The Issue Whether Respondent, John H. Woods, d/b/a Woods Construction, conducted operations in the State of Florida without obtaining workers’ compensation coverage which meets the requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2008)1, in violation of Subsection 440.107(2), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Amended Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment and Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. If so, what penalty should be assessed by Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, pursuant to Section 440.107, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of enforcing the requirement of Section 440.107, Florida Statutes, that employers in Florida secure the payment of workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Workers’ compensation coverage is required if a business entity is engaged in the construction industry in Florida. Securing the payment of workers’ compensation coverage can be achieved via three different methods: purchase a workers’ compensation insurance policy; ensure that workers are paid and workers’ compensation coverage is provided by a third party entity called a Professional Employment Organization (PEO); or apply for a Certificate of Exemption from Workers’ Compensation Coverage (Exemption Certificate) assuming certain statutorily mandated criteria are met. These methods are not mutually exclusive of each other. On August 14, 2008, a workers’ compensation compliance investigator employed by Petitioner, visited a construction site in Lee County, Florida. On the site, she observed several groups of men conducting various construction activities including the laying of a sidewalk along Lexington Street in Fort Myers. The work performed involved construction activities as contemplated under the applicable agency rule. Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.021. By a preponderance of evidence, it is determined that among the entities on the worksite was a group of three laborers who worked for Woods Construction. There was no proof of coverage for workers’ compensation for the Woods Construction Company, neither an insurance policy, nor any exemption certificate for the individuals encountered on the worksite. Woods Construction assumed that the three laborers were covered by Able Body Labor, a PEO. The evidence confirmed that two of the three laborers were covered. However, the third laborer, Filberto Castro, was unable to be included on the work roster due to his lack of corresponding documentation necessary for employment in the United States. Therefore, Castro was working without coverage. An SWO was issued and a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Calculation (BRR) was served on J. Woods Construction, Corp. [sic] on August 14, 2008. The SWO was later amended to conform to the correct name of the company, which is not a corporation. The amended SWO was served on John H. Woods on August 22, 2008, via certified mail. Pursuant to the BRR, Respondent provided business records to Petitioner. Petitioner’s Penalty Calculator’s duties are to receive records from the employer, and organize, identify, and audit those records which indicate payroll activities, while delineating other business activities, which may be related to the non-payroll activities of the business such as purchasing supplies, maintaining a place of business, etc. The characterization of the voluminous records received from Respondent were categorized into three distinct categories: reliable, somewhat reliable, and unreliable records. The records were characterized as “reliable” if they were records from an independent third party or the bank with whom Respondent conducted business, and were thus extremely difficult to alter without a high level of expertise. They are considered “source documentation.” The bank records capture the transactions as they occurred, to whom money was paid, and for what amount. The next category of records deemed “somewhat reliable” were those records which, on their face appear to be legitimate records, such as copies of the checks with corresponding amounts and dates to those in the “reliable” category. However, certain inconsistencies in these records demonstrated that they were less than reliable. These records were only used in select instances when there was corresponding source documentation supporting their veracity. A prime example, among many, is check number 1078 for $100.00 indicating a payment for a credit card; the corresponding checkstub indicates that the payment went to “Whitney,” a grand-child of John H. Woods. In toto, the documents illustrated that Respondent failed to follow generally accepted accounting principles by mislabeling or mischaracterizing funds on a regular basis. The third category of records were records which were considered “unreliable” as these records lacked any corresponding source documentation and they could not be considered in assessing the payroll activities of the firm. In the construction industry, there are instruments called “draw requests.” The draw request is an item that a subcontractor or builder will utilize to show partial completion of a project and concurrently request more funds (the draw) to complete the remaining portion of the project. The draw requests are often utilized at pre-measured stages of the project, e.g.: 25 percent completion, 50 percent completion, etc. The draw requests would have attached source documentation such as receipts from suppliers, servicers, and other miscellanea to show that the project is worked upon as opposed to the funds being siphoned off elsewhere. Nowhere, in the box full of records produced, was a proper draw request found with attached receipts. Therefore, none of the records produced could be considered as reliable documents. Many irregularities in Respondent’s methodology of accounting were also noted; as an example, there were numerous times that company checks from Respondent were deposited by an entity known as “Hendry Contracting,” without explanation. Respondent personally