The Issue The issues are: (1) Whether Respondent, Bravo Construction, Inc. ("Respondent"), was in violation of the workers’ compensation requirements of Chapter 440.107, Florida Statutes (2003),1/ by failing to secure workers’ compensation coverage for its workers; (2) Whether such individuals possessed current valid workers’ compensation exemptions; and (3) Whether Respondent paid its workers remuneration outside of Respondent’s employee leasing company.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement of Section 440.107, Florida Statutes, which requires that employers secure the payment of workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. Respondent is a company engaged in the construction industry. Specifically, Respondent's business is framing houses. At all time relevant to this proceeding, Elias Bravo was president of the company. On May 26, 2004, the Department’s investigators, Carol Porter and Kelley Dunning, conducted a random visit of a work site in Grassy Point, a gated community in Port Charlotte, Florida, and discovered Mr. Bravo and his workers on site as the house-framers. When the investigators arrived at the site, they spoke with Mr. Bravo, who advised the investigators that Respondent utilized a personnel leasing company, Time Management, which was actually a brokerage firm for Southeast Personnel Leasing, Inc. ("SEPL"), to secure workers’ compensation coverage. On May 26, 2005, Mr. Bravo was the only person in his crew who had coverage with SEPL. At the time of the site visit, the other men were not listed with SEPL because Mr. Bravo still had their applications in his car. After Respondent was unable to provide proof that the men had workers' compensation coverage pursuant to Subsections 440.107(3) and (7)(a), Florida Statutes, the investigators issued a Stop Work Order to Respondent while at the work site on May 26, 2004. On the same day that the Stop Work Order was issued, Investigator Dunning served Mr. Bravo with a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation ("Request for Production of Business Records"). The Department requested copies of Respondent's business records in order to determine whether Respondent had secured workers' compensation coverage; whether Mr. Bravo or Respondent's employees had workers' compensation exemptions; and, if not, to determine the penalty assessment. In response to the Request for Production of Business Records, Mr. Bravo provided certificates of insurance, Respondent's check stubs written to various entities or individuals on behalf of Respondent, payroll records, and Form 1099s for the year ending 2003. Many of the documents provided by Mr. Bravo indicated that Respondent made payments directly to the entities and individuals. The Department maintains records regarding the workers' compensation coverage of individuals and entities in a statewide database called Compliance and Coverage Automated System ("CCAS"). The CCAS database is utilized by the Department to verify if an individual or entity has workers' compensation coverage or a valid exemption from coverage. As part of the Department's investigation, Investigator Porter conducted a CCAS search for Respondent's workers’ compensation insurance coverage records. This search verified that Mr. Bravo had workers' compensation coverage. However, many of the workers or entities to whom Respondent made direct payments did not have workers’ compensation coverage or current valid workers’ compensation exemptions. Based on a review of the payroll records, check stubs, and the Form 1099s that Respondent provided to the Department, Investigator Porter determined that Respondent was an "employer" as that term is defined in Subsection 440.02(16), Florida Statutes. Subsequently, the Department reassessed the original penalty and issued the Amended Order with the attached penalty worksheet which detailed the basis of the penalty assessment. In determining the amended penalty assessment, Investigator Porter disregarded and did not include Respondent's payments to any individual or entity that had workers’ compensation coverage or an exemption from such coverage. The Amended Order, which reflected a penalty assessment of $97,416.68, was issued to Respondent on May 28, 2004.2/ Respondent paid remuneration to the individuals listed on the penalty worksheet of the Amended Order for work they performed. Nonetheless, during the period covered by the penalty assessment, Respondent did not secure workers' compensation coverage for the individuals listed on the penalty worksheet, and none of them had workers' compensation coverage or exemptions from such coverage. The individuals listed on the penalty worksheet of the Amended Order were Respondent's employees during the relevant period, in that they were paid by Respondent, a construction contractor, and did not have workers’ compensation coverage or an exemption from such coverage. Mr. Bravo had workers' compensation coverage through SEPL. However, none of the employees listed on the Amended Order had workers' compensation coverage through SEPL, because they were paid directly by Respondent. A personnel leasing company provides workers' compensation coverage and payroll services to its clients, then leases those employees back to the clients for a fee. Respondent was a client of SEPL, and based on that relationship, Mr. Bravo believed that he and his workers received workers' compensation coverage through that personnel leasing company. However, the workers' compensation coverage provided by SEPL applied only to those employees SEPL leased to Respondent. In the case of leased employees, Respondent would have to make payments to the leasing company and not directly to his workers. The leasing company would then, in turn, pay the leased employees. When, as in this case, the construction company makes direct payments to individuals performing construction work, those workers are not leased employees and, thus, are not secured by the workers’ compensation coverage provided by the personnel leasing company. See § 468.520, Fla. Stat. Some of the individuals listed on the penalty worksheet may have been "dually employed"; that is, sometimes they were employed by Respondent and at other times, they were employees of SEPL and were leased to Respondent. However, during the periods in which individuals worked for Respondent and were paid by Respondent, and were not paid by SEPL, they were without workers’ compensation coverage unless Respondent provided such coverage. With regard to the individuals listed on the penalty worksheet, Respondent provided no such coverage. Respondent, through Mr. Bravo, paid its employees directly, thus, circumventing SEPL and losing the coverage that the employees may have had through it. The Department assessed the penalty against Respondent based on the remuneration Respondent gave directly to the employees outside of SEPL, the class code assigned to each employee utilizing the SCOPES Manual adopted by the Department in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.021, and the guidelines in Subsection 440.107(7)(d), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, enter a final order that affirms the Stop Work Order and the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, which imposes a penalty of $97,416.68. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of May, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of May, 2005.
The Issue The issue is whether two persons were employees or independent contractors of Respondent, pursuant to Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and, if employees, an additional issue is the penalty that Petitioner should impose against Respondent for his failure to obtain workers’ compensation coverage for the two employees.
Findings Of Fact At the time in question, Respondent was in the business of erecting enclosures for swimming pools. On most of these jobs, Respondent served as a subcontractor of Commercial Residential Construction. On April 7, 1998, Respondent was providing labor and materials, as a subcontractor to Commercial Residential Construction, on a screened-enclosure job located at 2242 Otter Creek Lane in Sarasota. Commercial Residential Construction supplied the aluminum and screen used for this job. For this job, Respondent hired two individuals who had worked for Commercial Residential Construction or other independent contractors in the construction business. Respondent did not have workers’ compensation coverage for the two individuals working with him on this job. Respondent’s agreement with these two persons was to pay them, on a weekly basis, a specified percentage of the total price that Respondent was to receive for the work. If the contractor refused to pay Respondent due to unsatisfactory work, then Respondent would not pay the two individuals. The two individuals had to supply their own tools. Sometimes they transported themselves to the job site; sometimes, as a matter of convenience, Tom Dybalski, the owner of Respondent, transported them or was transported by them. The two individuals did not testify. Petitioner called Mr. Dybalski as a witness; otherwise, Petitioner’s witnesses consisted exclusively of staff and investigators. However, these witnesses were unable to establish the statements of the two putative employees because of hearsay. The findings of fact contained in this recommended order are derived from Mr. Dybalski’s testimony or admissions made to one of Petitioner’s investigators. However, the administrative law judge has not relied on hearsay testimony, which is admissible under the exception for admissions against interest, that Mr. Dyblaski admitted that the two individuals were employees. Mr. Dyblaski is an aluminum contractor, not an attorney, and his “concession” concerning a complex matter, especially given his obvious ignorance of the applicable legal criteria, is not entitled to any weight. Admissible evidence does not establish whether the two individuals had exemptions from workers’ compensation. Mr. Dybalski testified that he did not know whether they did. The two individuals did not testify, so it is impossible to determine from this source whether they had exemptions. The record is similarly devoid of competent evidence establishing Respondent’s contention that the two individuals were employees of Commercial Residential Construction while working on the subject job.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Workers’ Compensation enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of failing to obtain workers’ compensation coverage to two employees and imposing a penalty in the amount of $1000. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of September, 1998, 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of September, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Louise T. Sadler Senior Attorney Division of Labor and Employment Security Suite 307, Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 A. Brent McPeek Attorney 3986 South Tamiami Trail Venice, Florida 34293 Edward A. Dion, General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Douglas L. Jamerson, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152
The Issue Whether Respondent failed to secure the payment of workers’ compensation in violation of Sections 440.10(1), 440.38(1) and 440.107(2), Florida Statutes, by materially misrepresenting and concealing employee duties as to avoid proper classification for premium calculation, and if so, what is the appropriate penalty?
