Findings Of Fact Respondent, Edward Willison Carroll, III, is currently eligible for licensure and is licensed in this state as a Credit Life, including Credit Disability Insurance Agent; General Lines - Property, Casualty, Surety and Miscellaneous Lines Agent; General Lines - Motor Vehicle Physical Damage and Mechanical Breakdown Agent; Ordinary Life, including Health Insurance Agent; Health Insurance Agent; and Automobile and Inspection and Warranty Association Salesman. On March 10, 1980, respondent filed a verified application with petitioner for examination as a General Lines Agent (Property, Casualty, and Miscellaneous Lines) . Question number 13 of the application asked the following: Have you ever been charged with or convicted of a felony? If so, complete the following and submit a full and detailed report on a separate sheet. Date Name of Court Address of Court Nature of Charge and Outcome Respondent answered no to this question. On May 28, 1982, respondent filed a verified application with petitioner for examination as an Ordinary Life including Disability Agent. Question number 15 of the application asked the following: Have you ever been charged with or convicted of a felony? If so, complete the following and submit a full and detailed report on a separate sheet. Date Name of Court Address of Court Nature of Charge and Outcome Respondent answered no to this question. Respondent's answers to question 13 on the March 10, 1980, application and question 15 on the March 28, 1982, application were false. On December 11, 1970, the State Attorney for the Second Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida, filed an information with the circuit court which charged that respondent did on December 3, 1970, in Leon County, Florida ... knowingly commit a lewd or lascivious act in the presence of Alice Leigh Divita, a female child under the age of fourteen years, to-wit: of the age of six years, without intent to commit rape upon said child, contrary to Section 800.04, F.S. On March 9, 1971, respondent entered a plea of guilty to the crime of fondling, as charged in the information. The court withheld adjudication of guilty and imposition of sentence, and placed respondent on probation for a period of three years. At hearing, respondent conceded that he had been charged with the aforementioned felony. He averred, however, that his failure to disclose such charge on his applications was not intended to be deceitful but was premised on his belief that he could properly answer no to such inquiries because adjudication of guilty had been withheld. While respondent may reasonably have believed that he could respond in the negative to an inquiry concerning felony convictions, his contention that he held an honest belief that he could also respond in the negative to inquiries about whether the had ever been charged with a felony is not persuasive. But for the foregoing charge, respondent has not been charged or convicted of any other felonies. Nor, has the respondent been shown to have engaged in any improprieties as an insurance agent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered suspending respondent's licensure and eligibility for licensure for three months. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of August, 1988. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of August, 1988. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: 1. Addressed in paragraph 1. 2 & 3. Addressed in paragraph 2. 4 & 5. Addressed in paragraph 3. 6. Addressed in paragraph 5. 7 & 8 Addressed in paragraph 6. 9 & 10. Addressed in paragraphs 7 and 8. 11. Addressed in paragraph 9. 12-14. Rejected as not relevant. COPIES FURNISHED: S. Marc Herskovitz, Esquire Office of Legal Services 413-B Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Thomas L. Neilson, Esquire 105 West Fifth Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32303 The Honorable William Gunter State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Don Dowdell, Esquire General Counsel The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether Petitioner's application for licensure as a Resident Customer Representative insurance agent should be granted.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a receptionist for an insurance agency and is seeking licensure as a Florida Resident Customer Representative from the Department of Financial Services. The Department is an agency of the State of Florida responsible for the licensing of insurance agents and customer representatives in the State of Florida, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes. On October 22, 2003, the Petitioner filed a license application (electronically) with the Department seeking licensure as a Resident Customer Representative insurance agent. On her application for licensure, the Petitioner answered the following question in the negative: Have you ever been convicted, found guilty, or pled guilty or nolo contendere (no contest) to a crime punishable by imprisonment of one year or more under the laws of any municipality, county, state, territory or country, whether or not adjudication was withheld or a judgment of conviction was entered? When the Petitioner signed her application for licensure she signed an "Applicant Affirmation Statement" and mailed it to the Department. In that statement, she swore that all the answers on the questions on the application were true and correct to the best of her knowledge and belief. She knew of the requirement to be truthful and honest on the application and that had been stressed to her by her instructor for the insurance pre-licensing course which she attended. On March 16, 1995, the Petitioner entered a plea of nolo contendere to one count of forgery and one count of uttering a forged instrument, both felonies. The related arrest had occurred on November 10, 1994. The Petitioner was sentenced to three years probation, required to make restitution, pay court fines and costs and to perform fifty hours of community service. She was to write a letter of apology to the victim and to have no contact with the victim. Adjudication of guilt was withheld. She performed all of the requirements of her sentence. She was excused by the court from providing the fifty hours of community service because she was pregnant at the time. The Petitioner acknowledges that she answered the question incorrectly and had made a mistake, because she felt the phrase "punishable by one year or more" meant that she had been imprisoned for one year or more, which she had not. She testified that she intentionally answered the question in the negative because she was not aware that her felony crimes were potentially punishable by one year or more. She signed the 1995 plea agreement, which indicated that it was then her understanding that the offenses could carry a maximum sentence of ten years imprisonment. At the time she answered the relevant question on her application, however, she did not have a present understanding or recollection that that would be the case. The point is, she answered in good faith. She did not intentionally answer the question untruthfully but rather due to a mistaken impression, after some nine or so years had elapsed, concerning the nature and effect of the punishment or potential punishment her crimes carried. The Petitioner has not had a criminal history since her 1995 plea, with the exception of a June 7, 2000 arrest in Hernando County, Florida, after her return to Florida from Tennessee, for purported violation of probation with regard to the 1995 felony case. The Petitioner's testimony demonstrates in a credible way that indeed she had fulfilled the requirements of her probation. The judge had released her from her community service requirement and the reason for the arrest, because she was believed to have failed to pay relevant costs and restitution, apparently was a mistake. She established that at or around the time of her moving to Tennessee she had paid the relevant monetary sums required with two cashiers checks. The court terminated her probation. It is found that this arrest was based upon a mistake. The Petitioner's supervisor corroborated the testimony of the Petitioner and established that the circumstances and mental impression leading to the Petitioner's negative answer show no intent to be untruthful or to defraud. The Petitioner and her witnesses (her supervisors) established that she has been fit and trustworthy in her work with the insurance agency. Petitioner has routinely handled sums of money for the agency and for insurance clients, always with proper accounting and never with any funds being missing or mis-appropriated. The Petitioner's employment provides her family's only livelihood for her and her child. Her employment is dependent on her being granted licensure as a Customer Representative. Denial of the license application will create a hardship for her. She was nineteen years of age at the time of the arrest and plea, made full restitution and complied with the terms of her probation.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department granting the licensure applied; or granting it for a probationary period of two years under reasonable terms and conditions specified by the Department in that final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of December, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of December, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Pete Dunbar, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Tanya C. Lollie 4732 Elwood Road Spring Hill, Florida 34608 Elizabeth Penny, Certified Legal Intern Ladasiah Jackson, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333
