Findings Of Fact Pursuant to its authority to regulate water and sewer rates, charges and rate structures embodied in Chapters 367, Florida Statutes, and 25-30, Florida Administrative Code, the Public Service Commission entered Orders numbered 16971 and 17058, which adopted specific guidelines and conditions for utilities to implement certain income tax impact charges for contributions-in-aid- of-construction ("CIAC gross-up charges"). (See Orders numbered 20409, p.3; 16971, p.2-4; and 17058). One of these conditions requires that utilities submit appropriate tariff sheets (rates and charges sheets) for the Commission's approval prior to implementation of the CIAC gross-up charge. CIAC is the payment or contribution of cash or property to a utility from a customer or entity seeking service from that utility in order to secure the provision of such services or to reserve it for a future time. The Internal Revenue Code of 1986 changed the treatment of CIAC from being non-taxable to being taxable as income. A CIAC gross-up charge is a method by which a utility can recover that tax expense, represented by the income tax assessed against collected CIAC, through approved rates and charges to customers. The amount of CIAC tax impact funds collected by a utility is not itself treated as CIAC for rate-making purposes. The Respondent, St. Johns North Utility Corp., collected gross-up charges which were not authorized by its filed and approved tariff schedules (rate schedules), and without securing the requisite approval from the Commission. (See Orders numbered 20409 and 20762). The Commission was made aware of the charging of unauthorized CIAC gross-up charges by the Utility Respondent when a developer, Fruit Cove Limited, communicated with the Commission concerning its doubts about utility service being available for one of its subdivisions, when required, from the Respondent. Fruit Cove Limited had paid CIAC gross-up charges to St. Johns. On June 3, 1988, the Commission, through its staff, contacted Mr. Joseph E. Warren, the General Manager for the Respondent, and explained the Commission's requirements regarding the requisite pre-approval of the charging of CIAC gross-up charges. Mr. Warren agreed to file a written request for authorization to implement such charges. No request was filed, despite repeated admonitions and solicitations by the Commission and its staff and a lengthy opportunity to comply. Finally, Order No. 20409 was issued by the Commission on December 5, 1988, requiring the Utility to file a written request for authorization to implement CIAC gross-up charges within thirty (30) days of that Order. A written request was not timely filed, however. The Utility finally filed its written request for approval of these charges on September 5, 1989. The accompanying tariff sheets representing such charges were ultimately filed in response to Orders numbered 16971 and 20409, and Show Cause Order No. 20762. They became effective on September 15, 1989. The Commission, through its staff, also made repeated inquiries to the Utility regarding certain service availability charges and practices, initially by letter of July 29, 1988. The Utility was allowed until August 19, 1988 to make the requested responses. The letter was addressed to Mr. Joseph Warren at the Utility's mailing address of record. The Utility, however, did not provide written responses to the comments and questions by the Commission, despite repeated assurances that it would do so. Order No. 20409, issued on December 5, 1988, required the Utility to provide the full written responses to the July 29, 1988 letter within thirty (30) days of the date of that Order. The responses were not timely made. Order No. 20762 was issued on February 17, 1989, requiring the Utility to show cause in writing on or before March 13, 1989 why it should not be fined up to $5,000.00 per day, in accordance with the Commission's penalty authority, for failure to comply with the provisions of Order No. 20409, regarding the necessity for written responses to the Commission's specified questions and the submission of a written request to implement the CIAC gross-up charges referenced above. The first item in the Commission's July 29, 1988 letter to the Utility had requested the Utility to seek approval, including submission of proposed rate tariff sheets for authorization to implement the CIAC tax impact charge referenced above. That item was responded to on September 5, 1989, more than eight months after the deadline set by Order No. 20409. The second item in the Commission's July 29, 1988 letter to the Utility had requested the Utility to provide the names and addresses of financial institutions in which gross-up charge funds were being retained. That item was responded to as requested. The third item in the Commission's July 29, 1988 letter to the Utility had requested the Utility to provide a listing of all gross-up monies received from each contributor. No response was ever provided by the Respondent. The significance of the information requested by the Commission is that it would provide identity of the individuals who were entitled to a refund of the unauthorized CIAC gross-up charges collected by the Utility, as provided in Order No. 20762. The fourth item in the Commission's July 29, 1988 letter to the Utility had requested the Utility to provide a copy of all current developer agreements. That item was responded to within the deadline set by Order No. 20409. The fifth item in the Commission's July 29, 1988 letter to the Utility had requested the Utility to file revised tariff sheets indicating the actual legal description of the Utility's certificated service territory. No response was ever provided. Order No. 20762 was ultimately issued on February 17, 1989 imposing a $5,000.00 fine on the Utility for serving outside of its authorized service area. Order No. 20409 requested the Utility to indicate to the Commission whether, with regard to the developer agreement between the Respondent and Fruit Cove Limited, the charges listed in the various paragraphs of that agreement would, upon completion of the real estate development involved, be adjusted to reflect actual utility service costs incurred. No response to that request was ever provided by the Utility. Additionally, in that Order, the Commission requested information concerning a so- called "step tank", which was referenced in paragraphs 12C and 13D of the developer agreement with Fruit Cove Limited. That request, in Order No. 20409, was never responded to. A certain fee was charged for installation of the step tank by the Utility to Fruit Cove Limited, and no response was given to the Commission's inquiry as to why that fee was omitted from the Utility's approved tariff on file with the Commission. The significance of the requested information was that the omission of the step tank installation fee from the Utility's tariff of rates and charges could cause the developer agreement to constitute a "special service availability agreement", which can only be approved in advance by the Commission. It is not a matter, approval of which has been delegated by the Commission to its staff members. The Order referenced last above also requested an explanation for why a meter installation fee, referred to in that same developer agreement, does not include a "curb stop" or a meter box. This information is significant because it is necessary in order for the Commission to determine whether the charge involved is reasonable. A cost breakdown for the meter installation, including the various hardware components and other charges, was necessary and was not provided by the Utility. Additional information concerning the area of service availability, required to be provided to the commission by Order No. 20409, included the requirement that approval be obtained from the Commission for the CIAC gross-up charge in the developer agreement with Fruit Cove Limited. As stated above, that approval was not requested in writing, as required by the Order, for more than eight months after the deadline set by that Order. By Order No. 20762, St. Johns was fined $5,000.00 for three separate violations of the statutes and rules, and the Orders enumerating them, for a total of $15,000.00. The Utility was fined for serving outside of its authorized service territory, for collecting unauthorized CIAC gross- up charges, and for failing to file its developer agreements with the Commission as required by law. The developer agreements were only submitted after repeated efforts by the Commission's staff which culminated in Order No. 20409 and which were either unresponded to or not properly responded to by the Utility. Additionally, by Order No. 21559, issued on July 17, 1989, St. Johns was fined $5,000.00 for failure to file an application for an extension of its territory as required by Order No. 20409. In the meantime, by Order No. 22342, issued on December 26, 1989, the Commission approved a transfer of the Utility's assets from St. Johns to Jacksonville Suburban Utilities Corporation ("Jacksonville Suburban"). That Order did not authorize transfer of the liabilities of the Respondent to Jacksonville Suburban. The Order specifies that St. Johns, and not Jacksonville Suburban, will remain liable for the previously imposed refund obligations and fines. Only in the event that there remained sales proceeds in excess of the certain debt of St. Johns owed to its institutional lender would funds from the Jacksonville Suburban sale be applied toward payment of the refund and fines found to be due and owing by the above-cited Orders, by way of escrow or otherwise. Any excess proceeds, absent Order No. 22342, were to be paid to St. Johns. Order No. 22342 does not make Jacksonville Suburban liable for the refund and fines at issue. It is speculative whether there will be any sales proceeds available from the sale, after payment of the debt, to be applied toward the refund and fines. The sales price was made dependent upon establishment of the Utility's "rate base" amount, to be established in that transfer proceeding at a point in time after entry of Order No. 22342. That Order, however, specifically preserves the liability of St. Johns for the refund and fines and does not provide for the extinguishment of such liability in the event that the sales proceeds prove to be insufficient to pay them.