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure the payment of workers’ compensation for the benefit of their employees. Respondent is a commercial welding corporation based in Putnam County, Florida. It has been in business as an active Florida corporation since the early 1950s. Its principal office is located at 1301 Madison Street, Palatka, Florida 32177. Petitioner is an “employer” for purposes of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. Respondent is in the business of welding, fabrication and erection of structural steel, fabrication and installation of metal handrails and fire escapes to existing buildings, and various other metal fabrication and welding operations. Respondent is engaged in the construction industry. At all material times, Respondent maintained a policy of workers’ compensation insurance for all of its employees. Respondent’s workers’ compensation insurance at issue in this case was obtained through the Florida Retail Federation Insurance Fund, and was in place since February 1, 2002. Pursuant to the Department's statutory authority, after receiving a referral based on a fatal accident at a site where Respondent was providing work, Investigator Daniel Pfaff of the Department's Division of Workers' Compensation, Bureau of Compliance, conducted an investigation into Respondent’s workers’ compensation coverage. The investigator reviewed payroll records as well as certificates of insurance. Respondent cooperated with the Department’s investigation, providing all requested documents and responding to the questions of Petitioner’s investigation. Investigator Pfaff determined that Respondent had not secured workers’ compensation coverage consistent with the job descriptions of its employees. At the final hearing it was shown that, indeed, the job classification code2/ listed on Respondent's workers' compensation policy for Respondent's non-clerical work used to determine premiums paid by Respondent was not appropriate for much of the work Respondent was performing. The job classification code on Respondent’s workers’ compensation policy for the non-clerical work performed by Respondent was 3822. Classification code 3822 encompasses manufacturing or assembling automobile, bus, truck, or trailer bodies made of die pressed steel. Classification code 3822 does not encompass fabrication of iron or steel outside of a welding shop, erection of iron or steel structures, fabrication and installation of metal handrails and fire escapes to existing buildings, or operation of machinery to lift materials used to erect buildings (collectively "off-site erection work"). Based upon contracts provided by Respondent to the Department, the Department determined that the proper classification codes for the off-site erection work performed by Respondent’s employees were 5040 and 5057. Classification code 5040 encompasses the erection of iron or steel frame structures, the assembly and fabrication of iron or steel frame structures at the erection site, welding operations incidental to steel erection work, and the installation of iron or steel balconies, fire escapes, and staircases to existing buildings. Classification code 5057 encompasses iron or steel erection not otherwise classified in the Scopes® Manual. After it was determined that Respondent did not have the proper workers’ compensation insurance, Investigator Pfaff issued a Stop Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment against Respondent on behalf of the Department on February 12, 2010. The Stop-Work Order is on a form with supporting allegations that may be selected by checking the box next to the allegation. The boxes checked on the Stop-Work Order comprise the following allegation: “Failure to secure the payment of workers’ compensation in violation of sections 440.10(1), 440.38(1) and 440.107(2) Florida Statutes by: materially misrepresenting and concealing employee duties as to avoid proper classification for premium calculation.” The allegation selected in the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment refines the allegation of the Stop-Work Order by alleging “Failure to secure the payment of workers’ compensation within the meaning of section 440.107(2), F.S., by: materially misrepresenting or concealing employee duties so as to avoid proper classification for premium calculations.” The Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment contains no separate allegation, but rather references the original Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment and the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. No other charging documents were provided by Petitioner in support of the proposed penalty. At the final hearing, Petitioner presented evidence demonstrating that the appropriate job classification code for the majority of Respondent’s work was 5040. It also provided evidence that $60,873.60 was the amount of penalty that would be due if a violation had occurred. The penalty amount was calculated by using payroll amounts provided by Respondent and the approved rates for the proper job classification codes to determine the amount of premium that should have been paid and then, after giving Respondent credit for previous premiums paid, multiplying the result by 1.5 in accordance with applicable rules. Petitioner, however, did not provide sufficient evidence that Respondent failed “to secure the payment of workers’ compensation in violation of sections 440.10(1), 440.38(1) and 440.107(2) Florida Statutes by materially misrepresenting and concealing employee duties as to avoid proper classification for premium calculation” as alleged in the Stop-Work Order. Rather than showing that Respondent misrepresented or concealed employee duties to avoid proper classification, the evidence indicated that Respondent believed that its company was compliant with Florida workers’ compensation coverage requirements. While the Scopes® Manual explains the various job classification codes, there was no evidence that the Scopes® Manual has ever been provided to Respondent or that Respondent was the one who selected the job classification codes that were on its workers’ compensation policy. The job classification description for classification code 3822 provided on premium summaries and statements from the insurance agent and carrier to Respondent were different at different times. One description was “auto, bus, truck body, MFG/steel” and another was “auto, bus, truck, trailer manufacturing, die press.” The self-audit reports abbreviate job classification 3822 as “Auto bus truck body mfg/steel.” These abbreviations do not give notice that Respondent’s job classification was wrong. In addition, the evidence showed that Respondent’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier conducted regular audits of Respondent's operations. Respondent cooperated with the audits. During the course of the audits, the insurance auditor would go to Respondent’s premises where the auditor was able to observe the types of machinery, equipment, and operations used by Respondent. Despite evidence on the premises indicating that Respondent was engaged in work beyond the scope of job classification code 3822 established at the final hearing, there is no evidence that the auditors, carriers, or agents ever questioned the workers’ compensation insurance job classification codes that were on Respondent’s policy, summaries, and audit forms that they transmitted to Respondent. Aside from cooperating with regular audits and allowing inspection of its premises, Respondent also provided additional information to its agent and carrier regarding its operations through Respondent’s requests for certificates of insurance for various off-site jobs. Investigator Pfaff has substantial experience in the insurance industry as an adjustor, special investigator and supervisor in property and casualty for over 30 years. As part of the investigation, investigator Pfaff obtained a number of Respondent’s certificates of insurance. The certificates of insurance were introduced as Petitioner’s Exhibit 21. Investigator Pfaff provided credible testimony that there was no real reason to send out a certificate of insurance unless a company was planning to perform work for another company. The certificates of insurance were issued by Respondent’s insurance agent at Respondent’s request for off- site erection work for a variety of different companies located in a variety of counties, and contain information showing that Respondent was performing work outside its premises. Respondent’s representative testified that Respondent informed its insurance agent of the location of the work each time a certificate of insurance was issued. The Department demonstrated that the off-site erection work being performed by Respondent was not consistent with the workers’ compensation classification code in place for Respondent. The certificates of insurance, however, were approved by the insurance agent or carrier, and neither expressed any concern that the workers’ compensation insurance coverage was insufficient in any respect. In addition, the carrier was made aware of the type of work performed by Respondent by prior claims. Respondent had previously reported two other workers’ compensation incidents which arose from work performed off of the premises. One previous off-site erection work incident involved an injury resulting from an employee falling from a crane, and the other involved an employee’s fall through a roof skylight. The insurance carrier was made aware that off-site erection and construction work was being performed by Respondent in each of these incidents. Even though it was established at the final hearing that job classification code 3822 utilized for Respondent’s workers’ compensations insurance for those incidents should not have covered the off-the-premises incidents, Respondent’s insurance carrier and insurance agent never suggested that Respondent’s workers’ compensation coverage was deficient or erroneous. In sum, Petitioner did not show that Respondent materially misrepresented or concealed employee duties in order to avoid proper classification for premium calculation of its workers’ compensation policy.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing the Stop-Work Order, Order of Penalty Assessment, Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued against Respondent, and ordering the return of any penalty paid by Respondent under the Periodic Payment Agreement. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of November, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of November, 2010.