held the license as a General Contractor, and would utilize Hendry Contracting as a subcontractor. Hendry Contracting did not have any license whatsoever. It utilized Respondent’s license while performing construction activities. Brad Hendry, the principal of Hendry Contracting, is married to Janice Hendry, the daughter of John H. Woods, the owner of Respondent, Woods Construction. Janice Hendry administered Respondent’s company account and the company account of Hendry Contracting. The evidence is clear that no separation of duties was attempted. Furthermore, Hendry admitted that she did not exercise any sense of separation between the two different accounts (Woods Construction and/or Hendry Contracting). The two businesses were “commingled,” and the ability to retain any form of standard accounting requirement of checks and balances has been nullified. Numerous irregularities that defied “generally accepted accounting principles” appeared, including personal loans to family members, wholesale transfers of monies from Respondent to Hendry Contracting without explanation, and checks drafted to Brad Hendry (personally). Further, Woods testified that he exercised little or no control over his company in the last ten years. Hendry also confirmed the haphazard method of managing the two firms’ different accounts by writing checks from one firm to another, when the other firm’s account was running low. Hendry’s testimony regarding the financial cooperation of Respondent and Hendry Contracting is indicative of the commingling of accounts, as well. Hendry testified that each entity would draw on each other’s accounts depending on the cash levels within each respective account. Hendry also testified that Hendry Contracting was utilized for obtaining bank loans and utilizing Hendry’s name to purchase materials when the other accounts were depleted. By utilizing only the bank records, a general ledger for Respondent was constructed which derived the amounts that came into the business and the amounts paid out for labor. The fact that Respondent had no general ledger meant that some items would never be accounted for, such as building supply costs. Based on that caveat, Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L- 6.035(i) was applied to the total payroll derived from the bank records. This had the effect of reducing total payroll by twenty percent to account for building supplies (which were never accounted for due to the non-existent business ledger of Respondent). The amount of money flowing and commingling between the two firms (Respondent and Hendry Contracting) and among family members, numbered in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. The commingled money was utilized for all manners of payments: loans (not expected to be paid back) to family members, inflated wages to family members for de minimis services, or payment for services/goods for family members’ personal residences. A proposed penalty in the amount of $365,876.82 was originally assessed, as reflected in the AOPA, and served on Respondent on August 26, 2008. Based on further records produced and the understanding that Respondent was a construction firm but was unable to show any receipts of building supplies, the proposed penalty, utilizing Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L- 6.035(i), decreased the payroll by 20 percent to account for building supplies that were not documented. After consideration of the documents provided and application of the rule, a Second AOPA was prepared showing an assessment in the amount of $306,876.82. With Hendry as the sole financial officer of Respondent, approximately $351,632.43 of payroll was allocated to various family members. There was unambiguous testimony from Woods and Hendry that family members were employed in various roles, most notably the grand-daughters who were earning wages while conducting secretarial duties. A further $472,292.94 was paid to Hendry Contracting during the three-year audit time- period. Hendry Contracting never had any discernible workers’ compensation coverage for this amount of payroll, rendering Respondent liable for failure to secure workers’ compensation coverage for the monies paid. The remainder of the unsecured payroll assessed to Respondent was for various non-family workers for whom no proof of workers’ compensation coverage could be ascertained. The Second AOPA was computed by calculating Respondent’s payroll for the past three years using the business records Respondent provided. The payroll was then divided for each year by 100 and that figure was multiplied by an approved manual rate assigned to the classification codes (class codes) found in the National Council on Compensation Insurance’s Scope of Trade Manual (Scopes Manual). Class codes were assigned to the individuals listed on the penalty worksheet according to their historical duties. The grand-daughters and other female employees of Respondent were listed as clerical employees (classification code 8810), while the remaining names were listed as general carpentry workers (classification code 5645). Next, the product of the approved manual rate and the payroll for each year divided by 100 was then multiplied by 1.5, pursuant to statute, to derive the penalty for each year or part of a year. The penalties for each employee and year or part of a year were then added together to come up with a total penalty of $306,213.78. Based on the assessment of the financial records in conjunction with the documents admitted into evidence, the grand total of $306,213.78 is a true and correct penalty amount for Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Chief Financial Officer of the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, enter a final order: Finding that Respondent failed to secure the payment of workers’ compensation insurance coverage for its employees in violation of Subsections 440.10(1)(a) and 440.38(1), Florida Statutes; and Assessing a penalty against Respondent in the amount of $306,213.78, which is equal to 1.5 times the evaded premium based on the payroll records provided by Respondent and on the applicable approved manual rates and classification codes for the period extending from August 15, 2005, through August 14, 2008, as provided in Subsection 440.107(7), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of July, 2009, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of July, 2009.