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 St. Johns be assessed a penalty of $5,000.00 for knowingly and willfully failing to comply with Order No. 20409. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of June, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Hearings Hearings 1990. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 14th day of June, APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1.-24. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. (Respondent filed no proposed Findings of Fact) Copies furnished to: David Schwartz, Esq. Florida Public Service Commission Legal Division 101 E. Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0850 Joseph E. Warren, Esq. 1930 San Marco Boulevard Suite 200 Jacksonville, FL 32207 Mr. Steve Tribble Director of Records and Recording Florida Public Service Commission 101 E. Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0850 Mr. David Swafford Executive Director Florida Public Service Commission 101 E. Gaines Street, Room 116 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0850 Susan Clark, Esq. General Counsel Florida Public Service Commission 101 E. Gaines Street, Room 212 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0850
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent has made unauthorized payments to Superior Insurance Group, its corporate parent, and whether Respondent has properly disclosed these payments on its financial reports filed with Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a domestic stock insurance company operating under a certificate of authority to transact in Florida the business of property and casualty insurance. As a nonstandard automobile insurer, Respondent primarily deals with policyholders whose driving records and accident histories preclude their coverage by standard automobile insurers. Superior Insurance Group, Inc. (formerly GGS Management, Inc. (GGS)) owns Respondent; Symons International Group, Inc. (Symons) owns Superior Insurance Group, Inc. (Superior Group); and Goran Capital, Inc. (Goran) owns 73 percent of Symons. Although publicly traded, Goran was founded, and probably is still controlled, by the Symons family. Superior Group serves as Respondent’s managing general agent. GGS changed its name to Superior Group in early 2000; where appropriate, this Recommended Order refers to this entity as GGS/Superior Group. Respondent owns Superior American Insurance Company (Superior American) and Superior Guaranty Insurance Company (Superior Guaranty), which are both domestic stock insurance companies authorized to conduct in Florida the business of property and casualty insurance. Also engaged in the nonstandard automobile insurance business, Superior American and Superior Guaranty transfer all of their premiums and losses to Respondent under a reinsurance agreement. All financial information concerning Superior American and Superior Guaranty, which, for the purpose of this case, are mere conduits to Respondent, are included in the financial information of Respondent. On or about April 30, 1996, GGS acquired the stock of Respondent, as well as other assets, from an unrelated corporation, Fortis, Inc. or one of its subsidiaries. From the regulatory perspective, the acquisition started when, as required by law, on or about February 5, 1996, GGS filed with Petitioner a Form A application for Petitioner’s approval of the acquisition of Respondent. This was an extensive document, consisting of more than 1000 pages. One of the purposes of the application process, as described in Section 628.461, Florida Statutes, is to assure the adequacy of the funds used by the entity acquiring the insurer. The proposed acquisition is described by the Statement Regarding the Acquisition of More Than Five Percent of the Outstanding Voting Securities of Superior Insurance Company . . . by GGS Management, Inc., dated February 5, 1996 (Acquisition Statement). The Acquisition Statement states that GGS Management Holdings, Inc. owned GGS. (The distinction between GGS and GGS Management Holdings, Inc. is irrelevant to this case, so “GGS,” as used in this Recommended Order, shall also refer to GGS Management Holdings, Inc.) According to the Acquisition Statement, Symons owned 52 percent of GGS; GS Capital Partners II, L.P., owned 30 percent of GGS; GS Capital Partners II Offshore, L.P., owned 12 percent of GGS; and three mutual funds (probably all affiliates of Goldman Sachs) owned the remaining 6 percent of GGS. GS Capital Partners II, L.P., was owned by 100 investors, including The Goldman Sachs Group, L.P. (16.54 percent), “wealthy individuals and trusts, corporate pension funds, foundations and endowments, family trusts/corporations and one state pension fund.” The ownership of GS Capital Partners II Offshore, L.P., resembled the ownership of GS Capital Partners II, L.P. The Acquisition Statement states that GGS “will be the manager of all insurance operations for [Respondent] and will act as the holding company for [Respondent] and [an Indiana nonstandard automobile insurer known as Pafco whose stock Symons was contributing to GGS].” The Acquisition Statement projects the stock-purchase price, which was expressed as a formula, to be about $60 million. Citing the $2 billion in capital of the two Goldman Sachs limited partnerships and the $50 million in capital of Goran, the Acquisition Statement assures that “GGS has tremendous wherewithal to fund the growth needs of [Respondent] . . ..” Alluding to Goran’s 20 years’ experience in managing nonstandard automobile insurance companies, the Acquisition Statement represents that the Goldman Sachs limited partnerships and Goran “possess the capital and leadership resources to support the proposed activities of [Respondent].” According to the Acquisition Statement, the Goldman Sachs limited partnerships and Goran “anticipate that the acquisition of [Respondent] is but the first step in an effort to build a significant non-standard auto insurance company.” The Acquisition Statement describes the respective contributions of the two owners of GGS: Symons will contribute Pafco, which then had a current GAAP book value of $14 million, and the Goldman Sachs limited partnerships will contribute $20 million in cash. With the backing of Symons and the Goldman Sachs limited partnerships and secured by all of the stock of Respondent and GGS, GGS will execute a six-year promissory note with The Chase Manhattan Bank (Chase) for $44 million. Drawing $40 million from this credit extension and using the $20 million cash contribution of the Goldman Sachs limited partnerships, GGS will fund the anticipated cash purchase price of $60 million. The Acquisition Statement represents that GGS will be able to service the debt. Due to the cash contribution of the Goldman Sachs limited partnerships, the Chase debt represents only two-thirds of the purchase price. Due to the cash contribution of the Goldman Sachs limited partnerships and the stock contribution by Symons, the Chase debt represents only about one-half of the initial capital of GGS. The Acquisition Statement states that GGS will service the Chase debt in part by “the combination of the management activities of both Pafco and [Respondent] within GGS, billing fees, other non-insurance company activities and anticipated insurance company operating economies which will result from the combination of these two operations [Pafco and Respondent].” The equity contributions of cash and stock “contribute significantly to the financial stability of GGS, allowing GGS to service the debt using operating cash flows only, including, if necessary, normal dividends from earned surplus as a secondary source of debt service funds. GGS does not anticipate using dividends from either Pafco or [Respondent] as a primary source of debt service funds.” The Chase Credit Agreement, which is dated April 30, 1996, requires GGS to use its best efforts to cause Respondent to pay "cash dividends or other distributions or payments in cash including . . . the payment of Billing Fees and Management Fees" in sufficient amounts to pay all principal and interest due under the financing instrument. The Chase Credit Agreement defines "Billing Fees" as: "fees with respect to the payment of premiums on an installment basis that are received by an Insurance Subsidiary from policyholders and in turn paid to [GGS] or received directly by [GGS] . . .." The Chase Credit Agreement defines "Management Fees" as: "all fees paid by an Insurance Subsidiary to [GGS] that are calculated on the basis of gross written premiums." With respect to the "Management Fees" described in the Chase Credit Agreement, the Acquisition Statement describes a five-year management agreement to be entered into by GGS with Pafco and Respondent (Management Agreement). The Management Agreement, which GGS and Respondent executed on April 30, 1996, provides that GGS “will provide management services to both Pafco and [Respondent] and will receive from [Respondent] as compensation 17% of [Respondent’s] gross written premium” and a slightly lower percentage of premiums from Pafco (Management Fee). Under the Management Agreement, Respondent “will continue to pay premium taxes, boards and bureaus costs, legal and audit fees and certain computer costs.” The Acquisition Statement states that Respondent’s “operating costs" were about 21%, so the 17% cap “will allow [Respondent] to see a significant and immediate improvement in its overall financial performance”-- over $1 million in 1994, which was the last year for which financial information was then available. The Management Agreement gives GGS the exclusive right and nondelegable and nonassignable obligation to perform a broad range of business actions on Respondent’s behalf. These actions include accepting contracts, issuing policies, appointing adjustors, and adjusting claims. The Management Agreement requires GGS to "pay [Respondent’s] office rent and occupancy operating expenses from the amounts that it receives pursuant to this Agreement.” In return, the Management Agreement requires Respondent to pay GGS “fees for the business placed with [Respondent as follows:] Agents commission plus 17% not to exceed 32% in total.” The scope of the services undertaken by GGS in the Management Agreement is similarly described in the Plan of Operation, which GGS filed with Petitioner as part of the application. The Plan of Operation provides that, in exchange for the 17 percent “management commission,” GGS assumes the responsibility for all aspects of the operating expenses of the book including underwriting, claims handling and administration. The only expenses which remain the responsibility of [Respondent] directly are those expenses directly related to the insurance book, such as premium taxes, boards and bureaus, license fees, guaranty fund assessments and miscellaneous expenses such as legal and audit expenses and certain computer costs associated directly with [Respondent]. In response to a request for additional information, Goran’s general counsel, by letter dated March 13, 1996, to Petitioner’s application coordinator, added another document, Document 26. The new document was a pro forma financial projection for 1996-2002 (Proforma) showing the sources of funds for GGS to service the Chase debt. The seven-year Proforma contains only two significant sources of income for GGS: “management fee income” and “finance & service fee income" (Finance and Service Fees). By year, starting with 1996, these respective figures are $28.6 million and $7.0 million, $34.2 million and $8.6 million, $38.1 million and $9.9 million, $42.6 million and $11.0 million, $47.5 million and $12.3 million, $53.0 million and $13.7 million, and $59.3 million and $15.3 million. Accounting for the principal and interest payments over the six-year repayment term of the Chase Credit Agreement, the Proforma shows ending cash balances, during each of the covered years, culminating in a final cash balance, in 2002, of $43.9 million. By letter dated March 29, 1996, Goran’s general counsel informed Petitioner that an increase in Respondent’s book value had triggered an increase in the purchase price from $60 million to $66 million. Also, the book value of Pafco had increased from $14 million to $15.3 million, and the cash required of the Goldman Sachs limited partnerships had increased from $20 million to $21.2 million. Additionally, the letter states that Chase had increased its commitment from $44 million to $48 million. A revised Document 26 accompanied the March 29 letter and showed the same income projections. Reflecting increased debt-service projections, the revised Proforma projected lower cash balances, culminating with $39.8 million in 2002. During a meeting in March 1996, Mr. Alan Symons, president and chief executive officer of Goran and a director of Superior Group and Respondent, met with three of Petitioner's representatives, including Mary Mostoller, Petitioner's employee primarily responsible for the substantive examination of the GGS application. During that meeting, Mr. Symons informed Petitioner that GGS would receive Finance and Service Fees from Respondent's policyholders who paid their premiums by installments. Ms. Mostoller did not testify, and the sole representative of Petitioner who attended the meeting and testified candidly admitted that he could not recall whether they discussed this matter. In response to another request for additional information, Respondent’s present counsel, by letter dated April 12, 1996, informed Petitioner that the “finance and service fee income” line of the Proforma “is composed primarily of billing fees assessed to policyholders that choose to make payments on a monthly basis,” using the