The Issue Whether Leonard Smith, d/b/a Site Development & Pipeline Construction, Inc., violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by failing to secure the payment of workers’ compensation coverage for its employees; and, if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with enforcing workers’ compensation coverage requirements in Florida, including the requirement that employers secure the payment of workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. See § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Leonard Smith is an 85-year-old retired contractor. Respondent’s corporate records with the Florida Division of Corporations record that Leonard Smith is Respondent’s owner, president, and registered agent. Respondent was incorporated in February 2014. The company was administratively dissolved in September 2015. However, Leonard Smith still does business using Respondent’s name. On June 13, 2017, Cristina Brigantty, a compliance investigator with the Department, conducted a random workers’ compensation check at a worksite located at 499 Lorraine Leland Street in Dunedin, Florida. At the site, Investigator Brigantty observed an individual operating a compact excavator/tractor commonly called a “Bobcat” (the manufacturer’s name). The Bobcat operator was moving soil and appeared to be grading the site in preparation for the pouring of concrete. Investigator Brigantty approached the individual operating the Bobcat and requested his name. The driver identified himself as Joe Smith. Joe Smith also relayed to Investigator Brigantty that he was just hired by Leonard Smith (no relation) to work on the site. Joe Smith added that he expected to work approximately ten hours and be paid around $2,000 from Leonard Smith for the job. Joe Smith then provided Investigator Brigantty with Leonard Smith’s business card and phone number. At the final hearing, Investigator Brigantty testified that her duties for the Department include inspecting businesses to determine whether the business has obtained the required workers’ compensation insurance coverage. Investigator Brigantty explained that a business that performs construction-related work must have workers’ compensation coverage. Therefore, Investigator Brigantty believed that Respondent should have secured sufficient workers’ compensation coverage for its employee (Joe Smith). After learning Leonard Smith’s name, Investigator Brigantty searched the Department’s Coverage and Compliance Automated System (“CCAS”) database. CCAS is a Department database that tracks workers’ compensation insurance coverage. CCAS contains coverage data from insurance carriers, as well as any workers’ compensation exemptions on file with the Department. Insurance providers are required to report coverage and cancellation information, which the Department uses to update CCAS. While reviewing CCAS, Inspector Brigantty initially noted that the Department did not have on file any request from Leonard Smith, Respondent’s owner-of-record, for an exemption from workers’ compensation coverage. An exemption is a method by which a business’s corporate officer may exempt him or herself from the requirements of chapter 440. See § 440.05, Fla. Stat. Thereafter, based on her research of the information in CCAS, Inspector Brigantty concluded that Respondent did not have a valid exemption for a corporate officer (Leonard Smith) on June 13, 2017. Neither did Respondent carry any workers’ compensation coverage for Joe Smith. After determining that Respondent had not obtained workers’ compensation coverage for Joe Smith on the date of her visit, Investigator Brigantty called Leonard Smith. In the ensuing conversation, Leonard Smith told her that Joe Smith was working for him at the jobsite. On June 22, 2017, Investigator Brigantty issued a Stop- Work Order to Respondent. With the Stop-Work Order, Investigator Brigantty also served Respondent with a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation. Through this document, the Department requested several categories of business records from Respondent for the period of June 14, 2015, through June 13, 2017. The requested documents pertained to: employer identification, payroll documents, account documents, disbursements, workers’ compensation coverage, professional employer organization, temporary labor service, exemptions, subcontractors, and subcontractor’s workers’ compensation coverage. Based on its investigation, the Department determined that Respondent failed to secure adequate workers’ compensation coverage for its employees. Therefore, the Department proceeded to calculate a penalty based on Respondent’s lack of compliance with chapter 440. The Penalty Calculation: Lynne Murcia, the penalty auditor who determined the penalty the Department seeks to impose on Respondent, testified regarding her computation. Ms. Murcia explained that the penalty essentially consists of the “evaded” premium amount, or the actual amount the employer would have paid in workers’ compensation insurance for the uncovered employees, multiplied by two. To calculate the appropriate penalty for Respondent’s failure to secure workers’ compensation coverage, the Department first ascertained Respondent’s period of non-compliance. In determining this time frame, the Department referred to Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.028(2), which directs that: The employer’s time period or periods of non- compliance means the time period(s) within the two years preceding the date the stop- work order was issued to the employer within which the employer failed to secure the payment of compensation pursuant to chapter 440, F.S., and must be either the same time period as set forth in the business records request for the calculation of penalty or an alternative time period or period(s) as determined by the Department, whichever is less. The employer may provide the Department with records from other sources, including, but not limited to, the Department of State, Division of Corporations, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, licensing offices, and building permitting offices to show an alternative time period or period(s) of non-compliance. Based on these instructions, the Department deduced that Respondent’s period of non-compliance was from June 14, 2015, through June 13, 2017, which was the two-year period preceding the date of the Stop-Work Order.2/ (This two-year period was also the time for which the Department requested business records from Respondent.) After determining Respondent’s period of non- compliance, the Department then calculated the monetary penalty it should impose upon Respondent. In accordance with section 440.107(7)(d)1., the Department must assess against an employer: a penalty equal to 2 times the amount the employer would have paid in premium when applying approved manual rates to the employer’s payroll during periods for which it failed to secure the payment of workers’ compensation required by this chapter within the preceding 2-year period or $1,000, whichever is greater. Therefore, the Department reviewed the business records Respondent provided to ascertain the amount of Respondent’s payroll during the two-year period of non-compliance. In response to the Department’s request for documents, Respondent produced a number of financial records. These records consisted primarily of bank statements and cancelled checks. The documentation Respondent submitted, however, was not comprehensive enough for the Department to determine all the wages Respondent paid to its employees, or the work they performed for the period of June 13, 2015, through June 14, 2017. Specifically, Respondent failed to provide complete bank statements or the corresponding check images for the periods of January 1 through April 30, 2016; June 1 through July 31, 2016; and June 1 through June 13, 2017. Consequently, the Department determined that Respondent did not provide business records sufficient for it to calculate Respondent’s complete payroll or the actual employee wages it paid over the two-year period of non-compliance. Therefore, the Department exercised its option to “impute” Respondent’s weekly payroll from June 13, 2015, through June 14, 2017. In addition to Joe Smith, the Department imputed wages for several other individuals and entities it identified in Respondent’s business records. Based on Respondent’s financial records, between June 14, 2015, and June 13, 2017, Respondent made payments to Earl Cockeranoham, “J.M.L.,” Martin Moore, “Peterson,” and Robert Tamburan. The Department also identified a subcontractor Respondent paid in 2015 named Roger’s Dirt Works, Inc. The Department further determined that at the time of the transaction, Roger’s Dirt Works, Inc., had neither workers’ compensation coverage, nor an exemption for a corporate officer. (Roger’s Dirt Works, Inc., subsequently obtained a valid exemption.) Therefore, the Department included Roger’s Dirt Works, Inc., in the penalty for the period of June 14 through December 31, 2015. The Department also added to Respondent’s payroll “uninsured labor” for the full period of non-compliance. Ms. Murcia relayed that “uninsured labor” reflects undesignated cash transactions for which the recipient was not identified or “validated” by Respondent’s business records and receipts. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.035(1)(k). Respondent’s financial records revealed four separate cash payments totaling $6,892. Finally, the Department included Leonard Smith in all periods of non-compliance. The Department explained that Leonard Smith was registered as a corporate officer of Respondent. However, he did not have an active workers’ compensation exemption on file. Therefore, Respondent was also required to carry workers’ compensation for himself. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.028(3)(b). To calculate Respondent’s imputed weekly payroll, section 440.107(7)(e) directs that the gross payroll for an employer who provides insufficient business records is imputed at the statewide average weekly wage multiplied by 1.5 for each employee for the period requested for the calculation of the penalty. Therefore, the Department obtained the statewide average weekly wage effective at the time of the Stop-Work Order ($886.46)3/ for each identified employee, corporate officer, and subcontractor, then multiplied that number by 1.5. See § 440.107(7)(e), Fla. Stat.; and Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L- 6.028(3)(a). To calculate a penalty based on an imputed payroll, the Department assigns an employer’s employees the highest rated workers’ compensation classification code. The classification code is based on either the business records submitted or the investigator’s observation of the employees’ activities. In this case, the business records Respondent provided to the Department were not sufficient to categorize the exact type of work that Joe Smith, or any of the other identified employees, performed for Respondent over the two-year period of non-compliance. However, during her investigation of the jobsite on June 13, 2017, Investigator Brigantty observed Joe Smith engaging in activities consistent with excavating, such as filling, backfilling, and moving earth. According to the Scopes Manual issued by the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc. (“NCCI”), class code 6217 is the “Excavation and Drivers” classification.4/ Consequently, the Department applied class code 6217 to all Respondent’s employees and officer for the entire penalty period. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.028(3)(b) and 69L-6.021(2)(mmm)(excavation is classified as “construction activity”). Therefore, to calculate the premium amount for the workers’ compensation insurance Respondent should have paid for its employees, the Department applied the manual rates corresponding to class code 6217. Thereafter, based on: 1) the total periods of non- compliance, 2) Respondent’s calculated payroll for the periods of non-compliance, and 3) the estimated premium for workers’ compensation insurance, the Department issued the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment (“Penalty Assessment”) on October 13, 2017. The Penalty Assessment imposed a penalty of $42,407.08 against Respondent. Ms. Murcia explained that the initial penalty amount was calculated without the benefit of Respondent’s business records. However, after Respondent began providing its financial records in October 2017, the Department reduced its penalty assessment three times. On November 30, 2018, the Department served a 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, which adjusted the penalty down to $11,958.46. On May 29, 2019 (following leave by the undersigned), the Department produced a 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, which further reduced the penalty to $8,443.96. Finally, at the final hearing (in light of Leonard Smith’s deposition), the Department introduced a 4th Amended Order of Penalty Assessment with a revised (and final) penalty amount of $8,366.44. At the final hearing, Leonard Smith was adamant that Joe Smith was not his employee on June 13, 2017, or at any point. Instead, Leonard Smith explained that he is just a “broker” to help place workers with construction projects. Leonard Smith claimed that for the last nine years, he simply does estimating and consulting for other small contractors. Consequently, because he no longer engages in construction work or employs any workers, Leonard Smith asserted that he does not need to carry workers’ compensation insurance. Regarding the work that Investigator Brigantty witnessed on June 13, 2017, Leonard Smith testified that a church contacted him about supplying, filling, and spreading dirt on its property. Leonard Smith explained that the church was to pay him $12,840.00 for the job. Leonard Smith referred to Joe Smith as a “private contractor.” Leonard Smith relayed that he met Joe Smith in June 2017. Joe Smith expressed that he was looking for work. Leonard Smith told him about the job in Dunedin, Florida. On June 13, 2017, Leonard Smith met Joe Smith, who had brought his Bobcat, at the church and discussed the job. Leonard Smith then left him to complete the work. Leonard Smith insisted that he never “paid” Joe Smith. Instead, he simply agreed to share the money the church was giving him for the job. Leonard Smith called his own portion a “consulting fee.” On June 23, 2017, after he had received the $12,840.00 from the church, Leonard Smith wrote a check to Joe Smith for $3,440.00. Joe Smith never worked for Respondent or Leonard Smith before or since June 13, 2017. Regarding the payment to Earl Cockeranoham recorded in Respondent’s business records, Leonard Smith testified that Mr. Cockeranoham never worked for him. Instead, the money he paid to Mr. Cockeranoham in 2015 ($460.00) was for work Mr. Cockeranoham performed for the same church. Regarding evidence of a payment to Martin Moore, Leonard Smith testified that he paid Mr. Moore $500.00 in 2016 for Mr. Moore’s rent. Leonard Smith denied that he paid Mr. Moore for construction work. Respondent further testified that Respondent had known Mr. Moore a long time. Joe Smith testified at the final hearing regarding his understanding of his employment relationship with Respondent on June 13, 2017. Initially, Joe Smith explained that he had been out of work for several months and was looking for a job when he met Leonard Smith in June 2017. Leonard Smith offered him the work at the church spreading soil. Joe Smith relayed that he owned the Bobcat and brought it with him to the jobsite. Joe Smith stated that, on June 13, 2017, he met Leonard Smith at the church. There, Leonard Smith informed him that he was to bring an area of land up to proper elevation. They also discussed how they would split payment for the job. Joe Smith understood that the church was going to pay Leonard Smith. Then, Leonard Smith was going to give him his share. Joe Smith confirmed that Leonard Smith sent him approximately $3,000.00 several weeks after the job. Joe Smith also conceded that he was not covered by workers’ compensation on June 13, 2017. Joe Smith further testified that Investigator Brigantty showed up at the worksite the day he started working. Finally, at the final hearing, Joe Smith was dismayed that he had created this issue regarding workers’ compensation coverage. He expressed that he was simply looking for work, and Leonard Smith was kind enough to help him out. Joe Smith did not want to get anyone in trouble. Based on the competent substantial evidence in the record, the Department demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent failed to secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage or workers’ compensation exemptions for its “employees” for the periods of June 14, 2015, through June 13, 2017. Accordingly, the Department met its burden of proving that Respondent violated chapter 440 and should be penalized. (As more fully addressed below, the evidence in the record does not sufficiently establish that either Earl Cockeranoham or Martin Moore were “employees” of Respondent under chapter 440. Therefore, they should not be included in the penalty calculation.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, enter a final order determining that Respondent, Leonard Smith, d/b/a Site Development & Pipeline Construction, Inc., violated the requirement in chapter 440 to secure workers’ compensation coverage, and imposing a total penalty of $8,219.06. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of September, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of September, 2019.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment filed May 11, 2009,1 and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement of Section 440.107, Florida Statutes, that employers in Florida secure workers' compensation insurance coverage for their employees. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. C.S.E Paving is a Florida corporation located in Delray Beach, Florida. Stephen Warden is the owner of C.S.E Paving, which engages in the business of paving. On November 24, 2008, Germaine Greer, a compliance investigator employed by the Department, observed two workers repairing and reinstalling concrete brick pavers at a Best Western Hotel. She learned that these workers were employed by C.S.E Paving. After her visit on November 24, 2008, the compliance investigator conducted research through the Coverage and Compliance Automated System database, which provides information on workers' compensation insurance coverage and exemptions. The investigator's research revealed that, during the three-year period from November 24, 2005, and November 24, 2008, C.S.E Paving had workers' compensation insurance coverage for its employees from July 25, 2006, through July 28, 2007; from July 16, 2007, through July 16, 2008; and from July 16, 2008, through August 6, 2008, when the policy was cancelled. Mr. Warden did not have an exemption from the requirement to have workers' compensation insurance coverage. Mr. Warden provided the compliance investigator with the payroll and other records requested in the business records request. Based on these records, the compliance investigator calculated the penalty to be imposed on C.S.E Paving for its failure to have workers' compensation insurance coverage during the approximately six-month period in 2005 and 2006 and the approximately four-month period in 2008. The penalty assessed in the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was $13,487.64, which assessment superseded the $21,290.11 penalty assessed in the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment dated December 22, 2008. The compliance investigator looked to the NCCI SCOPES Basic Manual of Classifications ("SCOPES Manual") for classification codes attributable to the workplace operations of the persons working for C.S.E Paving. The classification code assigned by the compliance investigator to the workmen employed by C.S.E Paving between November 24, 2005, and November 24, 2006, who engaged in paving activities