The Issue Whether, and to what extent, Magnolia Valley Services, Inc., should be allowed to increase its water and sewer service rates.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented at hearing, the following facts are determined: I. The Application By application filed on August 14, 1980, APPLICANT sought authority to increase its water and sewer rates, on an interim and permanent basis, in amounts sufficient to produce $60,847 in annual gross water revenues, and $100,768 in sewer revenues. By Order No. 9571 dated September 30, 1980, the COMMISSION authorized an interim sewer revenue increase, under bond, of $8,205, and denied an interim increase in water revenues. The COMMISSION has approved APPLICANT's use of a test year ending December 31, 1979. At hearing, the APPLICANT amended its application by reducing its requested water revenues to $50,287, and increasing requested sewer revenues to $101,522. (Testimony of Gregg, Prehearing Statement; P-4.) II. Depreciation Rate Depreciation is a method of allocating the cost of fixed assets to their estimated useful life. As an above-the-line operating expense, it affects a utility's net operating income; by its impact on accumulated depreciation of plant-in-service and accumulated amortization of contributions-in-aid-of- construction, it also effects calculation of rate base. (Testimony of Walker, Gregg; P-3, R-1.) The COMMISSION has promulgated no rules as guidelines which establish generally, or in particular, the useful life of utility assets or the method by which their depreciation should be calculated. In practice, however, it has allowed utilities to apply a straight-line 2.5 percent depreciation rate and a 40-year useful life to all depreciable assets. Any deviation from this 2.5 percent across-the-board rate must be justified by the utility. (Testimony of Heiker.) Here, the APPLICANT proposes depreciation rates which vary according to the estimated useful life of the plant or equipment involved. In contends that its shorter estimates of useful life of specific assets reflect reality and actual experience more accurately than an across-the-board 40-year life standard. For example, rate meters are routinely replaced on a 20-year basis and lack of reserve capacity and changing voltages have substantially reduced the expected life of electrical motors and equipment. The APPLICANT's estimates of useful life were established by the opinion of a utility consultant and engineer whose qualifications went unchallenged by the COMMISSION; no competent evidence was offered to discredit or rebut his conclusions. The COMMISSION's engineer candidly admitted that depreciation "is really a nebulous thing," (Tr. 64) and declined to assert that the APPLICANT's depreciation schedules were erroneous. (Tr. 69.) The COMMISSION disputed the APPLICANT's depreciation schedules by referring to an unpublished 1973 staff memorandum retained at the agency's offices and not produced at hearing. That memorandum purportedly adopted 1973 depreciation rates developed by the American Water Works Association. Upon motion of APPLICANT, testimony concerning the contents of that memorandum was subsequently stricken. The COMMISSION engineer also testified that he was unfamiliar, even generally, with how the American Water Works Association's depreciation rates were derived. In light of the quality of the evidence presented of record, the APPLICANT's depreciation rates (including estimated useful life) are accepted as persuasive. (Testimony of Heiker, Gregg; P-1, P-3.) III. Attrition Allowance The APPLICANT seeks to include in operating expenses an attrition allowance of $1,992 for water and $8,161 for sewer operations based on alleged attrition it experienced between 1975 and 1979. It defines attrition as increased annual expenses which cannot be recovered at the time they are incurred. The COMMISSION opposes the requested attrition allowance on the grounds that: (1) the attrition study performed by the APPLICANT is unreliable, and (2) that the recent enactment of Section 367.081(4), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1980), which allows the passing through of certain increased expenses to customers, eliminates the need for a special attrition allowance. (Testimony of Gregg, Walker; P-2.) The COMMISSION's position is well taken. First, a major portion of the cost increases experienced by the APPLICANT in the past will be able to be passed through to its customers pursuant to Section 367.081, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1980). 2/ Those costs include increased power costs and ad valorem taxes. The APPLICANT responds that Section 367.081(4), supra, will not enable it to fully recover increasing expenses when they occur because rates may be adjusted, based on increased operating costs, not more than twice a year. Section 367.081(4)(e), supra. However, this new law should be implemented before it is pronounced inadequate to fulfill its purpose. Experience may show that major costs increase sporadically, or at predictable cycles, which facilitate carefully timed rate increases under Section 367.081(4), and that two such increases a year may prove fully adequate. (Testimony of Gregg, Walker; P- 2, R-1.) Secondly, the attrition study (P-2) submitted by the APPLICANT does not reasonably justify, or provide a reliable basis for projecting an attrition rate into the future. The 1975-1979 historical cost increases have not occurred at a constant rate. The 1979 increase in water operation costs was less than one- half of the average increase experienced between 1975 and 1979; in sewer operations, the 1979 cost increases were less than one-third of the four-year average. Moreover, a major factor