The Issue Whether Respondent, Craftmaster Plastering and Stucco, Inc., failed to comply with the coverage requirements of the Workers’ Compensation Law, chapter 440, Florida Statutes; and, if so, what penalty should be assessed pursuant to section 440.107, Florida Statutes (2016).
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement of the Workers’ Compensation Law that employers secure the payment of workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. (2017). Respondent is a Florida for-profit corporation organized on or about January 1, 2015, which was engaged in the construction industry in Florida at all times relevant hereto. According to the record evidence, Respondent was administratively dissolved on September 23, 2016. No evidence of reinstatement was introduced. According to the Secretary of State’s database, Rasheem Kincey is Respondent’s President, Mecca Kincey is its Vice President, and Ulysses Kincey is its Treasurer. On January 23, 2017, Ms. Loy received a telephone call from Department Compliance Investigator, Carl Woodall, who was onsite at a restaurant undergoing renovations at the intersection of U.S. Highway 98 and Kraft Avenue in Panama City, Florida (the worksite). Mr. Woodall reported his findings to Ms. Loy from a random workers’ compensation compliance check he had completed at the worksite. Based upon Mr. Woodall’s verbal report, Ms. Loy instructed Mr. Woodall to issue the subject Order. According to Ms. Loy, Mr. Woodall observed several workers at the worksite, interviewed them, and recorded notes on a field interview worksheet. Ms. Loy had no personal knowledge of any of the workers at the worksite, did not observe the activities of anyone at the worksite, and did not interview anyone at the worksite. Mr. Woodall did not testify at the final hearing. The Department did not introduce Mr. Woodall’s field interview worksheet into evidence. Ms. Loy reviewed the Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS), which is maintained by the Department, and confirmed Respondent did not have a valid workers’ compensation insurance policy. Mr. Hatten was assigned to calculate the penalty to be imposed for Respondent’s alleged failure to secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage for its employees. From Mr. Woodall’s field interview worksheet, Mr. Hatten retrieved the names Rasheem Kincey, Mecca Kincey, Ulysees Kincey, Brandon White, Mark Kim Wilson, Jerome Bradley, and Brandon Samuel Kincey Smith, and entered those names on his penalty calculation worksheet as Respondent’s uninsured employees for the penalty audit period. In this case, the penalty audit period included the two years immediately preceding the date on which the Order was issued: January 23, 2015 through January 23, 2017. Respondent did not comply with Petitioner’s BRR; therefore, the Department did not have sufficient records to establish Respondent’s payroll during the penalty audit period. Mr. Hatten reviewed CCAS and confirmed that Mecca Kincey, Ulysses Kincey, and Rasheem Kincey had valid workers’ compensation exemptions effective from February 3, 4, and 5, 2015, respectively, through February 2, 3, and 4, 2017, respectively. Respondent’s officers did not have exemptions from workers’ compensation insurance requirements during the audit period between January 26, 2015, and February 2, 3, and 4, 2017, respectively. Mr. Hatten entered these timeframes on the penalty calculation worksheet as periods of non-compliance for the three corporate officers. Mr. Hatten further found Respondent had a workers’ compensation insurance policy effective February through July 2015. Mr. Hatten used this information to establish periods of non-compliance during the audit period. Based upon Mr. Woodall’s notes that he observed workers engaged in stucco application and repair at the worksite, Mr. Hatten assigned the classification code 5022, Masonry, for purposes of calculating the penalty. The classification code was derived from the Scopes Manual published by the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) and adopted by the Department by Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.021. Mr. Hatten next applied the workers’ compensation insurance rates approved by the Department for workers’ compensation coverage by classification code to each worker during each period of non-compliance. Finally, because Respondent did not submit business records sufficient to establish its payroll during the audit period, Mr. Hatten assigned the statewide average weekly wage in order to calculate Respondent’s payroll to each “employee” and its corporate officers for the periods of non-compliance. Utilizing this imputed methodology, Mr. Hatten calculated a total penalty of $94,544.92 to be imposed on Respondent for failure to secure workers’ compensation insurance for its employees during the periods of non-compliance. The Department served Respondent with an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on February 23, 2017, imposing the penalty of $94,544.92. Mr. Kincey testified on Respondent’s behalf. Mr. Kincey admitted that he, Ulysses Kincey, and Mecca Kincey were performing stucco work at the worksite on January 23, 2017. Mr. Kincey denied that any of the other individuals, purportedly identified at the worksite by Mr. Woodall, were his employees. As to the individuals named in the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, Mr. Kincey testified that Jerome Bradley was a cook at the restaurant; Mark Kim Wilson was painting at the worksite, and Mr. Kincey assumed Mr. Wilson was hired by the restaurant owner, Jerry Steele; Brandon Samuel Kincey Smith was Mr. Kincey’s cousin, and he had no idea who had hired Mr. Kincey Smith or what he was doing at the worksite; and that he had never heard of Brandon White and could not identify Mr. White. The Department offered no non-hearsay evidence to rebut Mr. Kincey’s testimony. The record evidence is sufficient to support a finding that Rasheem Kincey, Mecca Kincey, and Ulysees Kincey were performing stucco work at the worksite on January 23, 2017, and were not covered by either workers’ compensation insurance or a valid exemption therefrom, for the periods of non-compliance identified in the penalty calculation worksheet. Mr. Hatton correctly applied the imputed methodology and correctly calculated a penalty of $1,259.64, for Respondent’s failure to obtain workers’ compensation coverage for the three corporate officers. The evidence is insufficient to support the remaining imputed penalty calculation applied to Respondent.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, enter a final order finding that Respondent, Craftmaster Plastering and Stucco, Inc., failed to secure and maintain required workers’ compensation insurance for its employees, and impose a penalty of $1,259.64. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of November, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of November, 2017. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Joseph Gordon, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 (eServed) Rasheem Kincey Craftmaster Plastering and Stucco, Inc. 129 Nann Street Enterprise, Alabama 36330 Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Jack Michael Schwartz, held a life and health agent and ordinary combination life including health agent license issued by petitioner, Department of Insurance and Treasurer. Respondent presently resides at 2027 Northeast 172nd Street, North Miami Beach, Florida. On November 30, 1981 respondent submitted an application to petitioner for licensure as an ordinary life including disability agent. Question 15 on the application asked the following: "Have you ever been charged with or convicted of a felony?" Respondent answered "No." The application was subsequently approved by petitioner in February, 1982 after respondent successfully completed a written examination. On June 18, 1985 respondent submitted an application to petitioner for licensure as a general lines agent. Question 11 on the application asked the following question: "Have you ever been charged with or convicted of a felony?" Respondent answered "No." During the course of a routine background check of Schwartz, petitioner later learned that respondent had pled guilty to grand larceny by fraudulent representation on August 3, 1977 in circuit court in and for Broward County, Florida. The offense is a felony. Schwartz was thereafter placed on probation for five years under the direct supervision of the Department of Offender Rehabilitation. He was released from probation after two and one-half years. Schwartz acknowledged that he had pled guilty to a felony. However, after his probation was ended, Schwartz interpreted advice from his probation officer to mean he did not have to acknowledge on job or licensure applications that he had been convicted of a felony. He had no further explanation for his answers.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the license and eligibility for licensure of respondent be REVOKED. DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of September, 1986, 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 15th day of September, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 86-1809 PETITIONER: Covered in finding of fact 4. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 3. Covered in finding of fact 3. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bill Gunter Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Wilbur W. Anderson, Esquire 413-B Larson Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jack Michael Schwartz 2027 N.E. 172nd Street North Miami Beach, Florida 33162