was Code 5221. According to the SCOPES Manual and to Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.021(1)(w), Code 5221 is a code applicable to the construction industry and covers "Concrete or Cement Work Floors, Driveways, Yards, and Sidewalks & Drivers." The approved NCCI Manual rate in Florida effective January 1, 2006, for Code 5221 was $10.37 per $100.00 of payroll; and the approved NCCI Manual rate in Florida effective January 1, 2008, for Code 5221 was $6.97 per $100.00 of payroll. The classification code found in the SCOPES Manual assigned by the compliance investigators to the clerical workers employed by C.S.E Paving between November 24, 2005, and November 24, 2006, was Code 8810. According to the SCOPES Manual, Code 8810 covers "Clerical Office Employees." The approved NCCI Manual rate in Florida effective January 1, 2006, for Code 8810 was $.58 per $100.00 of payroll; and the approved NCCI Manual rate in Florida effective January 1, 2008, for Code 8810 was $.37 per $100.00 of payroll. The classification code assigned by the compliance investigator to Stephen Warden, the owner of C.S.E Paving, was Code 5606. According to the SCOPES Manual, Code 5606 covers "Contractor - Project Manager, Construction Executive, Construction Manager or Construction Superintendent." The approved NCCI Manual rate in Florida effective January 1, 2006, for Code 5606 was $3.84 per $100.00 of payroll; and the approved NCCI Manual rate in Florida effective January 1, 2008, for Code 5606 was $2.74 per $100.00 of payroll. The compliance investigator calculated the total penalty attributable to C.S.E Paving's failure to provide workers' compensation insurance coverage for its employees during the covered time periods. She obtained the names of each of the individuals included in her calculations and the amount of the gross payroll for each individual from the payroll information provided by Mr. Warden in response to the business records request. The compliance investigator calculated the penalty as follows: She listed C.S.E Paving's employees on the Penalty Worksheet; assigned each employee a classification code based on the definitions of workplace operations that most closely described the work they performed for C.S.E Paving; set out the dates during which C.S.E Paving did not provide workers' compensation insurance coverage; entered the annual or pro-rated gross payroll for each employee during the period of non- compliance; divided the gross payroll for each employee by 100; set out the approved manual rate for each employee during the period of non-compliance in accordance with his or her classification code; determined the premium that C.S.E Paving would have paid for workers' compensation insurance coverage for each employee during the period of non-compliance by multiplying the approved manual rate and one one-hundredth of the gross payroll for each employee; calculated the penalty attributable to each employee during the period of non-compliance by multiplying the premium for each employee by 1.5; and, finally, calculated the total penalty owed by C.S.E Paving attributable to its failure to secure workers' compensation insurance coverage for its employees during the time periods at issue.
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 C.S.E Paving of South Florida Inc., failed to secure workers' compensation insurance coverage for its employees in violation of Section 440.38(1), Florida Statutes, from January 1, 2006, through July 25, 2006, and from August 6, 2008, through November 24, 2008, and imposing a penalty in the amount of $13,487.64 for the failure to provide the required workers' compensation insurance coverage. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of September, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA M. HART Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of September, 2009.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent was required to obtain workers' compensation coverage for himself pursuant to Section 440.107, Florida Statutes (2002), during the penalty period designated in the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment; and, if so, whether Petitioner should impose a penalty against Respondent in the amount of $120,467.88.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure the payment of workers' compensation for the benefit of their employees. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. (2002). On February 9, 2004, while conducting a random site inspection, Department investigator, Eric Duncan, observed three men performing construction work in the form of carpentry and house-framing at 720 Southwest 10th Street, Cape Coral, Florida. One of the workers on the site was Respondent, Jeremy Butzler, a sole proprietor who had employed the other two workers. Mr. Duncan interviewed Mr. Butzler at the site and requested proof of workers' compensation coverage, which Mr. Butzler was unable to provide. Mr. Duncan then issued the first Stop Work and Penalty Assessment Order, directing Mr. Butzler to cease work and pay a civil penalty of $1000.00. Also on February 9, 2004, Mr. Duncan served Mr. Butzler with a "Request for Production of Business Records," seeking copies of business records to determine whether Mr. Butzler had secured workers' compensation coverage, whether he had a current valid workers' compensation exemption, and to determine any civil penalties that may be owed for failing to secure workers' compensation coverage. Mr. Butzler complied in a very limited way. Mr. Duncan testified that most of the documents provided by Mr. Butzler were records of electronic transfer of funds that did not identify their recipients. No company checkbook or ledger was produced. After the penalty was calculated, the Department issued the First Amended Stop Work and Penalty Assessment Order, which increased the assessed penalty to $132,027.64. This assessment was later reduced to $120,467.88 after the Department corrected the workers' compensation premium rate it employed to calculate the penalty. At the time the Stop Work Order was issued and pursuant to Subsection 440.107(5), Florida Statutes (2002), the Department had adopted Florida Administrative Code Rule 4L-6.015,1/ which stated, in relevant part: In order for the Division to determine that an employer is in compliance with the provisions of Chapter 440, F.S., every business entity conducting business within the state of Florida shall maintain for the immediately preceding three year period true and accurate records. Such business records shall include original documentation of the following, or copies, when originals are not in the possession of or under the control of the business entity: All workers’ compensation insurance policies of the business entity, and all endorsements, notices of cancellation, nonrenewal, or reinstatement of such policies. * * * Records indicating for every pay period a description of work performed and amount of pay or description of other remuneration paid or owed to each person by the business entity, such as time sheets, time cards, attendance records, earnings records, payroll summaries, payroll journals, ledgers or registers, daily logs or schedules, time and materials listings. All contracts entered into with a professional employer organization (PEO) or employee leasing company, temporary labor company, payroll or business record keeping company. If such services are not pursuant to a written contract, written documentation including the name, business address, telephone number, and FEIN or social security number of all principals if an FEIN is not held, of each such PEO, temporary labor company, payroll or business record keeping company; and For every contract with a PEO: a payroll ledger for each pay period during the contract period identifying each worker by name, address, home telephone number, and social security number or documentation showing that the worker was eligible for employment in the United States during the contract for his/her services, and a description of work performed during each pay period by each worker, and the amount paid each pay period to each worker. A business entity may maintain such records or contract for their maintenance by the PEO to which the records pertain. * * * All check ledgers and bank statements for checking, savings, credit union, or any other bank accounts established by the business entity or on its behalf; and All federal income tax forms prepared by or on behalf of the business and all State of Florida, Division of Unemployment Compensation UCT-6 forms and any other forms or reports prepared by the business or on its behalf for filing with the Florida Division of Unemployment Compensation. During the period in question, Respondent was a "sole proprietor," as that term was defined in Subsection 440.02(25), Florida Statutes (2002): "Sole proprietor" means a natural person who owns a form of business in which that person owns all the assets of the business and is solely liable for all the debts of the business. Subsection 440.02(15)(c)1., Florida Statutes (2002), in effect during the penalty assessment period, stated, in relevant part: "Employee" includes a sole proprietor . . . Partners or sole proprietors actively engaged in the construction industry are considered employees unless they elect to be excluded from the definition of employee by filing written notice of the election with the department as provided in s. 440.05 . . . A sole proprietor or partner who is actively engaged in the construction industry and who elects to be exempt from this chapter by filing a written notice of the election with the department as provided in s. 440.05 is not an employee. (Emphasis added). Section 440.05, Florida Statutes (2002), allowed an individual to apply for election to be exempt from workers' compensation benefits. Only the named individual on the application was exempt from carrying workers' compensation insurance coverage. The Department maintains a database of all workers' compensation exemptions in the State of Florida. Mr. Duncan's review