in increased sewer costs was the 1978 conversion to a spray irrigation, total retention, sewage treatment system. Since this system meets the 1983 federal Clean Water Act standard of no- discharge, it is unlikely that increased operational costs relating to treatment changes will continue to occur. In short, the 1975-1979 historical cost increases of APPLICANT have been sporadic and do not support an assumption that they will continue to occur at the same rate. To include an attrition allowance based on such an assumption would be unwarranted. (Testimony of Gregg, Walker; P-2, R-1.) IV. Allowance of an Undocumented Operating Charge The APPLICANT proposed a $600 sewer expense item which was opposed by the COMMISSION because of lack of documentation. In response, the APPLICANT submitted--immediately prior to hearing--a cancelled check in the amount of $1,000. The discrepancy between the two amounts remains unexplained. Such action falls short of providing adequate documentation, and the proposed $600 sewer expense item must therefore be rejected. See, 25-10.77, FAC. V. Elements of Ratemaking and Applicant's Gross Revenue Requirements The parties agree: (1) that 14.5 percent is a fair and reasonable rate of return on rate base and reflects the actual cost of capital to APPLICANT; that the new rates should be designed in accordance with the base facility design concept, and that the quality of APPLICANT's water and sewer service is satisfactory. The remaining elements of ratemaking--rate base and net operating income--are not in dispute, and are depicted below: 3/ RATE BASE Test Year Ended 12/31/79 Water Sewer Plant in Service Accumulated $269,887 $511,200 Depreciation $(37,384) 4/ $(54,685) Net Plant $232,503 $456,515 Contributions in Aid of Construction (179,251) (360,055) Accumulated Amortization 22,421 Net Contributions in Aid of 4/ 41,231 4/ Construction (156,830) (318,824) Working Capital 3,515 7,082 TOTAL $ 79,188 $144,773 OPERATING STATEMENT Test Year Ended 12/31/79 Water Sewer Operating Revenues $53,300 $72,608 Operating Expenses: Operations 25,552 45,353 Depreciation 3,848 5/ 4,876 5/ Maintenance 2,572 6/ 11,306 6/ Amortization 1,439 Taxes Other Than Income 4,654 7/ 8,338 7/ TOTAL Operating Expenses $36,626 $71,312 Net Operating Income$16,674 $ 1,296 By applying a 14.5 percent rate of return against a rate base Of $79,188 for water and $144,773 for sewer, it is concluded that the APPLICANT should be allowed an opportunity to earn a return, or net operating income of $11,482 for water and $20,992 for sewer. Annual gross revenues of $48,108 (water) and $92,304 (sewer) are required to produce such a return--resulting in a net annual reduction of water revenues of $5,192 and a net increase of $19,696 in sewer revenues. VI. Interruption of Service Treatment Without Advance Notice Although the overall quality of its service has been adequate, infra, the APPLICANT has unnecessarily inconvenienced customers by interrupting water service without advance notice. These interruptions were planned in advance and not made on an emergency basis. The APPLICANT failed to adequately explain or excuse its failure to give timely notice. (Testimony of Pepper.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Magnolia Valley Services, Inc., be authorized to file new rates structured on the base facility charge concept and designed to generate gross annual revenues of $48,108 for water operations and $92,304 for sewer operations, based on the average number of customers served during the test year. It is further RECOMMENDED that the utility be directed to strictly comply in the future with Section 25-10.56, Florida Administrative Code, by giving advance notice of service interruptions which are not emergency in nature. DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of April, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of April, 1981.
Findings Of Fact The Utility's water plants are operating satisfactorily and are under no citations or corrective orders promulgated by the Department of Environmental Regulation. One customer service problem exists with regard to frequency of service outages and low pressure. The Utility had not previously been informed of the particular customer's problem and gave assurances that it would be corrected immediately. As demonstrated by a report of the Department of Environmental Regulation incorporated in Exhibit 1, the Utility provides good quality water that meets all pertinent standards of the Florida Safe Drinking Water Act of 1977, and in every way the quality of water service provided by the Utility was shown to be satisfactory. Rate Base In order to present a truer picture of the Utility's average rate base, and taking into account the factor of recent growth of the system, Commission expert engineering and accounting witnesses recalculated the Utility's figures for plant in service based upon a thirteen-month average as opposed to the twelve-month test year employed by the Utility. Thus equipment accounts and equipment retirement accounts were recalculated on a thirteen-month average in arriving at a total plant in service figure, based upon which the actual rate base was calculated. These calculations as well as adjustments to reclassify certain expenses which should have been capitalized in the plant accounts and then based on a thirteen-month average, demonstrated a total plant in service adjustment figure of $7,770. These, together with an adjustment for additional total accumulated depreciation of $2,807 and other relatively minor adjustments to the Utility's capital accounts, none of which were contested by the Utility, result in a rate base, or net investment figure, of $90,173. The adjustments and calculations supportive of this figure, all of which were uncontroverted by the Petitioner, appear attached hereto and are incorporated by reference herein as Schedule 1, Attachments 1 and 2. Operating Statement The Utility seeks to increase its revenues to the above- stated amount. Determination of an appropriate revenue figure necessitate re-allocations