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was found guilty of breaking and entering in 1974, and was charged with burglary and attempted escape in 1976. The burglary charge was, upon adjudication reduced to trespassing and too attempted escape charge was dropped. Respondent's license application form contains the question, "Have you ever been charged with or convicted of a felony?" Details are required if a "yes" answer is given. Petitioner disclosed the 1974 breaking and entering conviction but did not include either of the 1976 charges or the 1976 misdemeanor conviction. However, this was not an attempt by Petitioner to withhold information, but was rather a misunderstanding of the request to list all felony charges regardless of disposition and not merely those involving felony convictions. Petitioner's reputation for truthfulness was attested to by the police officer who arrested him in 1974 and 1976, and monitored his subsequent rehabilitation. Petitioner readily admitted the acts for which he was arrested in 1974, and has never been otherwise known to lie. Petitioner, who was 26 years old at the time he filed his application in April of 1980, has overcome his earlier difficulties. Since 1976, he has completed a drug therapy program, taken mental health technician courses at a community college, and worked as a counselor and supervisor in a community mental health facility. He is currently a convenience store manager in Fort Pierce, and recently trained part-time with a local insurance agency in anticipation of licensing.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Ricky D. Brown for filing for examination as ordinary-combination life including disability agent be granted. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of December, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon Country, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of December, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Ricky D. Brown 601 North 15th Street Fort Pierce, Florida 33450 Leon Rolle, Esquire Office of Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner 220 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Royal Roofing and Restoration, Inc. (Respondent or Royal Roofing), failed to secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage for its employees; and, if so, whether the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (Petitioner or Department), correctly calculated the penalty to be assessed against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with enforcing the requirement of chapter 440, that Florida employers secure workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Respondent is a Florida for-profit corporation organized on July 28, 2015, and engaged in the business of roofing and storm damage restoration. The company was formed, and initially conducted business, in Tallahassee, Florida, but expanded to the Panama City area in 2016. Traci Fisher is Respondent’s President and Registered Agent, with a mailing address of 1004 Kenilworth, Tallahassee, Florida 32312. DOAH Case No. 17-0879 On May 4, 2016, Department Compliance Investigator Jesse Holman, conducted a routine workers’ compensation compliance inspection at 374 Brown Place in Crestview, Florida. Mr. Holman observed four men removing shingles from the roof of a residential structure at that address. Mr. Holman first interviewed a worker who identified himself as Dustin Hansel and reported that he and the other three workers on site were a new crew for Respondent, the permit for the job had not yet been pulled, and the workers were not aware of the rate of pay for the job. Mr. Hansel telephoned Respondent’s sales manager, Dillon Robinson, who then spoke directly with Mr. Holman via telephone. Mr. Robinson informed Mr. Holman that Respondent obtained workers’ compensation coverage through Payroll Management Inc. (PMI), an employee-leasing company. Mr. Holman identified the three remaining workers at the jobsite as Milton Trice, Winston Perrotta, and Kerrigan Ireland. Mr. Holman contacted PMI and secured a copy of Respondent’s then-active employee roster. None of the workers at the jobsite, including Mr. Hansel, were included on Respondent’s employee roster. Upon inquiry, Mr. Holman was informed that PMI had no pending employee applications for Respondent. Mr. Holman consulted the Department’s Coverage Compliance Automated System (CCAS) and found Respondent had no workers’ compensation insurance policy and no active exemptions. During Mr. Holman’s onsite investigation, the workers left the jobsite. Mr. Holman could not immediately reach Ms. Fisher, but did speak with her husband, Tim Fisher. Mr. Fisher informed Mr. Holman that the crew was on their way to the PMI Fort Walton office to be enrolled on Respondent’s employee roster. On May 5, 2016, based on his investigation, and after consultation with his supervisor, Mr. Holman issued Respondent Stop-Work Order (SWO) 16-148-1A, along with a Business Records Request (BRR) for records covering the audit period of July 27, 2015 through May 4, 2016. Later that day, Mr. Holman spoke to Ms. Fisher, who informed him the crew did not have permission to begin the work on that date, as she had not yet pulled the permit for the reroof. Ms. Fisher further explained that the crewmembers had been instructed to complete applications with PMI prior to departing Tallahassee for Crestview. Ms. Fisher confirmed the crewmembers were completing applications at PMI Fort Walton that same day. Mr. Holman met with Ms. Fisher the following day and personally served SWO 16-148-1A. Ms. Fisher delivered to Mr. Holman an updated employee roster from PMI which included Mr. Hansel, Mr. Perrotta, and Mr. Ireland; a letter documenting Mr. Trice was not employed by Respondent; and a $1000 check as downpayment on the penalty. Respondent initially submitted business records in response to the BRR on May 23 and 25, 2017. DOAH Case No. 17-1558 On June 8, 2016, Mr. Holman conducted a random workers’ compensation compliance inspection at 532 Rising Star Drive in Crestview. The single-family home at that address was undergoing renovations and Mr. Holman observed three men on the roof removing shingles. None of the men on the roof spoke English, but a fourth man, who identified himself as Jose Manuel Mejia, appeared and stated he worked for Respondent, and that all the workers onsite were paid through PMI at a rate of $10.00 per hour. Mr. Mejia admitted that one of the worker’s onsite, Emelio Lopez, was not enrolled with PMI and explained that Mr. Mejia brought him to the worksite that day because he knew Mr. Lopez to be a good worker. The remaining workers onsite were identified as Juan Mencho and Ramon Gonzalez, both from Atlanta, Georgia. Mr. Mejia produced some PMI paystubs for himself and Mr. Mencho. Mr. Mejia stated that he and his crews also received reimbursement checks directly from Respondent for gas, rentals, materials, and the like. Mr. Holman contacted PMI, who produced Respondent’s then-active employee roster. Mr. Mejia and Mr. Mencho were on the roster, but neither Mr. Gonzalez nor Mr. Lopez was included. Mr. Holman next contacted Ms. Fisher, who identified Mr. Mejia as a subcontractor, but was not familiar with any of the other men Mr. Holman encountered at the worksite. Mr. Holman consulted via telephone with his supervisor, who instructed him to issue an SWO to Respondent for failing to secure workers’ compensation coverage for its employees. Mr. Holman issued SWO 16-198-1A by posting the worksite on June 8, 2016. Department Facilitator Don Hurst, personally served Ms. Fisher with SWO 16-198-1A in Tallahassee that same day. SWO 16-148-1A Penalty Calculation1/ Department Penalty Auditor Eunika Jackson, was assigned to calculate the penalties associated with the SWOs issued to Respondent. On June 8, 2016, Ms. Jackson began calculating the penalty associated with SWO 16-148-1A. Ms. Jackson reviewed the documents submitted by Respondent in response to the BRR. The documents included Respondent’s Wells Fargo bank statements, check images, and PMI payroll register for the audit period.2/ Based on a review of the records, Ms. Jackson identified the following individuals as Respondent’s employees because they received direct payment from Respondent at times during the audit period: David Rosinsky, Dylan Robinson, Jarod Bell, Tommy Miller, and David Shields. Ms. Jackson determined periods of non-compliance for these employees based on the dates they received payments from Respondent and were not covered for workers’ compensation via PMI employment roster, separate policy, or corporate officer exemption. Ms. Jackson deemed payments to each of the individuals as gross payroll for purposes of calculating the penalty. Based upon Ms. Fisher’s deposition testimony, Ms. Jackson assigned National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) class code 5551, Roofing, to Mr. Miller; NCCI class code 5474, Painting, to Mr. Rosinsky; NCCI class