same rate that Respondent had long used. The letter explains that the projected increase in these fees is attributable solely to a projected increase in business and not to a projected increase in the rate historically charged policyholders for this service. In an internal memorandum dated April 18, 1996, Ms. Mostoller noted that GGS would pay the Chase Credit Agreement through a “combination of the management fees and other billing fees of both Pafco and [Respondent].” Later in the April 18 memorandum, though, Ms. Mostoller suggested, among other things, that Petitioner condition its approval of the acquisition on the right of Petitioner to reevaluate annually the reasonableness of the “management fee and agent’s commission”--omitting any mention of the "other billing fees." On April 30, 1996, Petitioner entered a Consent Order Approving Acquisition of Stock Pursuant to Section 628.461, Florida Statutes (Consent Order). Incorporating all of Ms. Mostoller's recommendations, the Consent Order is signed by Respondent and GGS, which "agree to and consent to all of the above cited terms and conditions . . .." The Consent Order does not incorporate by reference the application and related documents, nor does the Consent Order contain an integration clause, which, if present, would merge all prior written and unwritten agreements into the Consent Order so as to preclude the implementation of such agreements in conjunction with the Consent Order. Among other things, the Consent Order mandates the following: [Respondent] shall give advance notice to [Petitioner] of any proposed changes in the [Management Agreement] and shall receive written approval from [Petitioner] prior to implementing those changes. In addition, for a period of three (3) years, [Petitioner] shall reevaluate at the end of each calendar year the reasonableness of the fees as reflected on Addendum A of the [Management] Agreement[.] Furthermore, [Petitioner] may at its sole discretion, and after consideration of the performance and operating percentages of [Respondent] and any other pertinent data, require [Respondent] to make adjustments in the [M]anagement [F]ee and agent's commission. GGS . . . shall file each year an audited financial statement with [Petitioner] . . .. In addition to the above, for a period of 4 years from the date of execution of this Consent Order . . .: [Respondent] shall not pay or authorize any stockholder dividends to shareholders without prior written approval of [Petitioner]. Any direct or indirect contracts, agreements or transactions of any type or nature including but not limited to the sale or exchange of assets among or between [Respondent] and any member of the Goran . . . holding company system shall receive prior written approval of [Petitioner]. That failure to adhere to one or more of the above terms and conditions shall result WITHOUT FURTHER PROCEEDINGS in the Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner DENYING the above acquisition, or the REVOCATION of the insurers' certification of authority if such failure to adhere occurs after the issuance of the Consent Order approving the above acquisition. The Consent Order addresses the Management Fees and the commissions payable to the independent agents who sell Respondent's insurance policies. However, the Consent Order omits any explicit mention of the Finance and Service Fees, even though GGS and Respondent had clearly and unambiguously disclosed these fees to Petitioner on several occasions prior to the issuance of the Consent Order. On its face, the Consent Order requires prior approval for the payment of Finance and Service Fees, which arise due to a contract or agreement between Respondent and GGS/Superior Group. The Consent Order prohibits "direct or indirect contracts, agreements or transactions of any type or nature including . . . the sale or exchange of assets among or between [Respondent] and any member of the Goran . . . holding company system," without Petitioner's prior written approval. The exact nature of these Finance and Service Fees facilitates the determination of their proper treatment under the Consent Order and the facts of this case. Ostensibly, the Finance and Service Fees pertain to items not covered by the Management Fees, which cover a wide range of items. In fact, the Finance and Service Fees arise only when a policyholder elects to pay his premium in installments; if no policyholder were to pay his premium by installments, no Finance and Service Fees would be due. The testimony in the record suggests that the Finance and Service Fees pertain to services that necessarily must be performed when policyholders pay their premiums by installments. This suggestion is true, as far as it goes. Installment payments require an insurer to incur administrative and information-management costs in billing and collecting installment payments. Other costs arise if late installment payments necessitate the cancellations and if reinstatements follow cancellations. Installment-payment transactions are undeniably more expensive to the insurer than single-payment transactions. The record as to these installment-payment costs, which are more in the nature of a service charge, is well- developed. However, the Finance and Service Fees also pertain to the cost of the loss of the use of money when policyholders pay their premiums by installments. Installment-payment transactions cause the insurer to lose the use of the deferred portion of the premium for the period of the deferral. The record as to these costs, which are more in the nature of a finance charge or interest, is relatively undeveloped. At the hearing, Mr. Symons testified that an insurer does not lose the use of the deferred portion of the premium for an established book of business. Mr. Symons illustrated his point by analyzing over a twelve-month period the development of a hypothetical book of business consisting of twelve insureds. If an insurer added its first insured in the first month, added a second in the third, and so forth, until it added its twelfth insured in the twelfth month, and each insured chose to pay a hypothetical $120 annual premium in twelve installments of $10 each, the cash flow in the twelfth and each succeeding month (assuming no changes in the number of insureds) would be $120-- the same that it would have been if each of the insureds chose to pay his premium in full, rather than by installment. Thus, Mr. Symons' point was that, after the first eleven months, installment payments do not result in the loss of the use of money by the insurer. Mr. Symons' illustration assumes a constant book of business after the twelfth month. However, while the insurer is adding installment-paying insureds, the insurer loses the use of the portion of the first-year premium that is deferred, as is evident in the first eleven months of Mr. Symons' illustration. Also, if the constant book of business is due to a constant replacement of nonrenewing insureds with new insureds--a distinct possibility in the nonstandard automobile market--then the insurer will again suffer the loss of the use of money over the first eleven months. Either way, Mr. Symons' illustration does not eliminate the insurer's loss of the use of money when its insureds pay by installments; the illustration only demonstrates that the extent of the loss of the use of the money may not be as great as one would casually assume. The Finance and Service Fee is sufficiently broad to encompass all of the terms used in this record to describe it: "installment fee," "billing fee," "service charge," "premium fee," and even "premium finance fee." However, only "installment fee" is sufficiently broad as to capture both types of costs covered by the Finance and Service Fee. The dual components of the Finance and Service Fee are suggested by the statute authorizing its imposition. Section 627.902, Florida Statutes, authorizes an insurer or affiliate of the insurer to "finance" premiums at the "service charge or rate of interest" specified in Section 627.901, Florida Statutes, without qualifying as a premium finance company under Chapter 627, Part XV, Florida Statutes. If the insurer or affiliate exceeds these maximum impositions, then it must qualify as a premium finance company. The "service charge or rate of interest" authorized in Section 627.901, Florida Statutes, is either $1 per installment (subject to limitations irrelevant to this case) or 18 percent simple interest on the unpaid balance. The charge per installment, which is imposed without regard to the amount deferred, suggests a service charge, and the interest charge, which is imposed without regard to the number of installments, suggests a finance charge. The determination of the proper treatment of the Finance and Service Fees under the Consent Order is also facilitated by consideration of the process by which these fees were transferred to GGS/Superior Group. As anticipated by the parties, after the acquisition of Respondent by GGS, Respondent retained no employees, and GGS/Superior Group employees performed all of the services required by Respondent. The process by which Respondent transferred the Finance and Service Fees to GGS/Superior Group began with Respondent issuing a single invoice to the policyholder showing the premium and the Finance and Service Fee, if the policyholder elected to pay by installments. As Mr. Symons testified, Respondent calculated the Finance and Service Fee on the basis of the 1.5 percent per month on the unpaid balance, rather than the specified fee per installment. The installment-paying policyholder then wrote a check for the invoiced amount, payable to Respondent, and mailed it to Respondent at the address shown on the invoice. Employees of GGS/Superior Group collected the checks and deposited them in Respondent's bank account. From these funds, the employees of GGS/Superior Group then paid the commissions to the independent agents, the Management Fee (calculated without regard to the Finance and Service Fee) to GGS/Superior Group, and the Finance and Service Fee to GGS/Superior Group. Respondent retained the remainder. Finance and Service Fees can be considerable in the nonstandard automobile insurance business. Many policyholders in this market lack the financial ability to pay premiums in total when due, so they commonly pay their premiums in installments. At the time of the 1996 acquisition, for instance, about 90 percent of Respondent's policyholders paid their premiums by installments. For 1996, on gross premiums of $156.4 million, Respondent earned net income (after taxes) of $1.978 million, as compared to gross premiums of $97.6 million and net income of $5.177 million in 1995. At the end of 1996, Respondent's surplus was $57.1 million, as compared to $49.3 million at the end of the prior year. "Surplus" or "policyholder surplus" for insurance companies is like net worth for other corporations. In 1996, Respondent received $2.154 million in Finance and Service Fees, as compared to $1.987 million in the prior year. However, Respondent did not pay any Finance and Service Fees to GGS in 1996. For related-party transactions in 1996, Respondent's financial statements disclose the payment of $155,500 to GGS and Fortis for "management fees," assumed reinsurance premiums and losses, and a capital contribution of $5.558 million from GGS, of which $4.8 million was in the form of a note. These related-party disclosures for 1996 were adequate. In August 1997, Symons bought out Goldman Sachs' interest in GGS for $61 million. Following the 1996 acquisition, Goldman Sachs had invested another $3-4 million, but, with a total investment of about $25 million, Goldman Sachs enjoyed a handsome return in a little over one year. Mr. Symons attributed the relatively high price to then-current valuations, which were 100 percent of annual gross premiums. More colorfully, Mr. Symons' brother, also a principal in the Goran family of corporations, attributed the purchase price to Goldman Sachs' "greed. " At the same time that Symons bought out Goldman Sachs, Symons enabled GGS to retire the Chase acquisition debt. The elimination of Goldman Sachs and Chase may be related by more than the need for $61 million to buy out Goldman Sachs. The 1996 Annual Statement that Respondent filed with Petitioner reports "total adjusted capital" of $57.1 million and "authorized control level risk-based capital" of $20.7 million, for a ratio of less than 3:1. Section 8.10 of the Chase Credit Agreement states that GGS "will not, on any date, permit the Risk Based Capital Ratio . . . of [Respondent] to be less than 3 to 1." Section 1 of the Chase Credit Agreement defines the ”Risk-Based Capital Ratio" as the ratio of Respondent's "Total Adjusted Capital" to its "Authorized Control Level Risk-Based Capital." In August 1997, Symons raised $135 million in a public offering of securities that probably more closely resemble debt than equity. After paying $61 million to Goldman Sachs and the $45-48 million then due Chase under the Credit Agreement (due to additional advances), Symons applied the remaining loan proceeds to various affiliates, as additional capital contributions, and possibly itself, for cash-flow purposes. The $135 million debt instrument, which remains in place, requires payments over a 30- year term, provides for no repayment of principal until the end of the term, and allows for the deferral of the semi-annual dividend/interest payments for up to five years. Symons exercised its right to defer dividend/interest payments for an undetermined period of time in 2000. The payments that are the subject of this case took place from 1997 through 1999. During this period, on a gross basis, Respondent paid GGS $35.2 million