of this database revealed that, although Respondent had a valid workers' compensation exemption from November 18, 1999, to November 15, 2001, there were no exemptions for Respondent for 2002, the year constituting the penalty period in this case. At the hearing, Respondent admitted that he did not obtain an exemption for the year 2002. Mr. Duncan's investigation also revealed that Respondent did not have workers compensation insurance coverage during the year 2002. During the investigation, Respondent informed Mr. Duncan that he had contracted with an employee leasing company, Southeast Personnel Services, Inc., that was responsible for paying the salaries of and providing workers' compensation insurance coverage for Respondent and his workers. Pursuant to Subsection 468.520(5), Florida Statutes (2002),2/ an employee leasing company is a business entity engaged in employee leasing. "Employee leasing" is an arrangement whereby a leasing company assigns its employees to a client and allocates the direction of, and control over, the leased employees between the leasing company and the client. § 68.520(4), Fla. Stat. (2002). When the employee leasing company accepts a client, the client becomes an employee of the leasing company. An employee leasing company is the employer of the leased employees and is responsible for providing workers' compensation pursuant to Chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2002). § 468.529(1), Fla. Stat. (2002). Additionally, an employee leasing company assumes responsibility for the payment of wages to the leased employees without regard to payments by the client and for the payment of payroll taxes and collection of taxes from the payroll of leased employees. § 468.525(4)(b) and (c), Fla. Stat. (2002). At the hearing, Respondent demonstrated that he had workers' compensation coverage as an employee of the employee leasing company. However, the Department did not utilize any payments made through the leasing company in its penalty calculation. The evidence demonstrated that Respondent received compensation directly from Holiday Builders, Inc., in the amount of $185,006.50, and Gatco Construction, in the amount of $10,590.00. These amounts, totaling $195,596.50, were utilized by the Department to calculate Respondent's penalty. Mr. Duncan explained that in order for workers' compensation coverage to apply through the employee leasing company, companies such as Gatco Construction would have to make payments to the leasing company, not directly to Respondent. The leasing company would then pay a salary to Respondent, as its employee, and Respondent would be covered by the employee leasing company's workers' compensation insurance. Payments made directly to Respondent would not be secured by the workers' compensation coverage obtained through the employee leasing company. Respondent claimed that the Division utilized the incorrect gross income amount in calculating the penalty. To support this claim, Respondent attempted to introduce what he claimed was his personal income tax return for the year 2002. Respondent claimed this return had been prepared and filed by his bookkeeper some time in February 2004, subsequent to the Department's investigation. However, the return produced at hearing was unsigned and indicated that it had been self- prepared by Respondent. Respondent could not recall the bookkeeper's name without prodding from his counsel. Respondent offered no proof that this return had ever been completed or filed with the Internal Revenue Service. The purported 2002 tax return was not admitted into evidence, and Respondent's testimony as to the information contained on the return is not reliable. The Department correctly calculated the penalty assessment based on the money paid to Respondent as a sole proprietor "employee" who failed to file for a workers' compensation exemption for the year 2002. The Department calculated the total penalty based on Respondent's gross payroll, the class code assigned to Respondent utilizing the SCOPES Manual (a standard classification tool published by the National Council on Compensation Insurance), and the statutory guidelines in Subsection 440.107(7), Florida Statutes (2002). Based on that calculation, the correct penalty assessment in this case is $120,467.88.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, enter a final order confirming the Amended Stop Work Order and imposing a penalty in the amount of $120,467.88. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of May, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of May, 2005.
The Issue The issue is whether Horace Bradley Sheffield Builders, LLC (“Sheffield Builders”), had insufficient workers’ compensation insurance during the time period in question; and, if so, the amount of the resulting penalty.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement in chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2016),1/ that employers in Florida secure workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. While an exemption can be obtained for up to three corporate officers, any employer in the construction industry with at least one employee must have workers’ compensation coverage. § 440.02(15), Fla. Stat. The Department fulfills its enforcement duty by conducting compliance investigations, and a compliance investigation can begin with a Department investigator visiting a worksite. Lewis Johnson is employed in Tallahassee, Florida, as a compliance investigator for the Department. Mr. Johnson monitors construction and non-construction entities to ensure that they have obtained workers’ compensation coverage. On April 20, 2017, Mr. Johnson was conducting routine checks in the Killearn Lakes area of Tallahassee. He had just visited three worksites and found that the construction firms working those sites had workers’ compensation coverage. Mr. Johnson then drove past a site where a fence was being built: As I saw the fence being built, I stopped momentarily. I took a picture to document the work activity. I then got out and I made contact with the two workers. The first worker identified himself as Horace Bradley Sheffield [III], he advised that he was the subcontractor, owned his own business, Bradley’s Quality Framing and Trim, LLC. He had another gentleman there with him, that gentleman was initially very quiet. I asked Sheffield III whom he worked for, he told me that he was employed by his dad. I asked him who his dad was, he said that his dad was Horace Bradley Sheffield, and that his dad owned Horace Bradley Sheffield Builders, LLC, and that he was the general contractor for the home that was under construction, and that he was working directly for his dad. I then spoke briefly with the gentleman that was with Horace Bradley III regarding his employment. Initially during my conversation with Horace Bradley III, he said that he was trying out this worker. He said that he’d only – he’d been on the job for two days himself, but this was this guy’s first day, and he was just trying him out. So in my conversation with the employee who was identified as Colter Gilmore, Colter said “No, I’m being paid $10 dollars an hour,” and so I documented that information. After the conversation with Mr. Sheffield III, Mr. Johnson looked for any records pertaining to Quality Framing and Trim, LLC, within the Coverage and Compliance Automated System (“CCAS”) and the Division of Corporations. CCAS is a database maintained by the Department, and it enables Department investigators, such as Mr. Johnson, to ascertain if any construction company operating in Florida has workers’ compensation coverage. CCAS indicated that Quality Framing and Trim, LLC, had been dissolved and had no workers’ compensation coverage. CCAS also revealed that Mr. Sheffield III’s exemption had expired on July 10, 2015. After reporting to his supervisor that Mr. Sheffield was paying his son as a subcontractor, Mr. Johnson received authorization to issue a Stop-Work Order to Mr. Sheffield III on April 20, 2017. After issuing the Stop-Work Order, Mr. Johnson testified that he: placed a call to Mr. Horace Bradley Sheffield, the owner of Horace Bradley Sheffield Builders, LLC, Bradley’s dad, and I made him aware of the fact that I had just issued his son a Stop-Work Order for violation of Florida Statute 440; did not have proof of compliance. And then we spoke on the phone regarding that, and he expressed that he did not know, he did not – he was unaware that his son’s workers’ comp exemption had expired. What he said that was most interesting was that he did hire his son as a subcontractor; that he was paying his son directly. I asked him how much, he was paying his son approximately $4.50 a square foot to build a fence, and so that was the renumeration between son and father for the build. And so I then expressed to him that, because of that violation, his son being in violation of Florida Statute 440, that he himself was also in violation because, as a general contractor, it is Mr. Sheffield’s job to demand and require the proof of workers’ compensation coverage from any employer to include a subcontractor. Q: And did Mr. Sheffield do that in this case? A: No, sir, he did not. He sort of indicated that he just failed to do so. Mr. Johnson learned through CCAS that Sheffield Builders had no workers’ compensation policy but that Mr. Sheffield had an exemption for himself. After conferring with his supervisor regarding Mr. Sheffield’s lack of workers’ compensation coverage for those working for Sheffield Builders, Mr. Johnson served a Stop-Work Order and an Order of Penalty Assessment on Mr. Sheffield via hand-delivery on April 21, 2017. The Stop-Work Order required Sheffield Builders to cease all business operations at the Killearn Lakes worksite and was to remain in effect until lifted by the Department. The Order of Penalty Assessment notified Sheffield Builders that it was required to pay an amount: [e]qual to 2 times the amount the employer would have paid in premium when applying approved manual rates to the employer’s payroll during periods