code 8742, Sales, to Mr. Bell and Mr. Robinson; and NCCI class code 8810, clerical office employee, to Mr. Shields. Utilizing the statutory formula for penalty calculation, Ms. Jackson calculated a total penalty of $191.28 associated with these five “employees.” Ms. Jackson next calculated the penalty for Dustin Hansel, Kerrigan Ireland, Milton Trice, and Winston Perrotta, the workers identified at the jobsite as employees on May 4, 2016. The Department maintains that the business records submitted by Respondent were insufficient to determine Respondent’s payroll to these “employees,” thus, Ms. Jackson used the statutory formula to impute payroll to these workers. Ms. Jackson calculated a penalty of $14,970.12 against Respondent for failure to secure payment of workers’ compensation insurance for each of these four “employees” during the audit period. The total penalty associated with these four “employees” is $59,880.48. Ms. Jackson calculated a total penalty of $60,072.96 to be imposed against Respondent in connection with SWO 16-148- 1A. Business Records In compliance with the Department’s BRR, Respondent submitted additional business records on several occasions-- March 21, May 3 and 31, June 7, and August 15 and 24, 2017--in order to establish its complete payroll for the audit period. While the Department admits that the final documents submitted do establish Respondent’s complete payroll, the Department did not issue amended penalty assessment based on those records in either case. The Department maintains Respondent did not timely submit records, pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.028(4), which allows an employer 20 business days after service of the first amended order of penalty assessment to submit sufficient records to establish payroll. All business records submitted by Respondent were admitted in evidence and included as part of the record. The undersigned is not limited to the record before the Department at the time the amended penalty assessments were imposed, but must determine a recommendation in a de novo proceeding. The undersigned has relied upon the complete record in arriving at the decision in this case. Penalty Calculation for Ireland, Trice, and Perrotta For purposes of workers’ compensation insurance coverage, an “employee” is “any person who receives remuneration from an employer” for work or services performed under a contract. § 440.02(15)(a), Fla. Stat. Respondent did not issue a single check to Mr. Ireland, Mr. Trice, or Mr. Perrotta during the audit period. Mr. Ireland, Mr. Trice, and Mr. Perrotta are not included on any PMI leasing roster included in the record for the audit period. The uncontroverted evidence, including the credible and unrefuted testimony of each person with knowledge, established that Mr. Ireland, Mr. Trice, and Mr. Perrotta were newly hired for the job in Crestview on May 4, 2016, and began working that day prior to submitting applications at PMI, despite Ms. Fisher’s directions otherwise. Petitioner did not prove that either Mr. Ireland, Mr. Trice, or Mr. Perrotta was Respondent’s employee at any time during the audit period. Petitioner did not correctly calculate the penalty of $44,911.26 against Respondent for failure to secure workers’ compensation insurance for Mr. Ireland, Mr. Trice, and Mr. Perrotta during the audit period. Penalty Calculation for Hansel Ms. Fisher testified that Mr. Hansel has owned several businesses with which Respondent has conducted business over the years. Originally, Mr. Hansel owned a dumpster rental business, now owned by his father. Mr. Hansel also owned an independent landscaping company with which Respondent occasionally transacted business. When Respondent expanded business into the Panama City area, Ms. Fisher hired Mr. Hansel as a crew chief to supervise new crews in the area. The job on May 4, 2016, was his first roofing job. A review of Respondent’s records reveals Respondent issued the following checks to Mr. Hansel during the audit period: December 4, 2015, in the amount of $360, $300 of which was for “dumpster rental” and the remaining $60 for “sod”; May 4, 2016, in the amount of $200 for “sod repair”; May 6, 2016, in the amount of $925 as reimbursement for travel expenses; May 9, 2016, in the amount of $1,011.50 (with no memo); and May 21, 2016, in the amount of $100 for “7845 Preservation.” Mr. Hansel was included on Respondent’s PMI leasing roster beginning on May 13, 2016. Petitioner proved that Mr. Hansel was Respondent’s employee at times during the audit period. Petitioner did not prove that Respondent’s records were insufficient to determine payroll to Mr. Hansel during the audit period, which would have required an imputed penalty. Petitioner did not correctly calculate the penalty of $14,970.42 against Respondent for failure to secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage for Mr. Hansel during the audit period. Sod repair by Mr. Hansel is a service performed for Respondent during the audit period. Reimbursement of travel expenses is specifically included in the definition of payroll for purposes of calculating the penalty. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L- 6.035(1)(f) (“Expense reimbursements, including reimbursements for travel” are included as remuneration to employees “to the extent that the employer’s business records and receipts do not confirm that the expense incurred as a valid business expense.”). Dumpster rental is neither work performed on behalf of, nor service provided to, Respondent during the audit period. The correct uninsured payroll amount attributable to Mr. Hansel is $2,296.50. Petitioner correctly applied NCCI class code 5551, Roofing, to work performed by Mr. Hansel based on the observation of Mr. Holman at the worksite on May 4, 2016. With respect to Mr. Hansel’s services for sod and sod repair, Petitioner did not correctly apply NCCI class code 5551. Petitioner did not introduce competent substantial evidence of the applicable NCCI class code and premium amount for landscaping services performed during the audit period.3/ Uninsured payroll attributable to Mr. Hansel for roofing services during the audit period is $2,036.50. The approved manual rate for workers’ compensation insurance for NCCI class code 5551 during the period of non- compliance--May 9 and 21, 2016--is $18.60. The premium amount Respondent would have paid to provide workers’ compensation insurance for Mr. Hansel is $378.79 (One percent of Mr. Hansel’s gross payroll during the non-compliance period--$20.36--multiplied by $18.60). The penalty for Respondent’s failure to secure worker’s compensation coverage insurance for Mr. Hansel during the period of non-compliance is calculated as two times the amount Respondent would have paid in premium for the non- compliance period. The correct penalty for Respondent’s failure to maintain workers’ compensation coverage for Mr. Hansel during the period of non-compliance is $757.58. Penalty Calculation for Salesmen Independent contractors not engaged in the construction industry are not employees for purposes of enforcing workers’ compensation insurance requirements. See § 440.02(15)(d)1., Fla. Stat. Sales is a non-construction industry occupation. The Department calculated a penalty associated with payroll attributable to the following persons identified by Ms. Fisher as independent salesmen: Dylan Robinson, Kevin Miller, Marc Medley, Mike Rucker, Colby Fisher, David Jones, Jarod Bell, Matt Flynn, and Todd Zulauf. Section 440.02(15)(d)1. provides that an individual may be an independent contractor, rather than an employee, as follows: In order to meet the definition of independent contractor, at least four of the following criteria must be met: The independent contractor maintains a separate business with his or her own work facility, truck, equipment, materials, or similar accommodations; The independent contractor holds or has applied for a federal employer identification number, unless the independent contractor is a sole proprietor who is not required to obtain a federal employer identification number under state or federal regulations; The independent contractor receives compensation for services rendered or work performed and such compensation is paid to a business rather than to an individual; The independent contractor holds one or more bank accounts in the name of the business entity for purposes of paying business expenses or other expenses related to services rendered or work performed for compensation; The independent contractor performs work or is able to perform work for any entity in addition to or besides the employer at his or her own election without the necessity of completing an employment application or process; or The independent contractor receives compensation for work or services rendered on a competitive-bid basis or completion of a task or a set of tasks as defined by a contractual agreement, unless such contractual agreement expressly states that an employment relationship exists. If four of the criteria listed in sub- subparagraph a. do not exist, an individual may still be presumed to be an independent contractor and not an employee based on full consideration of the nature of the individual situation with regard to satisfying any of the following conditions: The independent contractor performs or agrees to perform specific services or work for a specific amount of money and controls the means of performing