and adjustments to operation and maintenance expenses to add in necessary employee salaries and to reclassify and delete certain operation and maintenance expenses properly attributable to water systems not involved in this rate case. Additional, depreciation expense on contributed property must be disallowed and an adjustment for increased revenues necessary to result in an agreed upon 12.45 percent rate of return on rate base with concomitant adjustments to allow for increased gross receipts tax and income tax, established an appropriate revenue requirement of $35,922 per year. The Respondent's accounting witness established that the 12.45 percent rate of return on the Utility's rate base is the minimum necessary to insure a reasonable, compensatory rate of return to the Utility and to assure the company's financial viability in order that the quality of service to customers does not deteriorate. These adjustments to the initial operating statement accounts depicted in Exhibit 2, were not refuted by the Utility. The adjustments and calculations supportive of this revenue figure are set forth in greater detail in Schedule 2 of Exhibits 2 and 2A attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. There was no dispute regarding the appropriate cost of capital for the company. The weighted cost of capital was shown to be 12.45 percent, based upon the Utility's undisputed cost of equity at 14 percent, as well as its imbedded debt cost of 9.47 percent. The rate structure should be predicated upon a base facility charge rate design. The base facility charge type of rate structure will insure that each customer, even seasonal residents who do not use a minimum amount of water per month sufficient to defray their portions of the cost of service, actually pay the minimum necessary for the Utility to meet its fixed costs which are attributable to their connections. In the case of the systems involved in this proceeding, a base facility charge of $3.35 for a 5/8" x 3/4" meter and a gallonage charge of 88 cents per 1,000 gallons will produce the revenue requirement of $35,922. Both the Petitioner and the Respondent agree to the feasibility and appropriateness of this base facility charge rate design and these amounts.
Recommendation Having considered the competent, substantial evidence of record, the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that John V. Smith Water Company should be authorized to receive gross annual revenues for its water service to customers in Walton County, Florida of $35,922 and that the Utility be authorized to file revised tariff pages containing rates designed to produce annual water revenues in that amount. It is further RECOMMENDED that the $4,000 letter of credit previously required to be filed by the Public Service Commission be returned to the Utility for cancellation. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of November, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of November, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: John V. Smith 234 Deer Avenue Niceville, Florida William H. Harrold, Esquire 101 E. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert T. Mann Chairman Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Steven C. Tribble Commission Clerk Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondents violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by failing to secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage, as alleged in the Stop-Work Orders, and, if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with enforcing the requirement of chapter 440, Florida Statutes, that employers in Florida secure workers' compensation coverage for their employees. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Respondents are gas station/convenience stores located in South Florida. Northlake was created by Nazma Akter on May 6, 2014. MB was created by Ms. Akter on March 23, 2010. Congress Valero was created by Muhammad Saadat on July 21, 2011. Hena was created by Ms. Akter and Abu Ahsan on December 14, 2011. Hayma was created by Ms. Akter on December 14, 2011. Blue Heron was created by Ms. Akter on August 4, 2009. At all times relevant hereto, Respondents were duly-licensed to conduct business in the state of Florida. On February 2, 2015, the Department's Compliance Investigator Robert Feehrer, began a workers' compensation compliance investigation of Gardenia, LLC. Investigator Feehrer called the number listed for Gardenia, LLC, and was provided with a corporate office address. On February 10, 2015, upon arrival at Gardenia, LLC's, corporate office located at 165 US Highway 1, North Palm Beach, Florida, 33408, Investigator Feehrer spoke with Operations Manager Mohammad Hossain. Mr. Hossain stated that Gardenia, LLC, was a paper corporation and existed only for the purpose of paying unemployment taxes on the "six stores." Mr. Hossain went on to provide Investigator Feehrer with a list of Respondents and names of the employees that worked at each store. As an employee of Gardenia, LLC, and Respondents, Mr. Hossain's statements are party opponent admissions and bind Respondents. Lee v. Dep't of Health & Rehab. Servs., 698 So. 2d 1194, 1200 (Fla. 1997). With Mr. Hossain's statements and the list of Respondents' employees, Investigator Feehrer then consulted the Division of Corporations website, www.sunbiz.org, and confirmed that Respondents were current, active Florida companies. Investigator Feehrer then consulted the Department's Coverage and Compliance Automated System ("CCAS") for proof of workers' compensation coverage and exemptions associated with Respondents. Investigator Feehrer's CCAS search revealed that Respondents had no workers' compensation policies and no exemptions. On February 24, 2015, Investigator Feehrer conducted site visits at each of the six stores. Ms. Akter and Mr. Hossain accompanied Investigator Feehrer during these site visits. At all times material hereto, Ms. Akter was a corporate officer or managing member of each of the six Respondents. Muhammed Saadat and Abu Ahsan were