for which it failed to secure the payment of workers’ compensation within the preceding 2-year period. Employers who have not been previously issued a Stop-Work Order may receive a credit for the initial payment of the estimated annual workers’ compensation policy premium [for] the dollar or percentage amount attributable to the initial payment of the estimated workers’ compensation expense to a licensed employee leasing contract. In all cases a minimum penalty of $1,000 is assessed against the employer. Section 440.107(7)(d), F.S. Mr. Johnson also served on April 21, 2017, a “Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation” (“the Request for Production”). Through the Request for Production, the Department sought various types of financial documents pertaining to Sheffield Builders’ payroll during the period between December 10, 2015, and April 20, 2017 (“the noncompliance period”), so that it could calculate the penalty to be imposed on Sheffield Builders. The business records requested by the Department consisted of payroll documents such as time sheets, check stubs, earnings records, and federal income tax documents; account documents such as all business check journals and statements, including cleared checks for all open and closed business accounts; check and cash disbursements; proof of any workers’ compensation insurance or exemptions; and subcontractor information. The Request for Production required Sheffield Builders to provide the aforementioned records within 10 business days of receiving the Request for Production. Mr. Sheffield provided business records, and the Department used those records to reduce the proposed penalty to $7,801.92. Eunika Jackson, a penalty auditor employed by the Department, calculated the aforementioned penalty based on the business records provided by Mr. Sheffield. For each person for whom Sheffield Builders failed to obtain workers’ compensation coverage during the noncompliance period, Ms. Jackson determined how much money Sheffield Builders paid each person during that period. Sheffield Builders paid $32,477.00 to Mr. Sheffield, III; $1,578.00 to Risocani Alfredo; $16,861.50 to Roland Hedrington; and $100.00 to Adam Chew during the noncompliance period. The gross payroll amount for each person was divided by 100 in order to create a percentage, and the percentage associated with each person was then multiplied by an “approved manual rate.” An approved manual rate is associated with a particular class code. A class code describes an employee’s scope of work based on the type of work he or she performs on a daily basis. The National Council on Compensation Insurance publishes the Scopes Manual, and the Scopes Manual sets forth class codes for numerous types of work. Multiplying the gross payroll percentage by an approved manual rate results in a workers’ compensation insurance premium for a particular employee. As required by section 440.107(7)(d)1., Florida Statutes, each premium amount is multiplied by two in order to calculate a penalty associated with each employee for whom workers’ compensation insurance was not obtained. Ms. Jackson then added the individual penalties associated with Horace Sheffield III, Risocani Alfredo, Roland Hedrington, and Adam Chew in order to calculate the total penalty of $7,801.92. With regard to Mr. Sheffield III, Mr. Sheffield acknowledged at the final hearing that his son did not have workers’ compensation coverage during the time period in question. Mr. Sheffield testified that his son had attempted to renew his exemption on-line but failed to realize that his attempt had been unsuccessful. Mr. Sheffield testified that Roland Hedrington had workers’ compensation through his employer, Professional Electrical Systems. Also, Mr. Sheffield supplied the Department with the workers’ compensation policy that Mr. Hedrington provided to him. Ms. Jackson testified as to why she included the compensation paid to Mr. Hedrington in the penalty calculation: Q: And so Roland Hedrington, why did you put that individual down on the penalty? A: He’s on there because the check images that I reviewed had his name written on the check images. [Mr. Sheffield] came back and gave us a certificate of insurance for Professional Electrical Services – or Systems, I did review that document. In addition to that, I went in to CCAS to determine whether or not if Mr. Roland had a workers’ comp exemption, because per statute and rule, we cannot exempt the payments to an individual if they do not have a workers’ comp exemption, even though the company that they work for may have a workers’ comp policy. So in my review of CCAS, it was determined that Professional Electrical did have a valid workers’ comp policy, but on the exemption tab, there was only one individual who had an exemption, and it wasn’t Mr. Roland. So therefore, the payments issued to Mr. Roland [are] considered uninsured, because the payment was issued to that individual and not the entity. Q: Is Roland listed as an owner of the company? A: He wasn’t. When I did my research in Sunbiz, I didn’t find his name on the employer’s detail. Q: And so from the records, Roland is simply an employee of Professional Electrical Systems, correct? A: Yes. Q: And so the payment that went from [Sheffield Builders] in this case to Roland did not go through the – that transaction was not pursuant [to] a worker’s compensation policy of Professional Systems, correct? A: Correct. Q: Okay. ALJ: So let me make sure I understand. So the check in question – or the payment in question to Mr. Roland Hedrington, he works for some sort of LLC, but the check was made payable to him as an individual? A: Correct. ALJ: All right. And the LLC had [a] workers’ compensation exemption? A: Coverage and an exemption, yes. ALJ: Okay. But the coverage did not apply to Mr. Hedrington? A: It wouldn’t apply because the payment was a direct payment to Mr. Hedrington, and not the payment to Professional Electrical. So if the payment was to Professional Electrical, then it’s indicating that Professional Electrical did the services, and whoever that employer is, in turn, would pay his employees, so the payments are covered. But because the payment document had Roland’s name on it, it’s indicating it’s a direct transaction between a subcontractor and a general contractor, not the actual entity that he works for. ALJ: So let me ask a question. So because a check was written to this individual, Mr. Roland Hedrington, I guess in theory he could have been working on his own accord, and that – and he doesn’t have workers’ comp as an individual, so that’s why you put him in the penalty calculation. A: Correct. ALJ: Okay. But if the check had been written payable to the LLC that had coverage, then it would not have gone to the calculation? A: Correct. There is no dispute regarding the mechanics behind the Department’s calculation of the penalty. The only dispute concerns the Department’s inclusion of the funds paid to Mr. Sheffield III, and Mr. Hedrington in the penalty calculation. The Department has proven by clear and convincing evidence that the payments from Sheffield Builders to Horace Sheffield III, Risocani Alfredo, and Adam Chew were not covered by workers’ compensation coverage and that Sheffield Builders should be fined $6,031.46. The Department has not proven by clear and convincing evidence that Roland Hedrington was not working under the auspices of Professional Electrical Systems when Mr. Hedrington performed work for Sheffield Builders during the noncompliance period. As a result, the payment to Mr. Hedrington should not be included in the Department’s penalty calculation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, enter a final order imposing a penalty of $6,031.46 on Sheffield Builders, LLC. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of July, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S G. W. CHISENHALL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of July, 2018.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent unlawfully failed to obtain workers' compensation insurance coverage for five employees between May 1995 through April 1998 and, if so, what is the proper amount of the penalty.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been a residential painting subcontractor in Florida for the past 12 years. From May 1995 through April 1998, Respondent provided no workers' compensation insurance coverage for any persons whom he hired to work as painters. Respondent has treated such persons as independent contractors, rather than employees. On April 29, 1998, one of Petitioner's investigators visited a residential job site in the Rotunda development in Englewood. He found two painters working inside a new home that was under construction. Interviewing Respondent, the investigator learned that Respondent was in charge of the painting crew and was supplying the painting labor and material for the house. Respondent stated that he was paid by another contractor, who was paid by the general contractor. Respondent admitted that he paid his crew on an hourly rate for the work that they performed each week. Respondent's testimony at the hearing that he paid his crew by the job, and not a specific hourly rate, is discredited. Dale Keaser, one of the two painters, testified. He has worked for Respondent since August 1996. At all times, Respondent paid Mr. Keaser $10 per hour. Respondent never paid Mr. Keaser by the job, and Mr. Keaser never incurred any expenses in connection with the work, except for occasional use of his truck, for which Respondent reimbursed him for gas. Respondent invariably supplied the materials necessary to do the work. Respondent directed Mr. Keaser what to do and when to do it, and Respondent inspected the work frequently. Mr. Keaser never had an exemption from workers' compensation coverage and never provided Respondent an affidavit attesting to his satisfaction of the criteria defining independent contractors. Respondent paid Mr. Keaser wages of $400 in 1996, $11,095 in 1997, and $3080 in 1998. The premium rate of the National Council on Compensation Insurance for each of these years was, respectively, 32.18 percent, 28.47 percent, and 28.92 percent. The resulting unpaid amount of workers' compensation premium is thus $4178.21. Petitioner has failed to prove by admissible evidence that the other persons working for Respondent were employees.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order assessing Respondent a penalty of $8356.42, plus any lawful interest. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of December, 1998, 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of December, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Louise T. Sadler Senior Attorney Department of Labor and Employment Security Suite 307, Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Patrick Jackey Bert's World of Color 365 South Oxford Drive Englewood, Florida 34223 Edward A. Dion, General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Douglas L. Jamerson, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 303 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152