in Finance and Service Fees. In fact, $1.395 million paid in 1999 were not Finance and Service Fees, but were SR-22 policy fees, which presumably are charges attributable to the preparation and issuance by GGS of certificates of financial responsibility. Because Respondent's financial statements did not separate any SR-22 fees from Finance and Service Fees for 1997 or 1998, it is impossible to identify what, if any, portion of the Finance and Service Fees in those years were actually SR-22 fees. Even though SR-22 fees represent a service charge without an interest component, they are included in Finance and Service Fees for purposes of this Recommended Order. For 1997, on gross premiums of $188.3 million, Respondent earned net income of $379,000. For 1998, on gross premiums of $179.8 million, Respondent suffered a net loss of $8.122 million. For 1999, on gross premiums of $170.5 million, Respondent suffered a net loss of $19.232 million. Respondent's surplus decreased from $65.1 million at the end of 1997, to $57.6 million at the end of 1998, to $34.2 million at the end of 1999. In its Quarterly Statement filed as of September 30, 2000, Respondent disclosed, for the first nine months of 2000, a net loss of $5.89 million and a decline in surplus to $24.0 million. By the end of 2000, Respondent's surplus decreased to $21.6 million. However, at all times, Respondent's surplus exceeded the statutory minimum. For 1999, for example, Respondent's surplus of $34.2 million doubled the statutory minimum. Respondent also satisfied the statutory premium-to-surplus ratio, although possibly not the statutory risk-based capital ratio. As of the final hearing, Petitioner had required Respondent to file a risk-based capital plan, Respondent had done so, Petitioner had required amendments to the plan, Respondent had declined to adopt the amendments, and Petitioner had not yet taken further action. From 1997-1999, Respondent's annual statements, quarterly statements, and financial statements inadequately disclosed the payments that Respondent made to GGS. The annual statements disclose "Service Fee on Ceded Business," which is a write-in item described in language chosen by Respondent. Petitioner's contention that this item appears to be a reinsurance transaction in which Respondent is ceding risk and premiums to a third-party is rebutted by the fact that the Schedule F, Part 5, on each annual statement discloses relatively minor reinsurance transactions whose ceded premiums would not approach those reported as "Service Fee on Ceded Business." Notwithstanding the unconvincing nature of Petitioner's contention as to the precise confusion caused by Respondent's reporting of the payment of Finance and Service Fees, Respondent's reporting was clearly inadequate and even misleading. The real problem in the annual statements, quarterly statements, and financial statements is their failure to disclose Respondent's payments to a related party, GGS. Respondent unconvincingly attempts to explain this omission by an imaginative recharacterization of the Finance and Service Fee transactions as pass-through transactions. These were not pass-through transactions in 1996 when Respondent retained the Finance and Service Fees. These were not pass- through transactions in 1997-1999 when Respondent properly accounted for these payments from policyholders as income and payments to GGS as expenses. The proper characterization of these transactions involving the Finance and Service Fees does not depend on the form that Respondent and GGS/Superior Group selected for them-- in which policyholders pay Respondent and Respondent pays GGS/Superior Group--although this form does not serve particularly well Respondent's present contention. Even if Respondent had changed the form so that the policyholders paid the Finance and Service Fees directly to GGS/Superior Group, the economic reality of the transactions would remain the same. Even if policyholders paid their installments to Respondent, GGS/Superior Group, or any other party, the Finance and Service Fees would initially vest in Respondent, which, under an agreement, would then owe them to GGS/Superior Group. The inadequacy of the disclosure of the Finance and Service Fees is a relatively minor issue, in itself, in this case. In its proposed recommended order, Respondent invites direction as to how Petitioner would like Respondent to report these payments in the future. The major impact of Respondent's nondisclosure of these payments is that none of the statements filed after the 1996 acquisition notified Petitioner of the existence of these payments. It is thus impossible to infer an agreement or even acquiescence on the part of Petitioner regarding Respondent's payment of Finance and Service Fees to GGS/Superior Group. The major issue in this case is whether the Consent Order authorizes Respondent to pay $35 million in Finance and Service Fees after the 1996 acquisition or, if not, whether Petitioner has approved of such payments by any other means. As already noted, the Consent Order authorizes the payment of agents' commissions and Management Fees, but not Finance and Service Fees. To the contrary, the Consent Order prohibits the payment of Finance and Service Fees for four years, at least without Petitioner's approval, because of the provision otherwise prohibiting agreements, contracts, and the transfer of assets involving Respondent and its affiliates. As noted in the Conclusions of Law, the absence of an integration clause invites consideration of oral agreements that may have preceded the execution of the Consent Order. The Consent Order is somewhat of a hybrid: Petitioner orders and Respondent consents. However, the Consent Order is sufficiently an agreement to be subject to interpretation under normal principles governing the interpretation of contracts. Respondent contends that such agreements encompassed the payment of Finance and Service Fees because Respondent disclosed such payments several times to Petitioner prior to the issuance of the Consent Order. (Any testimonial assertion of an explicit agreement by Petitioner to the payment of the Finance and Service Fees is discredited.) Respondent repeated disclosures to Petitioner of the Finance and Service Fees began with the Acquisition Statement at the start of the application process. The parties discussed these fees in March 1996. The Proformas disclose two main revenue sources from which GGS/Superior Group could service its acquisition debt: Management Fees and Finance and Service Fees. And the Proformas project almost exactly the amount that Respondent paid GGS in Finance and Service Fees from 1997-99. Although the ratio of Management Fees to Finance and Service Fees was 4:1 in the Proformas, this ratio does not minimize the role of the Finance and Service Fees. Based on gross revenues, this ratio is no indication of the relative profitability of these two sources of revenue. In fact, in 1999, the expenses covered by the Management Agreement exceeded the Management Fees by $3 million. The Finance and Service Fees are thus an important component of the revenue on which GGS intended to rely in servicing the acquisition debt. However, neither the clear disclosure of the Finance and Service Fees nor Petitioner's recognition of the importance of these fees in servicing the acquisition debt necessarily means that Petitioner agreed to their payment. By a preponderance of, although less than clear and convincing, evidence, the record precludes the possibility that Petitioner agreed in preclosing discussions or the Consent Order to preapprove the Finance and Service Fees. In this respect, Petitioner treated the Finance and Service Fees differently from the Management Fees, which Petitioner agreed to preapprove, subject to annual reevaluation for the first three years. At the level of a preponderance of the evidence, it is possible to harmonize this construction of the Consent Order with Respondent's repeated disclosures of the Finance and Service Fees. The Acquisition Statement mentions dividends as a revenue source--although a "secondary" source--and the Consent Order clearly did not impliedly preapprove the payment of dividends. Aware of the reliance of GGS upon the Finance and Service Fees to service the Chase acquisition debt, Petitioner may have chosen, for the first four years, to consider Respondent's requests for approval of the Finance and Service Fees, based on the circumstances in existence at the time of the requests. This interpretation is consistent with the testimony of Petitioner's employee that he believed that Petitioner would be able to restrict Respondent's payment of Finance and Service Fees to GGS/Superior Group because Petitioner's approval was required for the payment of dividends. The payments are pursuant to a contract or agreement for services and, as such, are not dividends, but the Consent Order requires Petitioner's approval for all contracts and agreements during the first four years. The common point is that Petitioner understood that its approval would be required for Finance and Service Fees, which had not been preapproved like Management Fees. During the application process, GGS may not have been concerned by Petitioner's failure to preapprove the Finance and Service Fees. At the time of the 1996 acquisition, as contrasted to the period after the 1997 refinancing, GGS enjoyed a relatively light debt load due to Goldman Sachs' equity investment and the "tremendous wherewithal" of its 48 percent co-owner. Another practical distinction between the Finance and Service Fees and the Management Fees militates against finding that the Consent Order impliedly approves the Finance and Service Fees and militates in favor of a finding that GGS viewed these fees as more contingent and less likely to be needed than the Management Fees. At the start of the application process, GGS submitted to Petitioner a form Management Agreement. At no time did GGS ever submit to Petitioner a form Finance and Service Agreement. The contingent nature of the Finance and Service Fees, relative to the Management Fees, is reinforced by the fact that, in 1996, Respondent retained the Finance and Service Fees. Respondent's contention that the Finance and Service Fees were a component of the agreement between it and Petitioner is not without its appeal. The contention is sufficient to preclude a finding by clear and convincing evidence that the agreement between the parties did not include a preapproval of Finance and Service Fees. Unlike the Management Fees, the maximum amount of the Finance and Service Fees is set by statute. Two consequences follow. First, Petitioner might not have found it necessary to incorporate these fees in a written agreement, as long as the maximum amount were acceptable to Petitioner, because the law establishes a ceiling on the fees and identifies the services for which they are compensation. Second, Petitioner might not have found it necessary provide for annual reevaluation of the fees, again due to the applicable statutory maximum. In one respect, the relatively contingent quality of the Finance and Service Fees inures to Respondent's benefit, at least in theory. If no policyholder paid by installments, there would be no Finance and Service Fees; however, as a practical matter, the Finance and Service Fees are almost as pervasive as the Management Fees. More importantly, though, the Finance and Service Fees, especially when imposed as a percentage of the unpaid balance, contain a significant interest component. Paying these fees to GGS/Superior Group, Respondent denies itself the investment income attributable to this forbearance. Alternatively, to the extent that the Finance and Service Fees defray services, as they do to some unknown extent, the greater weight of the evidence, although not clear and convincing evidence, establishes that these services are among the services that GGS/Superior Group undertook in the Management Agreement. These factors militate strongly against treating the Finance and Service Fees as an implied exception to the provision of the Consent Order requiring approval of all contracts or agreements with affiliates during the first four years. For these reasons, Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence, although not clear and convincing evidence, that GGS/Superior Group and Respondent needed Petitioner's approval for all payments of Finance and Service Fees prior to April 30, 2000. To the extent that, as discussed in the Conclusions of Law, Petitioner withholds such approval, the next issue is to determine the amount of Finance and Service Fees that GGS/Superior Group must return to Respondent. The determination of the amount of the repayment is substantially affected by two facts. First, Petitioner's approval is not required for any Finance and Service Fees that Respondent paid GGS/Superior Group after April 30, 2000. The Consent Order did not require Petitioner's approval for such payments, which were not dividends, for which approval would always be required, if inadequate surplus existed. Second, GGS/Superior Group is entitled to a dollar-for-dollar credit, against any liability for improperly received Finance and Service Fees, for about $20 million that it directly or indirectly transferred to Respondent since the 1996 acquisition. Half of the $20 million credit arises from Management Fees that GGS did not collect from Respondent in 1996 and 1998. As Petitioner notes, there is little, if any, documentation concerning these uncollected fees. Mr. Symons persuasively testified that the proper characterization of these amounts is dependent upon the outcome of Petitioner's effort to disallow the Finance and Service Fees already paid by Respondent. Petitioner must credit to GGS/Superior Group these $10 million in fees as an offset to the $35.2 million (or such lesser amount remaining after any retroactive approvals from Petitioner) that Respondent improperly paid GGS/Superior Group in Finance and Service Fees. Also, in 1997, GGS contributed about $10 million to Respondent's capital. As was the case with the uncollected Management Fees in 1996 and 1998, the record contains little, if any, documentation concerning the transfer, including any conditions that may have attached to it. Petitioner should credit GGS/Superior Group with this sum as an offset against the $35.2 million (or such lesser amount remaining after any retroactive approvals from Petitioner) that Respondent improperly paid GGS/Superior Group in Finance and Service Fees. As for the remaining $15 million in Finance and Service Fees that Respondent improperly paid to GGS through 1999 and any additional amounts through April 30, 2000, the impropriety arises because Respondent failed first to obtain Petitioner's approval--not because any transaction was otherwise necessarily improper. Concerning the remaining $15 million, then, Petitioner should give Respondent and GGS/Superior Group an opportunity to request retroactive approval for the payment of all or part of this sum, without regard to the lateness of the request. Applying any and all factors that Petitioner would ordinarily apply in considering such requests, Petitioner can then reach an informed determination as to the propriety of this $15 million in Finance and Service Fees. If Petitioner determines that Respondent must obtain from GGS/Superior Group repayment of any Finance and Service Fees, then Petitioner may consider the issue of the timing of the repayment. As Petitioner mentions in its proposed recommended order, an evidentiary hearing might be useful for this purpose. Obvious sources would be setoffs against Management Fees and Finance and Service Fees that Respondent is presently paying Superior Group.