worksheet that has been adopted by the Division through Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.027. The first step in completing the worksheet required Mr. Sley to assign a classification code to the type of work that Mr. Howe witnessed Messrs. Kehr, Hicks and Garthwait performing at the Port Orange worksite on December 10, 2015. Classification codes come from the Scopes® Manual, which has been adopted by the Department through rule 69L-6.021. Each code within the Scopes® Manual pertains to an occupation or type of work, and each code has an approved manual rate used by insurance companies to assist in the calculation of workers’ compensation insurance premiums. The imputed weekly payroll for each employee and corporate officer “shall be assigned to the highest rated workers’ compensation classification code for an employee based upon records or the investigator’s physical observation of that employee’s activities.” See Fla. Admin. Code. R. 69L-6.028(3)(d). In the instant case, Mr. Sley determined “5645” was the appropriate classification code. According to the Scopes Manual, [w]hen all of the carpentry work in connection with the construction of residential dwellings not exceeding three stories in height is performed by employees of the same carpentry contractor or general contractor responsible for the entire dwelling construction project, the work is assigned to Code 5645. This includes the construction of the sill, rough framework, rough floor, wood or light-gauge steel studs, wood or lighted-gauge steel joists, rafters, roof deck, all types of roofing materials, sidewall sheathing, siding, doors, wallboard installation, lathing, windows, stairs, finished flooring, cabinet installation, fencing, detached structures, and all interior wood trim. Mr. Sley’s next step in calculating the penalty amount was to determine the period of non-compliance. With regard to Mr. Kehr, the Department asserted that JNK failed to have workers’ compensation coverage between the date of JNK’s inception (November 10, 2014) and the date that Mr. Kehr received an exemption from the workers’ compensation coverage requirement (November 18, 2014). Despite having no evidence that Messrs. Hicks and Garthwait worked for JNK on any day other than December 10, 2015, the Division’s penalty calculation was based on an assumption that Messrs. Hicks and Garthwait worked for JNK from November 10, 2014, through December 10, 2015. Mr. Sley’s next step was to calculate JNK’s gross payroll for the time period in question. Because JNK did not provide the Division with business records that would have enabled the Division to calculate JNK’s actual payroll, Mr. Sley based JNK’s payroll on the statewide average weekly wage determined by the Department of Economic Opportunity for the time period in question.4/ Mr. Sley then multiplied that amount by two.5/ After converting the payroll numbers into a percentage, Mr. Sley multiplied the payroll amounts by the approved manual rate. As noted above, every classification code is associated with a particular manual rate determined by the Office of Insurance Regulation, and a manual rate corresponds to the risk associated with a particular occupation or type of work. Manual rates associated with potentially dangerous activities will have higher manual rates than activities with little or no potential danger. Mr. Sley’s next step was to calculate a premium for obtaining workers compensation coverage for Messrs. Kehr, Hicks, and Garthwait. Mr. Sley then multiplied that premium by two in order to calculate the individual penalties resulting from JNK not having workers’ compensation coverage for Messrs. Kehr, Hicks, and Garthwait. The sum of those amounts was $61,424.04. The evidence produced at the final hearing established that Mr. Sley utilized the correct class code, average weekly wage, and manual rates in his calculation of the penalty set forth in the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. The Division has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that JNK was in violation of the workers’ compensation coverage requirements of chapter 440. In particular, the Division proved by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Kehr had no workers’ compensation coverage for himself and no exemption from November 10, 2014, through November 17, 2014. However, the Division did not demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that Messrs. Hicks and Garthwait were employees of JNK on any day other than December 10, 2015. Mr. Kehr testified during the final hearing that Messrs. Hicks and Garthwait were working for him on December 10, 2015. He also testified that he was paying them at a rate of $8.00 an hour. However, Mr. Kehr persuasively testified that Messrs. Hicks and Garthwait had not worked for him at any other time between November 10, 2014, and December 10, 2015. The undersigned finds Mr. Kehr’s testimony on this point to be credible. Messrs. Hicks and Garthwait did not testify during the final hearing in this matter. There is no evidence that Messrs. Hicks and Garthwait worked for JNK at any time other than December 10, 2015. Because there is no evidence indicating that Messrs. Hicks and Garthwait were employees of JNK at any time other than December 10, 2015, during the time period in question, the undersigned finds that the Department failed to carry its burden of proving that $61,424.04 is the appropriate penalty. Based on the above findings, the undersigned finds that the correct penalty resulting from Mr. Kehr’s lack of coverage is $627.48. The worksheet completed by Mr. Sley indicates that is the amount of the $61,424.04 penalty associated with Mr. Kehr’s lack of coverage. As for the penalties associated with the lack of coverage for Messrs. Hicks and Garthwait on December 10, 2015, the undersigned multiplied the average weekly wage utilized by the Division ($841.57) by two. That results in a weekly gross payroll amount of $1,683.14. Dividing $1,683.14 by five results in a daily gross payroll amount of $336.63. Dividing $336.63 by 100 and then multiplying the result by 15.91 (the approved manual rate utilized by the Division for the period from January 1, 2015, through December 10, 2015) yields a daily premium of $53.62. Multiplying $53.62 by two results in a penalty of $107.23. Multiplying $107.23 by two yields $214.46, JNK’s penalty for not having workers’ compensation coverage for Messrs. Hicks and Garthwait on December 10, 2015. JNK’s total penalty is $841.94. Because section 440.107(7)(d)1. mandates a minimum penalty of $1,000, the undersigned finds that $1,000 is the correct penalty for the instant case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation enter a final order imposing impose a $1,000 penalty on Donald Kehr, d/b/a JNK Framing Inc., a Dissolved Florida Corporation. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of August, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S G. W. CHISENHALL 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 10th day of August, 2016.