Findings Of Fact The Division of Employment and Training has alleged that the Putnam County Board of County Commissioners, in administering grants under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA), failed to comply with the applicable rules and regulations. As a result thereof, a total of $20,653.00 was spent in violation of applicable rules and regulations. The Putnam County Board of County Commissioners acknowledged that the money was spent as alleged. However, the County contends that the spending was not in violation of CETA, were legitimate costs and should, therefore, be allowed. The findings of fact of the Hearing Officer as set out in the Recommended Order are hereby accepted and adopted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent repay Petitioner: (1) $3,124 for wages paid to Charles Livingston, (2) $196 in excess workman's compensation charges, and (3) those costs associated with participants later found to be ineligible by reason of not being unemployed 15 of the 20 weeks prior to the date of their applications and whose ineligibility was based upon employment in Putnam County prior to their applications being filed. All other questioned costs should be allowed. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of April, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of April, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Sonja P. Mathews, Esquire Suite 117-Montgomery Building 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Sam S. Browning, III Box 758 Palatka, Florida 32077 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER =================================================================
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Juvenile Welfare Board of Pinellas County (Petitioner) should have treated John Bucci as a mandatory member of the Florida Retirement System from April 1984, through July 1988, and therefore, should be required to submit retroactive adjustments for retirement and social security based upon his earnings during this period.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an independent taxing district created by Special Act in 1945 to provide funding in Pinellas County for services to children. It timely filed a request for hearing on the Respondent's decision to consider John Bucci a mandatory member of the Florida Retirement System (FRS) from April 1984, through July 1988. The position of the Petitioner is that John Bucci was an independent contractor, and therefore, should not be considered a mandatory member of the FRS. Bucci worked as a janitor for the Petitioner between April 1984, and July 1988. He opened the building in the morning, deactivated the building alarm, made coffee, cleaned the employee restrooms, emptied waste baskets, vacuumed and dusted. From time to time, he also painted and made minor repairs in the building, and took mail to the post office when directed to do so. While Bucci did not receive daily assignments, his duties were routine and had been worked out with representatives of Petitioner when he was initially employed. If there were problems with his cleaning, he would be told to reclean an area, and he was expected to take care of the problem as soon as possible. The Petitioner provided Bucci with all supplies and equipment necessary to do his job. While he worked with the Petitioner, Bucci did not have a written contract, but rather, he had an annually renewable verbal contract. He was paid on an hourly basis, and submitted a monthly record of hours worked each day, which was reviewed and approved for payment by Petitioner. Bucci received annual increases from the Petitioner, but did not negotiate these increases. The Petitioner simply gave him what it considered to be a cost of living increase each year. According to Petitioner, Bucci was not in an established position, and therefore, did not receive fringe benefits. At the time, Bucci was the only person working with the Petitioner which it considered to be an independent contractor. Subsequent to his leaving, Petitioner bid, and now has a written contract for janitorial services with an agency in Pinellas County that offers employment opportunities to retarded citizens. That agency provides all equipment and supplies necessary for janitorial duties. After several counseling sessions with Carole Gunnels, Petitioner's operations manager at the time, Bucci was terminated because of continued problems with his work. Thereafter, it was determined by the Division of Unemployment Compensation, Department of Labor and Employment Security, that he qualified for unemployment benefits. The Comptroller's Office of the State of Florida has issued Memorandum No. 7 (1988-89) regarding determinations of a person's status as an independent contractor or employee. In pertinent part, that Memorandum sets forth twenty factors to be considered in determining if sufficient control is present to establish an employee-employer relationship, and states: The Internal Revenue Service has provided guidance in making this determination in Revenue Ruling 87-41. It provides generally, that the relationship of employer and employee exists when the person or persons for whom the services are performed have the right to control and direct the individual who performs the services, not only as to the result to be accomplished by the work but also as to the details and means by which that result is accomplished. That is, an employee is subject to the will and control of the employer not only as to what shall be done but as to how it shall be done. In this connection, it is not necessary that the employer actually direct and control the manner in which the services are performed; it is sufficient if the employer has the right to do so. The Respondent has adopted Rule 22B-6.001(15), Florida Administrative Code, which defines the term "independent contractor" as an individual who: agrees to provide certain services; works according to his own methods; is not subject to the control of his employer, except as to the results of his work; and does not receive the fringe benefits offered by the employer. A consultant or independent contractor usually: is compensated from another salaries and wages account; does not earn annual or sick leave; and may frequently do a majority of his work in his own office rather than on the employer's premises. In order to determine if Bucci should have been considered to be an employee of the Petitioner, rather than an independent contractor, the Respondent provided Petitioner with a copy of its Employment Relationship Questionnaire, which Petitioner completed on or about April 10, 1989. The information provided by Petitioner on this Questionnaire indicates that Bucci was required to follow regular routines or schedules, the Petitioner could change the methods by which he performed his work or otherwise direct him in the performance of his duties, the work was to be performed by Bucci personally, the Petitioner could discharge him at any time, and he could quit at any time. It was also indicated that Bucci was not filling a regularly established position, but was retained under an oral contract to perform personal services. Bucci did not work full-time with the Petitioner. Rather, he worked an average of between 4 to 5 hours a day with the Petitioner. On rare occasion during the time he was employed with the Petitioner, he did take other part-time cleaning jobs with other employers. However, he did not have any occupational license as a janitorial service, did not advertise as such, had no yellow page listing for janitorial services, and did not have any equipment or supplies necessary to carry out his duties, other than what Petitioner provided him. The characteristics, terms and conditions of Bucci's employment with the Petitioner from April 1984, through July 1988, support the Respondent's determination that he was an employee, rather than an independent contractor, and that he was, therefore, a mandatory member of the FRS.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Respondent enter a Final Order concluding that John Bucci was a mandatory member of the FRS, and as such denying Petitioner's request for relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of November, 1989 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of November, 1989. APPENDIX (DOAH CASE NO. 89-4067) Rulings on the Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Rejected as purely procedural matters and not a relevant proposed finding of fact. 3-4. Rejected in Findings of Fact 2-5, 8-10. The Respondent did not timely file Proposed Findings of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Terry A. Smiljanich, Esquire P. O. Box 1578 St. Petersburg, FL 33731 Stanley M. Danek, Esquire General Counsel's Office 440 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Aletta L. Shutes, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Augustus Aikens, Jr., Esquire General Counsel 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550