corporate officers or managing members of Congress Valero, Hena, and Blue Heron. Kazi Ahamed was a corporate officer or managing member of Congress Valero and Hayma. Kazi Haider and Mohammed Haque were managing members of Hayma. All received compensation from the companies with which they were involved. Although Investigator Feehrer only personally observed one employee working at each location during his site visits, the payroll records revealed that at least four employees (including corporate officers or managing members without exemptions) received compensation for work at each location during the relevant period. Investigator Feehrer required additional information to determine compliance, and with Respondents' permission, contacted Respondents' accountant. Investigator Feehrer met with the accountant at least two times to obtain relevant information prior to March 30, 2015. Upon Ms. Akter's authorization, the accountant provided tax returns and payroll information for Respondents' employees. Information from Ms. Akter and Mr. Hossain also confirmed the specific employees at each of the six stores during the period of March 30, 2013, through March 30, 2015. On March 30, 2015, based on his findings, Investigator Feehrer served six Stop-Work Orders and Orders of Penalty Assessment. The Stop-Work Orders were personally served on Ms. Akter. Mr. Hossain was present as well and confirmed the lists of employees for each of the six stores were accurate. In April 2015, the Department assigned Penalty Auditor Christopher Richardson to calculate the six penalties assessed against Respondents. Respondent provided tax returns for the audit period and payroll transaction details were provided, as well as general ledgers/breakdowns, noting the employees for each Respondent company. Based on Investigator Feehrer's observations of the six stores on February 24, 2015, Auditor Richardson used the classification code 8061 listed in the Scopes® Manual, which has been adopted by the Department through Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.021(1). Classification code 8061 applies to employees of gasoline stations with convenience stores. Classification codes are four-digit codes assigned to various occupations by the National Council on Compensation Insurance to assist in the calculation of workers' compensation insurance premiums. In the penalty assessment, Auditor Richardson applied the corresponding approved manual rate for classification code 8061 for the related periods of non-compliance. The corresponding approved manual rate was correctly utilized using the methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)1. and rule 69L-6.027 to determine the final penalties. The Department correctly determined Respondents' gross payroll pursuant to the procedures required by section 440.107(7)(d) and rule 69L-6.027. On January 14, 2016, the Department served the six Amended Orders of Penalty Assessment on Respondents, assessing penalties of $1,367.06 for Northlake, $9,687.00 for MB, $12,651.42 for Congress Valero, $18,508.88 for Hena, $7,257.48 for Hayma, and $4,031.60 for Blue Heron. The Department has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Respondents were engaged in the gasoline station, self-service/convenience store industry in Florida during the periods of noncompliance; that Respondents failed to secure the payment of workers' compensation for their employees, as required by Florida's Workers' Compensation Law; and that the Department correctly utilized the methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)1. to determine the appropriate penalties.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a consolidated final order upholding the Stop-Work Orders and the Amended Orders of Penalty Assessment in the amounts of $1,367.06 for Northlake Mobile Enterprises, Inc.; $9,687.00 for MB Food and Beverage, Inc.; $12,651.42 for Congress Valero, Inc.; $18,508.88 for Hena Enterprises, Inc.; $7,257.48 for Hayma Enterprises, Inc.; and $4,031.60 for Blue Heron BP, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of June, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY 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 16th day of June, 2016.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether the Respondent, The Gardner Group, Inc. (Gardner Group) failed to abide by the coverage requirements of the Workers' Compensation Law, Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by not obtaining workers' compensation insurance for its employees; and whether the Petitioner properly assessed a penalty against the Respondent pursuant to Section 440.107, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: 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. Gardner Group is an insurance broker located in Neptune Beach, Florida. The company has a total of six employees. Gardner Group stipulated that all persons listed in the Second Amended Order were its employees, and to the correctness of the calculation of payroll for which the penalty was assessed. On June 25, 2009, Lou Cabrera, the Department's investigator, visited Gardner Group's place of business at 810 Third Street in Neptune Beach, where he spoke with Gardner Group employee Corinne Carter. Mr. Cabrera later spoke with Beverly Carter, Gardner Group's Vice President for Administration. Ms. Gardner told Mr. Cabrera that Gardner Group had four employees in addition to her and Corrine Carter. The company's business records later verified that these persons, Kayla Hauk, Sandra Moore, Brian Cook, and Howard Dunlap, were employees of Gardner Group. Because Gardner Group had four or more employees, it appeared to meet the threshold for "employment" requiring workers' compensation coverage. § 440.02(17)(b)2., Fla. Stat. A corporate officer may elect to be exempt from the requirements and benefits of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by filing a notice and receiving a certificate of election to be exempt from the Department. See Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.012 for details