the services or work. The independent contractor incurs the principal expenses related to the service or work that he or she performs or agrees to perform. The independent contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of the work or services that he or she performs or agrees to perform. The independent contractor receives compensation for work or services performed for a commission or on a per-job basis and not on any other basis. The independent contractor may realize a profit or suffer a loss in connection with performing work or services. The independent contractor has continuing or recurring business liabilities or obligations. The success or failure of the independent contractor’s business depends on the relationship of business receipts to expenditures. Ms. Fisher testified that each of the above-named salesmen sold roofing jobs for her at various times during the audit period on a commission-only basis. The contractors inspect homeowner roofs, draft schematics, use their own equipment (e.g., drones), incur all of their own expenses, and handle the insurance filing for the homeowner’s insurance to pay on the claim. Ms. Fisher further testified that each of the salesmen also sells for other roofing contractors in the Tallahassee area. She pays the salesmen on a per-job basis. Ms. Fisher does not compensate the salesmen for the time involved in inspecting a roof, preparing schematics, or making the sale. Nor does Ms. Fisher reimburse the salesmen for travel to sales jobsites. Ms. Fisher’s testimony was credible, persuasive, and uncontroverted. Respondent introduced in evidence four “Independent Contractor Checklists” allegedly completed by Mr. Robinson, Mr. Medley, Mr. Fisher, and Mr. Flynn. Each form checklist follows the format of section 440.02(15)(d)1., listing the criteria set forth in subparagraphs a. and b. The forms indicate that they each meet all the criteria listed in subparagraph b.: they perform, or agree to perform services for a specific amount of money and control the means of performing the service; they incur the principal expenses related to the service performed; they are responsible for satisfactory completion of the services performed; they receive compensation for the services performed on a per-job or commission basis; they may realize a profit or suffer a loss in connection with performing the services; they have continuing and recurring business liabilities or obligations; and the success or failure of their business depends on the relationship of business receipts to expenditures.4/ In its Proposed Recommended Order, Petitioner conceded the nine men identified by Respondent as independent sales contractors “would not be considered employees of Respondent” because the “salesmen would seem to meet the majority of [the] requirements [of section 440.02(15)(d)1.b.].” Respondent issued Dylan Robinson, Mark Medley, Colby Fisher, Matt Flynn, Kevin Miller, Mike Rucker, Jarod Bell, David Jones, and Todd Zulauf an IRS FORM 1099-MISC for income paid during the 2016 tax year. Respondent did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the above-named salesmen were Respondent’s employees during the audit period. For SWO 16-148-1A, Respondent did not correctly calculate the penalty because Respondent included a penalty associated with Petitioner’s failure to provide workers’ compensation insurance coverage for Dylan Robinson and Jarod Bell. Penalty in the amount of $20.70 associated with Dylan Robinson and Jarod Bell should not be included in the total penalty. The correct penalty amount for SWO 16-148-1A, based on records submitted by Respondent on or before March 20, 2016, is $929.16. Draft Revised Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment The additional records submitted by Respondent revealed payments made to persons during the audit period who were not included in the Department’s Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. The Department and Respondent disagreed at hearing whether the payments qualified as payroll. At hearing, Petitioner submitted a draft revised second amended penalty calculation for SWO 16-148-1A based on all records received from Respondent. The revised penalty is in the amount of $61,453.50. Ms. Jackson populated the spreadsheet with the name of every individual to whom a check was written on Respondent’s business bank account during the audit period, removing only those payments to individuals and entities which, to Petitioner’s knowledge, were not Respondent’s employees. Respondent’s calculations in the revised penalty suffer from some of the same errors as in the second amended penalty calculation--they include individuals Petitioner did not prove were Respondent’s employees, as well as payments which were not uninsured payroll. For the reasons explained herein, Petitioner did not prove that salesmen David Jones, Dylan Robinson, Jarod Bell, Kevin Miller, Mark Medley, Matt Flynn, Mike Rucker, Tim Fischer, and Colby Fisher were Respondent’s employees during the audit period. Respondent did not accurately calculate the penalty associated with those persons. Respondent made payments to David Shields during the audit period, which the Department argues should be included as payroll. The Department included payments to Mr. Shields in its draft revised second amended order of penalty assessment and assigned NCCI class code “8810” for clerical work. Mr. Shields is a licensed professional roofing contractor who acts as “qualifier” for Respondent’s business. A qualifier is a licensed professional who certifies plans for permit applications submitted by another business. Respondent pays Mr. Shields a flat fee per permit application qualified by him. The record evidence does not support a finding that Mr. Shields provides clerical services to Respondent. Mr. Shields provides some sort of professional services to Respondent, and is likely an independent contractor providing his own materials and supplies, maintaining his own business accounts, and liable for his own business success. Assuming Mr. Shields were Respondent’s employee, the Department introduced no evidence of an appropriate NCCI class code for Mr. Shields’ services. The Department did not prove that payments to Mr. Shields should be included as Respondent’s uninsured payroll during the audit period. Respondent paid Susan Swain a total of $258 during the audit period for clerical work. Ms. Fisher maintained Ms. Swain’s work was casual at first, and the payments reflect a time when she worked on-again, off-again, handling the paperwork for restoration insurance claims. Later, Ms. Swain came to work for Respondent full-time and was added to the PMI leasing roster. Section 440.02(15)(d)5. provides that a person “whose employment is both casual and not in the course of the trade, business, profession or occupation of the employer” is not an employee. The statute defines “casual” employment as work that is anticipated to be completed in 10 working days or less and at a total labor cost of less than $500. See § 440.02(5), Fla. Stat. In its Proposed Recommended Order, the Department argues Ms. Swain’s wages should be included as payroll because the “testimony regarding Ms. Swain does not suggest that she was employed for less than 10 days[.]” However, it was the Department’s burden to prove that Ms. Swain was a statutory employee. The Department did not prove that Ms. Swain’s wages should be included within Respondent’s uninsured payroll. The largest portion of the penalty assessed by the Department, as well as in the draft revised second amended penalty assessment, against Respondent is in connection with various roofers who were employed by Respondent at times during the audit period. Each of the roofers was included on Respondent’s PMI leasing roster, but received checks directly from Respondent in addition to PMI payroll checks. The Department included all the direct payments to those roofers as payroll for purposes of calculating a penalty in this case. As Ms. Fisher explained, the company bids a reroof on a per job basis--usually a per square foot price. Ms. Fisher adds each roofing contractor’s name to the PMI leasing roster to ensure that each roofer is covered by workers’ compensation insurance for the duration of the job. When the job is completed (which is a matter of just a few days), the contractor reports to Ms. Fisher what amount of the contract price was spent on materials, supplies, or other non-labor costs. Ms. Fisher cuts a check to the contractor for that amount and authorizes PMI to issue payroll checks for the “labor cost” (the difference between the contract price and the non-labor costs). Ms. Fisher refers to this process as “back-charging” the contractors for their materials, maintenance, tools, and other non-labor costs. The Department is correct that the direct payments are payroll to the roofing contractors. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.035(1)(b) and (h) (remuneration includes “payments, including cash payments, made to employees by or on behalf of the employer” and “payments or allowances made by or on behalf of the employer for tools or equipment used by employees in their work or operations for the employer.”). The Department would be correct to include these payments in the penalty calculation if they represented uninsured payroll. However, the evidence supports a finding that the direct payments to the roofing contractors were made for the same jobs on which Respondent secured workers’ compensation coverage through PMI. The roofing contractors were covered for workers’ compensation throughout the job, even though they may have received partial payment for the job outside of the PMI payroll checks.5/ The direct payments were not for separate reroofs on which the roofers were not otherwise insured. The Department did not correctly calculate penalties associated with the following roofing contractors: Donald Tontigh, Joseph Howard, Keith Mills, Aaron Kilpatrick, Gustavo Tobias, Jose Mejia, and Tommy Miller. Ms. Fisher also received cash payments from Respondent during the audit period. These payments were made in addition to her payroll through PMI. Ms. Fisher described these payments as “cash tickets,” which were paid outside of her PMI payroll to reimburse her for investments made in the company. For purposes of calculating the penalty in this case, these “cash tickets” are clearly payroll, as that term is to be calculated pursuant to rule 69L-6.035. Similar to the issue with the roofing contractors, the question is whether the payments represent uninsured payroll. Ms. Fisher did not hold a corporate officer exemption at any time relevant hereto. Ms. Fisher testified that she was covered through PMI payroll leasing. In contrast to the roofing contractors, Ms. Fisher’s direct payments do not directly coincide with any particular job or specific time frame during which Ms. Fisher was covered for workers’ compensation insurance through PMI. The evidence was insufficient to determine that the amounts were insured payroll. The Department properly calculated a penalty associated with payroll attributable to Ms. Fisher. Respondent made one payment of $75 to Donald Martin during the audit period. The Department calculated a penalty of $27.90 associated with this payment to Mr. Martin. Ms. Fisher explained that Mr. Martin was a down-on-his-luck guy who came by the office one day complaining that Mr. Hansel owed him some money. Ms. Fisher offered to put him on a roofing crew and wrote him the $75 check to help him out. Ms. Fisher’s testimony was both credible and unrefuted. Mr. Martin was never hired by Respondent, put on any roofing crew, or added to the PMI leasing roster. Mr. Martin was not Respondent’s employee because he did not receive remuneration for the “performance of any work or service while engaged in any employment under any appointment or contract for hire” with Respondent. § 440.02(15)(a), Fla. Stat. Cale Dierking works for Respondent full-time in a clerical position. During the audit period, Respondent paid Mr. Dierking directly by check for $1,306.14. This payment was made outside of Mr. Dierking’s PMI payroll checks. Ms. Fisher testified that she paid Mr. Dierking directly on one occasion when “PMI’s payroll got stuck in Memphis, I believe it was a snow-in situation where payroll checks didn’t come.” Rather than ask her employee to go without a timely paycheck, she advanced his payroll. Ms. Fisher’s testimony was both credible and unrefuted. The payment to Mr. Dierking is clearly payroll. However, Mr. Dierking was covered for workers’ compensation through PMI for the period during which the check was issued. Thus, there is no evidence that it was uninsured payroll. The Department did not correctly calculate a penalty associated with payments to Mr. Dierking. The correct penalty to be assessed against Respondent for failure to secure workers’ compensation coverage for its employees during the audit period in connection with SWO 16-148- 1A is $770.60. Penalty Calculation for SWO 16-198-1A Ms. Jackson calculated a total penalty against Respondent in connection with SWO 16-198-1A in the amount of $19,115.84, as reflected in the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. The Department correctly imputed penalty against Respondent in the amount of $91.68 each for uninsured payroll to Mr. Gonzalez and Mr. Lopez. The evidence supported a finding that these workers were Respondent’s statutory employees on June 8, 2016, and were not enrolled on the PMI leasing roster. The Department did not correctly calculate the penalty associated with salesmen Dylan Robinson, Jarod Bell, Kevin Miller, Mark Medley, Matt Flynn, and Todd Zulauf. The Department did not correctly calculate the penalty associated with roofing contractors Abraham Martinez- Antonio, Edwin Kinsey, Dustin Hansel, Efrian Molina-Agustin, Jose Mejia, Joseph Howard, Keith Mills, Samuel Pedro, and Tommy Miller. The Department did not correctly calculate the penalty against Respondent associated with Mr. Shields, Respondent’s qualifier. Based on a review of Respondent’s complete “untimely” records, the Department discovered direct payments made to additional employees not included on the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. Respondent made a direct payment to Ethan Burch in the amount of $602.50 during the audit period. Ethan Burch is one of Respondent’s full-time clerical employees. The evidence is insufficient to determine whether the payment of $602.50 was insured or uninsured payroll. As such, the Department did not prove it correctly calculated the penalty associated with Mr. Burch. Respondent also made a direct payment to Chelsea Hansel in the amount of $965 during the audit period. Ms. Hansel is another clerical employee. Ms. Hansel’s PMI enrollment was delayed due to some background investigation. Respondent paid Ms. Hansel for work she completed prior to enrollment. The direct payment to Ms. Hansel constitutes uninsured payroll. The Department correctly calculated the penalty associated with the payment to Chelsea Hansel. The correct penalty amount to be imposed against Respondent for failure to secure payment of workers’ compensation coverage for its employees (Gonzalez, Lopez, and Chelsea Hansel) during the audit period in connection with SWO 16-198-1A is $187.80.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, finding that Royal Roofing and Restoration, Inc., violated the workers’ compensation insurance law and, in DOAH Case No. 17-0879, assessing a penalty of $770.60; and in DOAH Case No. 17-1558, assessing a penalty of $187.80. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of January, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of January, 2018.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Petitioner, Daniel James Bradley's, application for licensure as a resident life including variable annuity and health insurance agent should be denied for the reasons stated in Respondent, Department of Financial Services', Notice of Denial dated April 26, 2004.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency responsible for the licensure of insurance agents in the State of Florida pursuant to the authority granted in Chapter 626, Florida Statutes (2004). On January 3, 2004, Mr. Bradley filed an on-line application with the Department seeking licensure as a resident life including variable annuity and health insurance agent. The on-line application form included the following question: Have you ever been convicted, found guilty, or pled guilty or nolo contendere (no contest) to a crime punishable by imprisonment of one (1) year or more under the laws of any municipality, county, state, territory or country, whether or not adjudication was withheld or a judgment of conviction was entered?. Mr. Bradley answered "No," which was a false answer. The Department conducted an internal investigation during the application process, and the criminal history check obtained by the Department revealed that in 1995 Mr. Bradley was charged with two counts of Obtaining Property for Worthless Check(s) (one check in an amount over $150 and one check in an amount less than $150). On May 31, 1995, in State of Florida v. Daniel J. Bradley, Case No. 94-2473F, in the Circuit Court in and for Sarasota County, Florida, Mr. Bradley appeared before Judge Robert B. Bennett and entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charge of Obtaining Property For a Worthless Check (over $150), which is a third degree felony in violation of Subsection 832.05(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1995). Judge Bennett withheld adjudication of guilt and imposed a fine and court cost in the amount of $250 that was paid by Mr. Bradley. Mr. Bradley testified that during the 1995 period, he was in the midst of a domestic dispute that was finalized in a dissolution of marriage, when he wrote two checks to Sears. He explained further that at the time the checks were written, sufficient funds were in the joint checking account at the bank, but his then-estranged wife withdrew all bank funds without his knowledge or consent resulting in the overdrafts. Explaining his "no" response to the criminal history question on his on-line licensure application form, Mr. Bradley asserted a lack of fully understanding the (intended) meaning of the term "punishable by imprisonment of one (1) year or more." Mr. Bradley testified that he "did not know, and had no reason to know, [or be concerned] that the worthless check charge to which he pled nolo contendere was punishable by imprisonment of one year or more," even though he knew the crime was a third- degree felony. Continuing, Mr. Bradley explained in detail his ongoing domestic entanglement then, as well as his financial obligations now. Mr. Bradley explained that he has undertaken the obligation to care for his parent(s) and his need