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance enter a final cease and desist order: Determining that, without the prior written consent of the Department, Superior Insurance Company paid Finance and Service Fees to GGS/Superior Group in the net amount of approximately $15 million, plus all such amounts paid after the period covered by this case through April 30, 2000. Requiring that Superior Insurance Company immediately file all necessary documentation with the Department to seek the retroactive approval of all or part of the sum set forth in the preceding paragraph. If any sum remains improperly paid after implementing the procedure set forth in the preceding paragraph, establishing a reasonable repayment schedule for Respondent to impose upon Superior Group--if necessary, in the form of setoffs of Management Fees and Finance and Service Fees due at the time of, and after, the Final Order. Determining that Superior Insurance Company inadequately disclosed related-party transactions and ordering that Superior Insurance Company comply with specific guidelines for the reporting of these transactions in the future. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of June, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 1st day of June, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Tom Gallagher State Treasurer/Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307 S. Marc Herskovitz Luke S. Brown Division of Legal Services Department of Insurance 200 East Gaines Street, Sixth Floor Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Clyde W. Galloway, Jr. Austin B. Neal Foley & Lardner 106 East College Avenue, Suite 900 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 Whether the permit sought by Petitioner should be issued.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner initially filed a permit application with Respondent on March 17, 1997. The required application fee did not accompany the application. The submittal, in accordance with Respondent’s office procedure, was date-stamped at that time but in the absence of the application fee and proper signatories, was not viewed as an application ready for review. The initial permit application had been hand-delivered by Petitioner’s employee, date-stamped and perused by Respondent’s employee, and returned to Petitioner’s employee upon observing the absence of the application fee. On August 29, 1997, Petitioner again submitted the application to Respondent’s offices. This time, the application was appropriately signed and accompanied by a check for the appropriate application fee. Following the August 29, 1997, submittal, Petitioner stopped payment on the check for application fees. However, the review process had begun on the application. By letter dated September 26, 1997, Respondent’s representative requested additional information of Petitioner. There was no response to the request. The permit application fee remained unpaid at the time of final hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order DENYING Petitioner’s application for the requested permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of November, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of November, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: O. C. Allen, Jr., Qualified Representative Environmental Waste Recyclers, Inc. Post Office Box 10572 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Martha L. Nebelsiek, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 David B. Struhs, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Doulgas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was represented by in this case by Michael Linsky, Esquire, beginning in April 1988. Two complaints of discrimination had been brought against the Department of Corrections by Petitioner. Linsky is an experienced trial lawyer having been admitted to the Florida Bar in 1970. However, he had no experience with discrimination cases prior to these proceedings. The Florida Commission on Human Relations found the Department had committed an unlawful employment practice when it assigned Petitioner to perimeter post duty and transferred him to Polk Correctional Institution in retaliation for having filed a discrimination complaint. Linsky originally took Petitioner's case on a contingency fee basis, but later it was decided between Linsky and Petitioner that the fee would be whatever was awarded by the Commission. Petitioner was only to be responsible for costs. Linsky submitted into evidence as Exhibit 1 a list of dates and hours expended on this case. However, this exhibit was prepared by Linsky's secretary some months after the events depicted and appear grossly exaggerated in some instances. Linsky claims a total of 159.35 hours expended. Linsky testified that his billing rate from April 1988 to December 1988 was $175 per hour, and thereafter it was raised to $190 per hour. Petitioner's expert witnesses contend the average billing rate in the Tampa area for this type of case ranges from $125 to $175 per hour. Respondent's expert witnesses contend the fees awarded run from $100 to $150 per hour. I find the appropriate fee in this case to be $135 per hour. Although Linsky claims to have spent 159.35 hour on this case, including the attorney's fees portion, 1 find that only 100 hours are reasonable. Costs of $423.60 is not disputed.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Department of Corrections be directed to pay Sefsick's attorney $13,500 attorney's fees and $423.60 costs in these proceedings. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of September, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of September, 1990. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings are accepted, except: 3. This proposed finding is accepted as a recital of the testimony presented, but rejected insofar as inconsistent with H.O. #8. 5. Rejected insofar as inconsistent with H.O. #7. 6 and 7. Accepted as legal argument, but rejected as a finding of fact. Respondent's proposed findings are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael A. Linsky, Esquire 600 North Florida Avenue Suite 1610 Tampa, FL 33602 Lynne T. Winston, Esquire Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500 Louis A. Vargas General Counsel Department of Corrections 1313 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500 Richard L. Dugger Secretary Department of Corrections 1313 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500 =================================================================
The Issue The issue in this case is whether attorneys' fees and costs should be awarded to Respondent, Palm Beach County, and Intervenor, Richard Siemens, pursuant to Section 120.595, Florida Statutes (1997).
Findings Of Fact A. The Parties. 1. Petitioners are all individuals residing in Palm Beach County, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the "County"). 2. Respondent, the Board of County Commissioners of Palm Beach County (hereinafter referred to as the "Board"), is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and the governing body of the County. Respondent, the Department of Community Affairs (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is an agency of the State of Florida. The Department is charged with responsibility for, among other things, the review of local government comprehensive plans and amendments thereto pursuant to Part II, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (1997)(hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). Intervenor, Richard Siemens, resides in the County. The Subject Amendment. On September 22, 1997, the Board adopted an amendment to the its comprehensive plan by Ordinance Number 97-28 (hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Amendment"). The Subject Amendment modified the Traffic Circulation Element of the Palm Beach County Comprehensive Plan. Following a review of the Subject Amendment, the Department issued a Notice of Intent finding the Subject Amendment to be "in compliance," as defined in Section 163.3184(1), Florida Statutes (1997). Initiation of the Challenge to the Subject Amendment. On December 24, 1997, Mort Hillman, Rosa Durando, and Barry Silver, filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing with the Department requesting a formal hearing pursuant to Section 163.3184(9), Florida Statutes (1997). The petition was filed by Richard Grosso, Esquire, and Mr. Silver, who is a member of The Florida Bar, as co-counsel on behalf of all Petitioners. On January 12, 1998, the petition was filed by the Department with the Division of Administrative Hearings. The Department requested that the petition be assigned to an Administrative Law Judge pursuant to Section 163.3184(9), Florida Statutes (1997). The petition was designated Case No. 98-0202GM and was assigned to the undersigned. On January 12, 1998, a Petition to Intervene in this case was filed on behalf of Richard Siemens. Scheduling of the Final Hearing. On January 15, 1998, before the Petition to Intervene was ruled on, Mr. Siemens filed a Notice Demanding Expeditious Resolution of Proceeding pursuant to Section 163.3189(3), Florida Statutes (1997). Section 163.3189(3), Florida Statutes (1997), requires that proceedings initiated pursuant to Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes (1997), be scheduled for final hearing "no more than 30 days after receipt" of a demand for expeditious resolution from any party to the proceeding. At the time Mr. Siemens filed the demand for expeditious resolution, he had not yet been granted leave to intervene in this matter. On January 21, 1998, a motion hearing was conducted by telephone. Immediately before the commencement of the motion hearing, Petitioners filed a Response to Petition to Intervene and Motion for Expedited Hearing. Petitioners objected to conducting an expedited hearing but expressed no opposition in their response or during the motion hearing to Mr. Siemens' intervention in this proceeding. Therefore, Mr. Siemens was granted leave to intervene. In light of the fact that Mr. Siemens did not become party to this proceeding until January 21, 1998, the demand for expedited hearing was treated as having been received on January 21, 1998. Pursuant to Section 163.3189(3), Florida Statutes (1997), the formal hearing of this case was, therefore, required to be scheduled on or before February 20, 1998. In Petitioners' response to the notice of demand, Mr. Silver objected to the demand for expedited hearing of this matter and asserted that the case should be continued pursuant to Section 11.111, Florida Statutes (1997). Section 11.111, Florida Statutes (1997), provides for a continuance of any administrative hearing in which a member of the Florida Legislature is either an attorney representing the litigants, a party, or a witness. The continuance applies to any period of time during which committee work is required, plus one day prior and one day subsequent to the committee work, and during the fifteen days prior and subsequent to any session of the Legislature. It was pointed out in Petitioners' response to the demand for expedited hearing that Mr. Silver, who appeared as counsel for his co-Petitioners and as a Petitioner, was a member of the Florida House of Representatives. It was represented during the motion hearing that Mr. Silver was required to attend to committee work during the weeks of February 2, 1998, and February 15, 1998. It was also represented that the 1998 Legislative Session was scheduled to commence March 3, 1998. Therefore, pursuant to Section 11.111, Florida Statutes (1997), it was argued that no hearing should be scheduled during the weeks of February 2, 1998, and