of the process employed to obtain an exemption. As of June 25, 2009, Howard Dunlap and Trace Milam were the only corporate officers of Gardner Group holding valid workers' compensation exemptions. Trace Milam was no longer working for Gardner Group on June 25, 2009. As of June 25, 2009, Gardner Group did not have workers' compensation insurance. Mr. Cabrera issued and personally served the SWO on Gardner Group. Mr. Cabrera also issued and personally served a request for production of business records for the purpose of accurately calculating a penalty assessment for Gardner Group. Gardner Group promptly complied with the Department's request for business records. Based on those records, the Department issued the Amended Order on July 13, 2009, ordering Gardner Group to pay a penalty of $15,595.93, pursuant to Subsection 440.107(7)(d), Florida Statutes. On July 17, 2009, the Department issued the Second Amended Order, ordering Gardner Group to pay a penalty in the amount of $15,264.24. The Second Amended Order is the basis of this proceeding. The SWO was conditionally released when Gardner Group entered into a periodic payment agreement and came into compliance with Section 440, Florida Statutes, by obtaining exemptions for three corporate officers (Mr. Dunlap, Mr. Cook, and Beverly Carter) and maintaining three employees. Sole proprietors and partners not engaged in the construction industry are not considered employees for purposes of workers' compensation coverage unless they affirmatively elect to be covered. § 440.02(15)(c)1., Fla. Stat. At the hearing, Beverly Carter testified that she is a partner in Gardner Group. She produced documents demonstrating that she owns 5 percent of the outstanding shares in Gardner Group. Mr. Dunlap owns 85 percent of the outstanding shares, and Mr. Milam owns 10 percent of the outstanding shares. The shares are not publicly traded, and a cross purchase agreement places restrictions on the manner in which the shareholders may dispose of their holdings. Section 440.02(21), Florida Statutes, defines "partner" to mean: any person who is a member of a partnership that is formed by two or more persons to carry on as co-owners of a business with the understanding that there will be a proportional sharing of the profits and losses between them. For the purposes of this chapter, a partner is a person who participates fully in the management of the partnership and who is personally liable for its debts. As Vice President for Administration, Ms. Carter does participate in the management of the business. However, Gardner Group is a C corporation, formed pursuant to Chapter 607, Florida Statutes, meaning that the shareholders are not personally liable for the debts of the business. Ms. Carter testified that she is paid a salary that constitutes her main compensation from Gardner Group. She testified that she may receive a dividend if the corporation shows a profit. Gardner Group is a corporation, not a partnership, and Ms. Carter therefore cannot meet the definition of "partner" set forth in Section 440.02(21), Florida Statutes. Ms. Carter credibly testified that Gardner Group was unaware that its corporate officers were required to file a notice of election in order to be exempt from workers' compensation coverage. She noted that it was a simple matter for the company to obtain those exemptions, and stated that it was unfair to penalize Gardner Group more than $15,000.00 for the "minor technicality" of failing to file exemption notices for its three corporate officers. The Department lacks discretion to overlook the requirements of Section 440.05, Florida Statutes, regarding the method by which a corporate officer must elect exemption from workers' compensation coverage, or the requirements of Section 440.107, Florida Statutes, regarding enforcement of workers' compensation coverage requirements. Therefore, Gardner Group's unawareness of the filing requirement does not excuse the payment of the amount set forth in the Second Amended Order.
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, assessing a penalty of $15,264.24 against The Gardner Group, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of December, 2009, 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 24th day of December, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Paige Billings Shoemaker, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 Howard Dunlap The Gardner Group, Inc. 810 Third Street Neptune Beach, Florida 32266 Tracey Beal, Agency Clerk Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 Benjamin Diamond, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307 Honorable Alex Sink, Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307
Findings Of Fact Petitioner and another podiatrist were engaged in a partnership, practicing podiatry with offices in two locations, one on Broward Boulevard (hereinafter "the Broward office"), and one in Tamarac (hereinafter "the Tamarac office") On February 2, 1977, Respondent initiated negotiations for the acquisition of Parcel No. 154, the property leased by Petitioner or his partnership for the location of the partnership's Broward office. On February 7, 1977, Respondent delivered to the Broward office its ninety-day letter of assured occupancy. Since Respondent and the owner of Parcel No. 154 were unable to agree, Respondent was required to litigate the acquisition of that parcel, and Respondent obtained an order of taking in August, 1978. The contract for constructing the segment on Broward Boulevard where the Broward office was located was let on December 31, 1978. Petitioner closed his Broward office and vacated the premises in March, 1978. No notice to vacate the premises was ever issued to Petitioner, since he had vacated the premises approximately five and one-half months prior to Respondent obtaining possession of the property pursuant to the order of taking. Petitioner's partnership kept only one set of records for both the Tamarac and Broward offices. All of the income, the expenses, and the other allowable deductions were consolidated for both offices, and it is not possible to determine from those records any specific expenses attributable to the Broward office only. In determining the amount of gross income for patients seen at the Broward office, Petitioner, through his accountant, reviewed all patient cards of Broward office patients and added together those charges for services rendered. Those patient cards, however, do not indicate whether those patients were seen by Petitioner or by Petitioner's partner and, accordingly, reflect the income generated by both members of the partnership. In order to then determine expenses generated by the Broward office in order to compute net income, Petitioner, through his accountant, selected a percentage and, using that percentage, divided all expenses between the Broward office and the Tamarac office. No evidence was presented to explain or justify the basis upon which the percentage figures were chosen. Petitioner sold both offices to his partner on April 18, 1977. Petitioner's accountant certified the following figures in support of the amount of fixed payment claimed by the Petitioner: Fee Income per Patient Cards Year Broward Office Profit Percentage per Income Tax Returns Indicated Annual Profit Broward Office 1975 $ 30,371.00 25.09 percent $ 7,620.00 1976 8,093.00 18.04 percent 1,460.00 1977 491.00 44.09 percent 216.00 The figures for expenses used in determining Petitioner's net income were taken from Petitioner's income tax returns, and those returns were also used to verify income and in computing the percentage of business attributable to the Broward office. Petitioner's tax returns, however, were computed on the accrual basis rather than on the cash basis. Books maintained using the accrual method include billed fees not actually received in that year and total expense obligations incurred that year although those expenses may not have been paid. In billing patients who were medicaid or medicare recipients, Petitioner charged the amount of fee he considered proper. If the full amount of Petitioner's bill was not paid by medicare or medicaid, he reduced his fee to the amount actually paid under those programs. Fees not collected would be written off during the following tax year. A review of the records and of the return for the year in which the fee was declared would not reveal the fact that it was subsequently written off, whether partially or fully, such as in the case of an uncollectable fee. The figures set forth in Paragraph numbered 7 above are based upon Petitioner's books and tax returns on the accrual basis and have not been adjusted to reflect income actually received rather than billed or to reflect expenses actually paid rather than incurred. Only sixteen residents were displaced as a result of the entire road- widening project along Broward Boulevard.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED THAT: A final order be entered finding Petitioner, Mark H. Feldman, entitled to receive an additional $1,400 in relocation benefits, which represents the minimum fixed payment minus the amounts previously paid to him by the Respondent. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of June, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of June, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Mark H. Feldman 7160 N.W. 45th Court Lauderhill, Florida 33319 Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Paul N. Pappas Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent is indebted to the Petitioner for agricultural products and, if so, in what amount.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: Petitioner, Oglesby Nursery, Inc., is a commercial nursery providing a variety of landscape agricultural products. The principal office for Petitioner is located at 3714 SW 52nd Avenues Hollywood, Florida. Respondent, Garden of Eden Landscape and Nursery, Inc., is an agricultural dealer with its office located at 3317 So. Dixie Highway, Delray Beach, Florida. Respondent, Garden of Eden, is subject to the licensing requirements of the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. As such, Garden of Eden is obligated to obtain and to post a surety bond to ensure that payment is made to producers for agricultural products purchased by the dealer. To meet this requirement, Garden of Eden delivered a certificate of deposit from Sun Bank of Palm Beach County to the Department. On or about August 22, 1986, Garden of Eden ordered and received delivery of $7673.40 worth of agricultural products from Petitioner. This purchase consisted of nine may pan coconuts and thirty green malayans trees. All of the trees were accepted and no issue was made as to their condition. On or about September 2, 1986, Garden of Eden ordered and received delivery of $1190.00 worth of agricultural products from Petitioner. This purchase consisted of seven coconut malayans dwarf trees. All of the trees were accepted and no issue was made as to their condition. The total amount of the agricultural products purchased by Garden of Eden from Petitioner was $8863.40. The total amount Garden of Eden paid on this account was $5000.00. The balance of indebtedness owed by Garden of Eden t o Petitioner for the purchases listed above is $3863.40. Petitioner claims it is due an additional sum of $247.77 representing interest on the unpaid account since the assessment of interest to an unpaid balance is standard practice in the industry and since Respondent took delivery of additional products knowing interest on past due accounts to be Petitioner's policy. No written agreement of acknowledgment executed by Garden of Eden was presented with regard to the interest claim.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether DOAH has jurisdiction to entertain an agency's motion for attorney's fees brought pursuant to section 185.05(5), Florida Statutes, where the motion was filed with DOAH approximately two and one-half years after the agency's entry of a final order in the administrative proceeding for which the agency seeks an award of attorney's fees and costs.