February 15, 1998, during the fifteen days prior to March 3, 1998, and for fifteen days after the end of the Legislative Session. Although the amount of time available to schedule an expedited hearing of this case was severely limited by Mr. Silver's schedule, it was determined that Section 11.111, Florida Statutes (1997), did not require a continuance of the hearing during the week of February 9, 1998. Therefore, in an effort to accommodate the provisions of Sections 11.111 and Section 163.3189(3), Florida Statutes (1997), the final hearing was scheduled for the week of February 9, 1998. The afternoon of February 9, 1998, was reserved to hear argument on several motions. The final hearing was scheduled to commence the morning of February 10, 1998, only a little more than a month after the petition initiating this matter was filed with the Department. The final hearing was scheduled for the week of February 9, 1998, over objections of Petitioners and counsel for Petitioners, Mr. Grosso, who was scheduled to appear at another administrative hearing also scheduled for the week of February 10, 1998. Preparation of the Petitioner and for the Final Hearing. Petitioners have no training in land use planning. Mr. Hillman is a retired musician. Ms. Durando is also retired, having formally managed race horses. Mr. Silver is a sole practitioner and State legislator. None of Petitioners are particularly knowledgeable about the Act or the terms "in compliance." While Petitioners did not conduct an extensive investigation prior to filing their petition in this case, they retained legal counsel and relied upon counsel to prepare their petition. After the petition was filed, there was little time for investigation by Petitioners or counsel. In light of the fact that the parties were not put on notice until January 21, 1998, that the final hearing was to commence on February 10, 1998, the parties had only 12 working days to prepare for the final hearing. Mr. Silver was involved with legislative committee meetings for 5 of those days. Mr. Grosso was involved in preparation for other litigation before the Division of Administrative Hearings schedule for the same week. During the time prior to the commencement of the final hearing, there were numerous discovery requests which had to be responded to on an expedited basis, several motions had to be responded to, and a prehearing stipulation had to be prepared. Based upon the lack of time between the scheduling of the final hearing and the commencement of the final hearing, Petitioners did not have an adequate amount of time to prepare their case for final hearing. Because of the short period of preparation time, little discovery was conducted by the parties. To the extent that limited discovery was inadequate to prepare the parties for the final resolution of this matter, there simply was insufficient time for further discovery. On February 2 and 3, 1998, only a week before the commencement of the final hearing, the depositions of Petitioners and Lance deHaven-Smith were taken by Intervenors. Mr. deHaven-Smith was designated by Petitioners as an expert witness on planning issues. Mr. deHaven-Smith's deposition consists of almost 160 pages of testimony. Among other things, Mr. deHaven-Smith was asked the following question by counsel for Mr. Siemens and gave the following response: Q . . . . Is it your opinion that this issue of whether the County should or should not apply the CRALLS with respect to this 2.3 mile section of Clint Moore Road, in consideration of these issues that you and I have talked about relating to schools, and traffic and those kinds of things, is it your position that it is not even fairly debatable as to whether that decision is consistent with the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan of Palm Beach County relating to the agricultural reserve area? A I don't think it is fairly debatable. I can understand if you are looking at the trade-off between the developments, and the 900, versus 500. And you could see how somebody could easily get sucked in to wanting to make those trade- offs. But you have got a plan that is committing you to not only the agriculture reserve area, but the effort to keep traffic down off of that particular road. And I have not understood it. Now, maybe there is a reason that you could apply this sort of temporary concurrency exception beyond three years, but my understanding of the law is that you are limited to three years. Page 65, lines 19 to 25 and page 66, lines 1-22. Despite the foregoing opinion, Mr. deHaven-Smith also testified extensively about his concerns about the Subject Amendment. The Final Hearing. On the afternoon of February 9, 1998, a hearing was conducted on outstanding motions. The formal hearing commenced on February 10, 1998, and continued through February 11, 1999. During the final hearing Petitioners presented the testimony of Frank Duke, Terry Hess, and George T. Webb. Petitioners offered eight exhibits. Mr. Duke and Mr. Webb are employees of the County. Mr. Duke and Mr. Webb offered testimony concerning the impact of the Subject Amendment. Mr. Hess is an employee of the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. Mr. Hess had previously recommended to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council that the Subject Amendment be found consistent with the regional plan. While Mr. Hess attempted to testify about concerns he had with the Subject Amendment during the Final Hearing, he ultimately testified that the Subject Amendment was, indeed, consistent with the regional plan. Petitioners did not call Mr. deHaven-Smith or any other expert planner who specifically testified that the Subject Amendment is not "fairly debatable." There were, however, only 7 days following the taking of Mr. deHaven-Smith's deposition and the commencement of the final hearing, giving Petitioners little time to explore the possibility of finding another expert planner. Ultimately there was no direct testimony that it was not fairly debatable that the Subject Amendment is "in compliance." While that issue was the ultimate issue to be decided in this case, nothing about this case required that such an opinion be given at the final hearing in order for Petitioners to have succeeded. Ultimately the resolution of this case turned less on the testimony at final hearing and more on a comparison of the language of the Subject Amendment with the relevant local, regional, and state plans and the Act. Had Petitioners' view of this case been correct, it could have been concluded that it was not fairly debatable that the Subject Amendment was in compliance without any witnesses rendering such an opinion. When all the evidence in this case was weighed, it was apparent that Petitioners' arguments were without merit. It might even be concluded that Petitioners' arguments were frivolous but for two things: (a) the lack of time afforded by the Act to Petitioners to prepare for the final hearing; and (b) the somewhat unique factual circumstances of this case. The unique factual circumstances of this case were that the success of Mr. Siemens' proposed development, which was the catalyst for the Subject Amendment, depended on a provision of the County's plan authorizing CRALLS designations, a designation that would likely not be found "in compliance" with the Act if subject to review today, and the fact that the proposed development was vested and, therefore, not subject to all of the clear prohibition of the County's plan against such developments in the agricultural area Mr. Siemens' property is located in. The Recommended and Final Orders. On April 17, 1998, a Recommended Order was entered in this case after consideration of proposed orders filed by the parties. It was determined that Petitioners had failed to meet their burden of proving that the determination that the Subject Amendment was "in compliance" was not "fairly debatable." It was, therefore, recommended that the Subject Amendment be found "in compliance" under the Act. Petitioners filed "exceptions" to the Recommended Order with the Department. On May 20, 1998, a Final Order was entered in this case. The Department accepted the recommendation of the Recommended Order to find the Subject Amendment to be "in compliance." The Final Order of the Department was subsequently appealed. As a result of the Final Order, the County and Mr. Siemens both are "prevailing parties" and Petitioners are "nonprevailing adverse parties" in this matter. The County/Siemens' Motion for Fees. The County and Mr. Siemens filed the County/Siemens' Motion for Fees on March 16, 1998. The County and Mr. Siemens requested an award of attorneys' fees and costs from Petitioners pursuant to Sections 120.569(2), 120.595(1)(b) and (c), and 163.3184(12), Florida Statutes (1997). The County/Siemens' Motion for Fees was filed after the final hearing in this case but before the Recommended Order was filed. Subsequent to the taking of Mr. deHaven-Smith's deposition and prior to the commencement of the final hearing in this case, Mr. Siemens put Petitioners on notice that he intended to seek an award of attorneys' fees and costs from Petitioners. An award pursuant to Section 120.595(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1997), may be made in a final order entered by the Department only after an administrative law judge finds that the nonprevailing party in a case "participated" in the case for an "improper purpose." I. Petitioners did not Participate in this Proceeding for an Improper Purpose. Pursuant to Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes, Petitioners had the burden of proving that it was not "fairly debatable" that the Subject Amendment was "in compliance." This burden of proof was a substantial one. Looking at the proceeding as a whole, from the filing of the petition to the final hearing of this case, and taking into account the lack of time allowed Petitioners to prepare for the final hearing and the unique factual circumstances of this case, the evidence failed to prove that Petitioners participated in this matter for an "improper purpose."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a supplemental Final Order denying Palm Beach County and Siemens' Joint Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs pursuant to Section 120.595, Florida Statutes (1997). DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 2nd day of April, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Grosso, Esquire Post Office Box 19630 Plantation, Florida 33318 Barry M. Silver, Esquire Corporate Centre, Suite 308 7777 Glades Road Boca Raton, Florida 33434-4194 Barbara Alterman, Esquire Robert Banks, Esquire Assistant County Attorneys Post Office Box 1989 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Shaw Stiller, Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 C. Gary Williams, Esquire Stephen C. Emmanuel, Esquire Ausley and McMullen Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Steven M. Seibert, Secretary Department of Community Affairs Suite 100 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Jim Robinson, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs Suite 315 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
The Issue The issues for determination are whether Respondent should assess tax, interest, and penalty on gross sales that Petitioner reported in Petitioner's federal income tax returns, but not in Petitioner's state sales tax returns; and on gross sales of services in transactions that also involved sales of tangible personal property.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was a Florida corporation from May 1, 1995, through April 30, 2000 (the audit period). Petitioner maintained its principal place of business at 153 East Morse Boulevard, Winter Park, Florida 32789, and engaged in the business of providing services for interior design and decorating and selling tangible personal property used in the design and decoration of properties. On October 10, 2004, the Department of State, Division of Corporations, administratively dissolved Petitioner for failure to file Petitioner's annual report. Petitioner's federal employer identification number during the audit period was 59-2706005. Petitioner reported income and deductions for purposes of the federal income tax using the cash method of accounting. During the audit period, Petitioner was a registered dealer and filed a monthly Sales and Use Tax Return (DR-15) with Respondent. On June 2, 2000, Respondent sent Petitioner a Notification of Intent to Audit Books and Records (Form DR-840) bearing audit number A9933414838. Respondent and Petitioner agreed that a sampling method would be the most effective, expedient, and adequate method in which to audit Petitioner's books and records. Respondent examined and sampled the available books and records to determine whether Petitioner properly collected and remitted sales and use tax in compliance with Chapter 212, Florida Statutes (1993). For 1996, 1997, and 1999, Petitioner reported fewer gross sales on the DR-15s used for the purpose of the state sales tax than Petitioner reported on its Form 1120S federal income tax return. Respondent determined that the difference between gross sales reported for purposes of the state and federal taxes constituted unreported sales on which Respondent was statutorily required to assess sales tax, penalty, and interest. Respondent's auditor divided the yearly differences in the amounts reported on the Form 1120S and the DR-15s to determine a monthly difference for each month from 1996 through 1997. The auditor then scheduled the monthly difference and assessed the tax appropriately. The auditor also assessed tax for the value of design services that Petitioner provided to customers when Petitioner sold the customers design services and tangible personal property as a part of the same transaction. Pursuant to an agreement between Petitioner and Respondent's auditor, the sample included the entire year in 1999. Petitioner collected sales tax on all sales of tangible personal property, but did not collect sales tax on fees charged for decorator and design services provided in the same transactions. Respondent is authorized by rule to assess sales tax on the value of services provided in the same transaction in which Petitioner sold tangible personal property. The auditor correctly divided the total taxable design fees invoiced for 1999 by the total invoiced amount per sales by customer detail. The resulting quotient of .0752 percent was the applicable percentage of the design fees that were taxable in 1999. The auditor multiplied the applicable percentage by the gross sales that Petitioner reported on its federal tax returns for 1997, 1998, and 1999 to determine the total amount of design fees that were taxable. The auditor then properly scheduled and assessed the taxable interior design fees. On May 1, 2001, Respondent issued a Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes (form DR-1215). The Notice provided that Petitioner owed $77,249.72 in taxes; $38,625.02 in penalties; and $29,471.12 in interest, for a total deficiency of $145,345.86. Interest continued to accrue on the unpaid assessment. On August 15, 2001, Respondent issued its Notice of Proposed Assessment. The Notice provided that Petitioner owed: $77,249.72 in taxes; $38,625.02 in penalties; and $32,145.15 in interest, for a total of $148,019.89 through August 15, 2001.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order assessing Petitioner for $148,019.89 in tax, penalty, and interest, plus the amount of interest that accrues from August 15, 2001, through the date of payment. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of February, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of February, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: W. Scott Carter Carter Wolf Interiors, Inc. 153 East Morse Boulevard Winter Park, Florida 32789-7400 J. Bruce Hoffmann, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Post Office Box 6668 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668 W. Scott Carter 1700 Briercliff Drive Orlando, Florida 32806-2408 James O. Jett, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 James Zingale, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Richard Shambo, is the legal guardian for Linda Shambo. Linda Shambo is a "client" as defined in Section 402.33(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and has been assessed a fee in the amount of $286.00 per month by the Department. Such fee is paid by the Petitioner as the client's guardian. Petitioner manages the client's financial resources. The client resides in a group home, an intensive care level 3 facility, for which the monthly charge is $633.00. No dispute was made as to the appropriateness of that charge. The fee which has been assessed in this case is equal to the monthly charge less the client's reimbursements from other sources (e.g. Social Security benefits). The Department's Fee Collection Review Committee met on January 8, 1993 to review the fee assessed for this client. Such committee denied Petitioner's request for a reduction in fee and advised him of his right to an administrative review of that decision. The client's income over the last few years has declined due to lower interest rates. According to Petitioner, if the assessed fee is not reduced from $286 to $250 per month, the client will have insufficient income to cover the assessment. As a result, the client's principal will be reduced to cover the difference. Such testimony has been deemed credible and has not been challenged by the Department. No argument as to the appropriateness of other expenditures made on behalf of this client has been raised. Accordingly, it is found that the client's income less such appropriate expenses is insufficient to yield a disposable income sufficient to cover the fee assessed by the Department.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order granting Petitioner's request for a reduced fee. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 29th day of March, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 29th day of March, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-4617 Neither party submitted a proposed recommended order. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert L. Powell, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Kim Tucker, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Richard E. Shambo 125 Cooper Drive Santee, South Carolina 29142 Karen M. Miller District Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 111 Georgia Avenue West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent failed to provide workers’ compensation insurance as required by section 440.107, Florida Statutes (2019), and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Division is the state agency charged with enforcing the requirement in section 440.107(3), that employers in Florida secure workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. Respondent is a company engaged in the construction industry. James Colligan is its sole employee. Respondent’s office is 637 Four Point Road, Holt, Florida, 32564. On or about October 1, 2019, Sabrina Johnson, a compliance investigator for the Division, observed someone installing vinyl fencing on an existing home located at 101 Pine Court, in Niceville, Florida. She approached and spoke to the lone worker, who identified himself as James Colligan. Ms. Johnson identified herself as a compliance investigator for the Division and asked for proof of workers’ compensation insurance. Mr. Colligan advised her that he had an exemption. Ms. Johnson consulted the Department of State, Division of Corporation’s website to determine the identity of Respondent’s officers, and found that Mr. Colligan was the sole officer. She then consulted Petitioner’s Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) for proof of workers’ compensation coverage, and for any exemptions associated with Respondent. Ms. Johnson’s research revealed that Respondent did not have a workers’ compensation policy or an employee leasing policy, and did not have a current exemption. Mr. Colligan previously held an exemption, but it expired on July 20, 2018. He had applied for a renewal of the exemption on July 2, 2018, but his application was rejected as incomplete because the FEIN number on the renewal application did not match the one on file. Mr. Colligan was notified by email on July 3, 2018, that his application was being returned to him as incomplete. He acknowledged at hearing that he had provided his email address to the Division, but stated he gets so many emails, he does not always read them. He did not recall ever seeing the email from the Division, and believed that his exemption had been renewed. Mr. Colligan’s testimony was sincere and credible. However, it is his responsibility to make sure that his exemption is up to date, and he did not do so. Upon learning from Ms. Johnson that his exemption had expired, Mr. Colligan immediately applied for and received an exemption. However, the newly acquired exemption is prospective, and does not cover the period of noncompliance. Investigator Johnson consulted with her supervisor, who provided authorization for the issuance of a Stop-Work Order. She issued a Stop-Work Order and personally served it on Mr. Colligan on October 1, 2019. At the same time, she issued and served a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation. Mr. Colligan executed an Agreed Order of Conditional Release from Stop-Work Order, paid the minimum $1,000 fine and, as noted above, submitted a new application for an exemption. The records requested fall into five categories: 1) payroll documents, such as time sheets, time cards, attendance records, earning records, check stubs, and payroll summaries, as well as federal income tax documents and other documents that would provide the amount of remuneration paid or payable to each employee; 2) account documents, including all business check journals and statements, cleared checks for all open and/or closed business accounts, records of check and cash disbursements, cashier’s checks, bank checks, and money orders; 3) disbursement records, meaning all records of each business disbursement including, but not limited to, check and cash disbursements, indicating chronologically the disbursement date, to whom the money was paid, the amount, and the purpose for which the disbursement was made; 4) subcontractor records, identifying the identity of each subcontractor of the employer, the contractual relationship held, and any payments to those subcontractors; and 5) documentation of subcontractor’s workers’ compensation coverage. Respondent worked as a subcontractor, but there was no evidence presented that he hired subcontractors, so records falling into the categories related to subcontractors likely do not exist. Respondent provided copies of bank statements, but these records did not contain earning records, income tax filings, check images, or other sufficient records from which the Division could determine payroll. Lynne Murcia reviewed Respondent’s records in her capacity as a penalty auditor for the Division. She testified credibly that income can be identified through direct wage payments to an employee, bonuses given, income distributions, loans that are not repaid, and the like. The bank statements provided by Respondent were simply insufficient for her to determine which items were reflective of payroll. Therefore, in accordance with section 440.107(7)(e) and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.028, she determined payroll in this case by imputing payroll for the work classification assigned to the identified work being performed. On October 29, 2019, the Division issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, which was served on Respondent on October 30, 2019. The penalty assessed for noncompliance with chapter 440 workers’ compensation requirements was $15,260.56. The penalty calculation is based upon the classification codes listed in the Scopes® Manual, which have been adopted through the rulemaking process through rules 68L-6.021 and 69L-6.031. Classification codes are codes assigned to different occupations by the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc. (NCCI), to assist in the calculation of workers’ compensation insurance premiums. Ms. Murcia used classification code 6400 for Mr. Colligan. The description for code 6400 is for “specialist contractors engaged in the erection of all types of metal fences, i.e., chain link, woven wire, wrought iron or barbed wire fences.” There is no dispute that Code 6400 was the appropriate classification code for the type of work Respondent performed. Using this classification code, Ms. Murcia used the corresponding approved manual rates for that classification and the period of noncompliance. Ms. Murcia multiplied the average weekly wage by 1.5, in accordance with section 440.107(7)(e). The period of noncompliance in this case ran from the expiration of Mr. Colligan’s exemption (July 21, 2018), to the day that he applied for and received a new exemption (October 1, 2019). The average weekly wage is established by the Department of Economic Opportunity. Because the period of noncompliance involved two different pay rates, Ms. Murcia provided a separate calculation for each calendar year. The imputed gross payroll for July 21, 2018 through December 31, 2018, was $33,013.55, which she divided by 100 and then multiplied by the manual approved rate ($9.73), times two, to reach the amount of penalty to be imposed for that calendar year. A similar calculation was performed for the period from January 1, 2019 through October 1, 2019, using the manual approved rate of $8.01. All of the penalty calculations are in accordance with the Division’s penalty calculation worksheet. The Division proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent was engaged in the construction business for the period beginning July 21, 2018, and ending October 1, 2019, without prior workers’ compensation coverage or a valid exemption. The Division also demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the documents submitted by Respondent, which may be all of the documentation that Respondent possessed, were not sufficient to establish Respondent’s payroll, thus requiring the imputation of payroll. Finally, the Division proved by clear and convincing evidence that the required penalty for the period of noncompliance is $15,260.56.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order finding that Respondent failed to comply with the requirements of section 440.107 and impose the penalty identified in the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, with credit for the $1,000 already paid. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of February, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of February, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: James Colligan 637 Four Point Road Holt, Florida 32564 Rean Knopke, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Kami Alexis Sidener, Law Clerk Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Leon Melnicoff, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 (eServed)
The Issue Whether the Petitioner should be subjected to a penalty pursuant to Section 395.5094, Florida Statutes (1987), or Section 407.51, Florida Statutes (1989)?
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, the Health Care Cost Containment Board, is an agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility of regulating hospital budgets. The Office of the Public Counsel is authorized pursuant to Section 407.54, Florida Statutes, to represent the general public in budget review proceedings before the Respondent. The Petitioner, Centro Asturiano Hospital, is a 144-bed acute care hospital located in Tampa, Florida. During all times relevant to this proceeding, the Petitioner's fiscal year was the calendar year. During 1984, 1985 and 1986, the accounting firm of Peat, Marwick and Main (hereinafter referred to as "Peat") prepared financial statements and Medicare reports for the Petitioner. Peat also performed audits of the Petitioner during 1984, 1985 and 1986. During all times relevant to this proceeding, the Petitioner's comptroller, Hilda Smith, prepared reports filed with the Respondent on behalf of the Petitioner. For the fiscal year 1987, the Respondent had approved the Petitioner's budgeted gross revenue per adjusted admission (hereinafter referred to as "GRAA") of $7,536.00 and net revenue per adjusted admission (hereinafter referred to as "NRAA") of $4,913.00. Based upon the Petitioner's audited actual experience for fiscal year 1987, the Petitioner's actual NRAA exceeded its budgeted NRAA. Therefore, the Respondent proposed to impose a penalty (hereinafter referred to as the "Main Penalty") on the Petitioner pursuant to Section 395.5094, Florida Statutes (1987), and Rule 10N-1.062, Florida Administrative Code. By letter dated May 12, 1988, the Respondent notified the Petitioner that it was imposing a Main Penalty on the Petitioner for 1987. A second letter dated August 15, 1988, was sent by the Respondent to the Petitioner revising the amount of the penalty. In calculating the revised penalty the Respondent took into account the Petitioner's case-mix and outlier activity. The total recommended penalty was $609,218.00. The penalty consists of a budget reduction to net revenue of $566,938.00 with a corresponding reduction to gross revenue of $854,425.00, and a cash fine of $42,280.00. The reason for imposing the Main Penalty was explained in the Respondent's letter of August 15, 1988, as follows: Preliminary findings indicated that an excess of net revenue per adjusted admission in the amount of $381.00 had occurred. These findings are based upon a comparison [sic] of the previous year's audited actual experience inflated by the MARI, and the Board approved budget for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1987. The total excess has been adjusted by case-mix and outlier activity and results in a total recommended penalty of $609,218. . . . The proposed penalty could have been avoided if the Petitioner had sought a budget amendment for 1987 or if the Petitioner had modified its operations during 1987 when it learned that its actual experience would exceed its approved budget. The Petitioner believes that the difference in the Petitioner's actual experience for 1987 and its approved budget for 1987 was caused primarily by an adjustment to Medicare contractual allowances. When a hospital treats a patient eligible for Medicare payment for the patient's services, the hospital records the gross amount of the hospital's charges for the patient's services. Medicare, however, only pays a portion of the total charges. The difference between the hospital's charges and the amount actually paid by Medicare is referred to as "Medicare contractuals." For example, if a patient is charged $1,000.00 by a hospital for services but Medicare will only pay $800.00 for those services, the $200.00 difference is referred to as a Medicare contractual. If the $200.00 is not paid from some other source it must be deducted from gross revenue to arrive at net revenue on the books of the hospital. The Petitioner receives a substantial portion of its revenue for Medicare reimbursed services. Therefore, Medicare contractuals constitute a significant item in the Petitioner's budget. An adjustment to the Petitioner's Medicare contractuals could have a significant impact on the Petitioner's budget. During April, 1987, Peat notified the Petitioner's comptroller, Ms. Smith, that the Petitioner's Medicare contractuals needed to be adjusted by $488,000.00. This adjustment was the result of Peat's audit of Petitioner's 1986 financial records and was related to Medicare cost reports for 1983, 1984 and 1985. Peat also determined that an additional $200,000.00 adjustment was required. The Petitioner knew that the adjustments were material. The net effect of Peat's 1986 audit was that the Petitioner was required in 1987 to reduce 1986 Medicare and other contractual deductions from gross revenue by $688,000.00. This amount was a significant amount. The $688,000.00 adjustment was reported by Peat to the Board of Directors of the Petitioner and accepted by the Board in April, 1987. Between June, 1987, and July, 1987, Ms. Smith, the Petitioner's comptroller, prepared a Current Year Actual and Estimated Interim Report (hereinafter referred to as the "1987 Interim Report"). In the 1987 Interim Report the Petitioner compared actual GRAA for the first 6 months of 1987 and projected GRAA for the last 6 months of 1987 with 1987 budgeted GRAA. Based upon this computation it was apparent that the Petitioner was operating in excess of the Petitioner's budget for 1987 as approved by the Respondent. The Petitioner, therefore, could have sought a budget amendment or modified its operations. Ms. Smith testified that she believed that the excess of actual GRAA and NRAA over budgeted GRAA and NRAA had been caused by the Medicare contractual adjustment recommended by Peat for 1986. The Petitioner failed to prove what the cause of the excess actually was. Ms. Smith testified that the Petitioner did not realize what the affect of the contractual adjustment was until the 1987 Interim Report was prepared. The Petitioner, however, could have determined in April of 1987 what affect the Medicare contractual adjustment would have on its 1987 budget. Therefore, if the Medicare contractual adjustment was the cause of the excess of its actual experience over its budget, the Petitioner could have taken steps as early as April, 1987, to seek a budget amendment for its 1987 fiscal year or to modify its operations. In July, 1987, Ms. Smith contacted staff of the Respondent. She spoke with Pete Pearcy and Bill Summers. She also spoke to these staff members in September, 1987. Ms. Smith contacted the Respondent because of her concern about the excess of the Petitioner's actual 1987 experience over its 1987 approved budget. She contacted the Respondent seeking assistance in determining what steps the Petitioner should take to resolve the potential problem the excess in the Petitioner's actual experience over its approved budget could cause. The Petitioner failed to prove that Ms. Smith's explanation of the problem adequately informed the Respondent what the Petitioner's problem was. Generally, the Respondent's staff will consult and/or counsel hospitals concerning matters within the Respondent's responsibilities. The Respondent's policy prohibits staff from advising hospitals, however, as to whether a budget amendment should be filed; that decision is left up to each individual hospital. Consistent with the Respondent's policy, staff of the Respondent attempted to assist Ms. Smith. During September, 1987, Ms. Smith asked Mr. Summer of the Respondent's staff whether the Petitioner should file a budget amendment. Mr. Summer responded "amend what?" This response was based upon the inability of Ms. Smith to explain to Mr. Summer what exactly the Petitioner believed it needed to amend or exactly how the Medicare contractual adjustments affected the Petitioner's 1987 budget. Mr. Summer did not specifically recommend to Ms. Smith that the Petitioner file or not file a budget amendment. Nor did anyone else on the Respondent's staff advise the Petitioner that a budget amendment should or should not be filed. Mr. Summer asked Ms. Smith to send him information concerning the problem. Mr. Summer told Ms. Smith that he would review the material before discussing the problem further. Mr. Summer did not, however, contact Ms. Smith. Nor did Ms. Smith attempt to contact Ms. Summer before the end of the Petitioner's 1987 fiscal year. The Petitioner was aware of the fact that any budget amendment for its 1987 fiscal year had to be filed before the end of the 1987 fiscal year. The Petitioner was also familiar with the manner in which a budget amendment was to be filed since the Petitioner had obtained approval of a budget amendment for its 1986 fiscal year. The Petitioner did not file a budget amendment for its 1987 fiscal year. The Petitioner was aware that it was required to operate within its 1987 approved budget. Ms. Smith indicated that she believed that the Respondent's staff would have warned her if the Petitioner had been in danger of having a penalty imposed. The Petitioner, however, was not informed by the Respondent that the Main Penalty would not be imposed upon it for its 1987 fiscal year. The Petitioner's actual GRAA for 1987 was $8,096.00 and its approved GRAA was $7,536. Therefore, the Petitioner's actual GRAA for 1987 exceeded its approved GRAA by 7.4%. The Petitioner's actual NRAA for 1987 was $5,294.00 and its approved NRAA was $4,913.00. The excess of actual NRAA over approved NRAA was 7.7%. The percentage of excess of actual GRAA and NRAA over budget is almost the same. Therefore, it is possible that whatever caused the Petitioner's excessive GRAA also caused its excessive NRAA. GRAA is not affected by Medicare contractual adjustments. NRAA is affected by Medicare contractual adjustments. Therefore, since the Petitioner's percentage excess in GRAA (7.4%) and NRAA (7/7%) for 1987 was almost the same, it is questionable whether the Petitioner's Medicare contractual adjustments were the sole cause for the excess of the Petitioner's actual experience over its budget for 1987. It is more likely that the excessive GRAA and NRAA were caused by the same problem. The Petitioner, therefore, failed to prove that its discussions with the Respondent about the Medicare contractual adjustment would have helped the Petitioner avoid the penalty proposed in this proceeding. The Petitioner filed its 1988 budget and the 1987 Interim Report with the Respondent on or about September 29, 1987. The 1987 Interim Report includes information concerning the Petitioner's actual experience for the first 7 months of 1987 and projections for the remaining 5 months of 1987. The 1987 Interim Report was submitted for informational purposes. For the first 7 months of 1987 the Petitioner's actual gross revenue was $10,171,658.00. Gross revenue for the last 5 months of 1987 was projected at $7,265,470.00. The Petitioner's estimated adjusted admissions for 1987 were 1,221 for the first 7 months and 873 for the last 5 months. Gross revenue divided by adjusted admissions for 1987 yields GRAA of $8,337.00 for the first 7 months and projected GRAA of $8,322.00 for last 5 months. Based upon the information contained in the 1987 Interim Report, the Petitioner's GRAA for the entire 1987 fiscal year was projected to be $8,331.00. The Petitioner's approved GRAA, which was included in the 1987 Interim Report, was only $7,536.00. Therefore, the Petitioner should have been aware that it would very likely exceed its approved 1987 budgeted GRAA by approximately $795.00 (approximately 10.5%) in June of 1987. Accordingly, the Petitioner should have taken steps in September of 1987 to amend its budget or to modify its operations. The Petitioner had sufficient information during 1987 (April, June and September, 1987) to warn it that its actual experience would exceed its approved budget. Although the Petitioner's comptroller did discuss what she believed to be the cause of the Petitioner's problem (the Medicare contractual adjustment) with the Respondent, the evidence failed to prove that it was reasonable for the Petitioner to wait for the Respondent to take some action while the Petitioner took no action on its own behalf to rectify the problem.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent issue a final order dismissing the Petitioner's petition. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 23rd day of July, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 3. 1 and hereby accepted. hereby accepted. 2 and hereby accepted. 5 4. 6 15. 7-8 16. 9 17. 10-11 Hereby accepted. 12-13 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 14 7. NRAA was $4,913.00 and not $4,938.00. 15 19. 16 33. 31 and hereby accepted. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 19 22. 20 24. Hereby accepted. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not relevant. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 22 and 25. Several of the contacts with the Respondent took place after 1987 and are not relevant to this proceeding. The second sentence is hereby accepted. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 3. 2 4. 3 5-6. 4 8-9. 10 and hereby accepted. Hereby accepted. 7 11. 8 8 and 11. 9 13 and 20. 10 16. See 21. 18 and hereby accepted. See 22. See 25. 15 27. 16 Hereby accepted. 17-18 Although true, not relevant to this proceeding. 19-21 Hereby accepted. 22 21. 23 See 21. 24 19 and 33-36. 25 11. Not relevant. See 21. Incorrect conclusion of law. Ms. Smith testified what she was told. Her testimony about what she heard is not hearsay. 29 14. 30-32 Hereby accepted. 33 33-34. 34 35 and hereby accepted. 35 36. 36 32 37 Cumulative. 38 12. 39 31-32. The Intervenor's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 3. 2 4. 3 6. 4 5 and hereby accepted. 5 5-6. 6 hereby accepted. 7 7. 8 14. 9-10 15. 11 16. 12-13 17. 14 16. 15 18. 16 16. Hereby accepted. See 21. Hereby accepted. See 16. 21-22 Hereby accepted. 23-24 Not relevant. 25 Hereby accepted. 26 27. 27 21. First contact with the Respondent was in July, and not August. 28 19. 29 19-20. 30 Cumulative. 31 22. 32-33 24. 34-35 Hereby accepted. 36-37 25. 38 30. 39 Hereby accepted. 40 29. Not relevant. Hereby accepted. 43-44 Not relevant. 45 31-32. 46 33. 47-51 36. 52-54 19. 55-57 31. 58-59 32. 60 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 61-62 Hereby accepted. 63 31-32. 64 Hereby accepted. 65 9. 66 10-11. COPIES FURNISHED: Julia P. Forrester Senior Attorney Health Care Cost Containment Board Building L, Suite 101 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 David D. Eastman, Esquire Patrick J. Phelan, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 669 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jack Shreve, Public Counsel David R. Terry, Associate Public Counsel Peter Schwarz, Associate Public Counsel c/o The Florida Legislature 111 West Madison Street, Room 801 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1400 Stephen Presnell, General Counsel Health Care Cost Containment Board Woodcrest Office Park 325 John Knox Road Building L, Suite 101 Tallahassee, Florida 32303