for income to pay for his children's education. In effect, Mr. Bradley offered an "excusable neglect and a lack of knowledge" explanation for the "no" answer on his on-line licensure application form. Mr. Bradley earnestly insisted that it was not his "intent" to mislead, conceal, or lie about the criminal background question. He explained in detail that he "did not understand nor was he advised by his attorney, Susan Maulucci, or the Sarasota County Circuit Court that any offense that he had been accused or pled guilty to was punishable by a term of incarceration of one or more years." In conclusion, Mr. Bradley stated, "[I]f I had previous knowledge of such information I would never have answered incorrectly. If the question had addressed a felony charge punishable by one or more years, I would have certainly answered yes based on the assumption of a felony being the subject of the question not the period of punishment." It appears from his post-hearing submittal that he was under the impression that the term "felony" is missing from the question and that by the omission, he was somehow misled. The blame-shifting inference Mr. Bradley sought is that it was the omission by the Department to include the word "felony" in its application form that misled him. This suggestion is rejected. Mr. Bradley's explanation becomes even more suspect when one considers: his knowledge and experience as a military police officer; at the time he signed the plea document, it was clear that he was facing up to five years in prison for the crime(s) with which he was charged; when arrested on both misdemeanor and felony check charges, he spent the night in jail; and finally, he signed two bonds, one for the misdemeanor charge and a separate bond for the felony charge before he was released from jail. Mr. Bradley was individually and personally responsible for the accuracy of his answer. His misrepresentation of the truth by answering "no," if not intentional, supports the inference of a reckless or careless disregard as to the truth of the matter asserted. At the time he answered "no" on his application form, Mr. Bradley knew, without a doubt, that he had pled "no contest" to a felony worthless check charge in the Sarasota County Circuit Court in Florida. During his court appearance, he was identified and was personally informed by the presiding judge that he faced a felony charge, and he agreed to enter his plea of nolo contendere to that felony charge. On May 31, 1995, in open court, Mr. Bradley signed an "Acknowledgement and Waiver of Rights" form that contained in paragraph 1, the following statement: "I am pleading to the charge of worthless check (2 counts), and I understand the maximum penalty provided by law is five (5) years prison." (Emphasis added.) After the court accepted his plea, sentenced him, and imposed court costs, Mr. Bradley signed the court's acknowledgement reflecting the disposition of the proceeding. Only after completion of the foregone process was Mr. Bradley free to leave the courtroom.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order dismissing the Petition herein filed by Petitioner, without prejudice, for Petitioner to reapply as provided in the Florida Administrative Code Rule 69B-211.042(4). DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of August, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRED L. BUCKINE 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 31st day of August, 2004.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether respondent committed the offenses alleged in the administrative complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Earle Anthony Bennett, is now and was at all times material hereto licensed by petitioner as an insurance agent in the State of Florida. Pursuant to Chapter 626, Florida Statutes, petitioner has jurisdiction over the insurance licenses and appointments of respondent. On October 17, 1990, respondent entered into a home service agent's contract with The Independent Life and Accident Insurance Company (Independent Life). Pertinent to this case, such contract provided: Article 1. Description of General Duties The Agent agrees to canvass for insurance, to collect premiums as due on the policies assigned to the agency, to aid in the proper settlement of claims, to keep true records of the business on the books, to forward to the Company on Company forms a true account of each week of the agency, and to give full time to the business of the Company. Article 2. Collections The Agent agrees to pay over all monies collected to the District Sales Manager or to such other person as the Company may direct. No money shall be retained by the Agent out of collections for any purpose. The agent agrees that should legal proceedings be necessary to collect monies due from the Agent to the Company the Agent shall pay legal costs and a reasonable attorney's fee. * * * Article 37. Indebtedness Due Company The Company may use any commissions, vacation pay, or other compensation due the Agent to reimburse itself for any indebtedness due the Company by the Agent. In November 1991, respondent terminated his employment with Independent Life, and Independent Life notified petitioner of the cancellation of respondent's appointment as one of its insurance agents. Thereafter, on November 7, 1991, Independent Life conducted an audit of respondent's account which revealed a deficiency of $1,613.70 in insurance premiums collected by respondent and not remitted to the company. Subsequent audits in November reflected an additional deficiency of $213.62, in December an additional deficiency of $178.84, and in February 1992, an additional deficiency of $43.48. By letters of November 18, 1991, November 21, 1991, December 2, 1991, December 13, 1991, and March 18, 1992, Independent Life made demand upon respondent to satisfy the deficiencies disclosed by the audits. Such letters reflected, however, varying amounts the company claimed to be due as a consequence of newly discovered deficiencies in ongoing audits, discussed supra, as well as varying credits accorded respondent. Such correspondence lends credence to respondent's testimony that he was unsure as to the exact sum owing Independent Life, and that he had, subsequent to his termination of employment, remitted funds to the company. Respondent did concede, however, that when he terminated his employment with Independent Life, his account had a deficiency of approximately $1,400. Regarding any deficiency that may have been owing Independent Life, the proof demonstrates that respondent did, over time, satisfy all outstanding obligations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding respondent guilty of the violations set forth in the conclusions of law, and suspending his licenses and eligibility for licensure for a period of nine months. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 22nd day of October 1993. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of October 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-3885 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: 1 & 2. To the extent supported by the proof, addressed in paragraph 1. 3. Addressed in paragraph 2. 4 & 5. Addressed in paragraph 3. 6. Addressed in paragraph 4. 7 & 8. Addressed in paragraph 5. 9 & 10. Addressed in paragraphs 6 & 7, otherwise rejected as not supported by competent proof. 11. Rejected as a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: William C. Childers, Esquire Department of Insurance 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Earle Anthony Bennett 12100 North West 11th Avenue Miami, Florida 33168 Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill O'Neil General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether the Respondent, Marvin's Electric Service, Inc. ("Marvin's Electric"), failed to abide by the coverage requirements of the Workers' Compensation Law, chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2014), by not obtaining workers' compensation insurance for its employees, and, if so, whether the Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation ("Department"), properly assessed a penalty against the Respondent pursuant to section 440.107.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement of the Workers' Compensation Law that employers secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage for their employees and corporate officers. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. Marvin's Electric is a corporation based in Cantonment, Florida. The Division of Corporations' "Sunbiz" website indicates that Marvin's Electric was first incorporated on December 15, 2003, and remained an active corporation until September 23, 2011, when it was administratively dissolved for failure to file an Annual Report. The corporation continued to hold itself out as eligible to do business throughout the period relevant to this proceeding. Sunbiz records indicate that the corporation filed new articles of incorporation on April 9, 2015, and is currently an active corporation. The principal office of Marvin's Electric is at 2647 Stefani Road in Cantonment. Marvin's Electric is solely owned and operated by Marvin Mobley. It has no regular employees aside from Mr. Mobley. Marvin's Electric was actively engaged in performing electrical work during the two-year audit period from November 19, 2012, through November 18, 2014. Kali King is a Department compliance investigator assigned to Escambia County. Ms. King testified that her job includes driving around the county conducting random compliance investigations and investigating referrals made to her office by members of the public. On November 18, 2014, Ms. King drove to a residence off Pale Moon Drive in Pensacola to investigate a public referral made against a different business entity that happened to be working on the same single-family residence as Mr. Mobley. Ms. King testified that when she arrived at the residence, she saw Mr. Mobley and two other workers on the site before she ever spoke to the employees of the business she was there to investigate. Mr. Mobley and the two other men were digging a shallow trench from the home to a shed on the back of the property. The homeowner told Ms. King that Mr. Mobley was installing electricity in the shed. Ms. King approached the three men and identified herself. She asked who was in charge, who hired them, and whether they were working as a business. Mr. Mobley replied that he was in charge, he had been hired by the homeowner, and he was working in the name of his business, Marvin's Electric. Ms. King asked how he was providing workers' compensation insurance for his business. Mr. Mobley answered that he had an exemption for himself and that he did not have insurance for the other two workers because they were not employees of his business. One of the men was his foster child who was working for Mr. Mobley in exchange for room and board. The other man was returning a favor to Mr. Mobley, who had helped the man with some construction work on his property in Alabama. The other men confirmed Mr. Mobley's story when Ms. King separately interviewed them. Ms. King went inside the house to speak with the contractor she had been sent out to investigate, then she returned to her vehicle to perform computer research on Marvin's Electric. She consulted the Sunbiz website for information about the company and its officers. Her search confirmed that Marvin's Electric was an inactive Florida corporation, having been administratively dissolved for failure to file an Annual Report in 2011. Marvin Mobley was listed as its registered agent and as president of the corporation. No other corporate officers were listed. Ms. King also checked the Department's Coverage and Compliance Automated System ("CCAS") database to determine whether Marvin's Electric had secured the payment of workers' compensation insurance coverage or had obtained an exemption from the requirements of chapter 440. CCAS is a database that Department investigators routinely consult during their investigations to check for compliance, exemptions, and other workers' compensation related items. CCAS revealed that Marvin's Electric had no active workers' compensation insurance coverage for its employees and that no insurance had ever been reported to the state for Marvin's Electric. There was no evidence that Marvin's Electric used an employee leasing service. Mr. Mobley had, in the past, elected an exemption as an officer of the corporation pursuant to section 440.05 and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.012, but the exemption had expired as of the date of the investigation. Based on his jobsite interviews with the employees and Mr. Mobley, and her Sunbiz and CCAS computer searches, Ms. King concluded that as of November 18, 2014, Marvin's Electric had three employees working in the construction industry and that the company had failed to procure workers' compensation coverage for these employees in violation of chapter 440. Ms. King, consequently, issued a Stop-Work Order that she personally served on Mr. Mobley on November 18, 2014. Also on November 18, 2014, Ms. King served Marvin's Electric with a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation, asking for documents pertaining to the identification of the employer, the employer's payroll, business accounts, disbursements, workers' compensation insurance coverage records, professional employer organization records, temporary labor service records, documentation of exemptions, documents relating to subcontractors, documents of subcontractors' workers' compensation insurance coverage, and other business records to enable the Department to determine the appropriate penalty owed by Marvin's Electric. Ms. King testified that Mr. Mobley provided records in response to the Request for Production. The records were scanned into the Department's internal auditing system, and the file was placed into a queue to be assigned to a penalty calculator, who reviews the records and calculates the penalty imposed on the business. Ms. King could not recall the name of the person assigned to calculate the penalty in this case. Anita Proano, penalty audit supervisor for the Department, later performed her own calculation of the penalty as a check on the work of the penalty calculator. Ms. Proano testified as to the process of penalty calculation. Penalties for workers' compensation insurance violations are based on doubling the amount of evaded insurance premiums over the two-year period preceding the Stop-Work Order, which in this case was the period from November 19, 2012, through November 18, 2014. § 440.107(7)(d), Fla. Stat. Because Mr. Mobley had no payroll records for the two men who worked for him on November 18, 2014, the penalty calculator lacked sufficient business records to determine the company's actual gross payroll on that date. Section 440.107(7)(e) provides that where an employer fails to provide business records sufficient to enable the Department to determine the employer's actual payroll for the penalty period, the Department will impute the weekly payroll at the statewide average weekly wage as defined in section 440.12(2), multiplied by two.1/ In the penalty assessment calculation, the Department consulted the classification codes and definitions set forth in the SCOPES of Basic Manual Classifications ("Scopes Manual") published by the National Council on Compensation Insurance ("NCCI"). The Scopes Manual has been adopted by reference in rule 69L-6.021. Classification codes are four-digit codes assigned to occupations by the NCCI to assist in the calculation of workers' compensation insurance premiums. Rule 69L- 6.028(3)(d) provides that "[t]he imputed weekly payroll for each employee . . . shall be assigned to the highest rated workers' compensation classification code for an employee based upon records or the investigator's physical observation of that employee's activities." Ms. Proano testified that the penalty calculator correctly applied NCCI Class Code 5190, titled "Electrical Wiring—-Within Buildings & Drivers," which "applies to the installation of electrical wiring systems within buildings." The corresponding rule provision is rule 69L-6.021(2)(u). The penalty calculator used the approved manual rates corresponding to Class Code 5190 for the periods of non-compliance to calculate the penalty. On February 3, 2015, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in the amount of $1,381.58, based upon Mr. Mobley's actual wages during the penalty period, plus an imputation of wages for the date of November 18, 2014, for Mr. Mobley and the two men who were working for him on that date. After Mr. Mobley clarified that one item treated as payroll by the Department was actually a refund to a customer, the Department on June 10, 2015, was able to issue a Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in the amount of $1,373.56, based on the mixture of actual payroll information and imputation referenced above. Ms. Proano persuasively testified that the administrative dissolution of the corporate status of Marvin's Electric had no bearing on the question of the company's responsibility to provide workers' compensation insurance for its employees or to establish an exemption. After dissolution, the company continued to hold itself out as a corporate entity prepared to do business and, in fact, accepted work and was paid as a corporation. Therefore, the Department investigated Marvin's Electric as a corporate entity. In any event, under the facts of this case, the penalty calculation would have been the same had the Department treated Mr. Mobley as a sole proprietor, rather than as the president of a corporate entity. The evidence produced at the hearing established that Ms. Proano utilized the correct class codes, average weekly wages, and manual rates in her calculation of the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. The Department has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Marvin's Electric was in violation of the workers' compensation coverage requirements of chapter 440. Justice Kirchhevel and Wayne Richardson were employees of Marvin's Electric on November 18, 2014, performing services in the construction industry without valid workers' compensation insurance coverage.2/ The Department has also demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the penalty was correctly calculated through the use of the approved manual rates, business records provided by Marvin's Electric, and the penalty calculation worksheet adopted by the Department in rule 69L-6.027. Ms. Proano's recalculation of the penalty confirmed the correctness of the penalty calculator's work. Marvin's Electric could point to no exemption, insurance policy, or employee leasing arrangement that would operate to lessen or extinguish the assessed penalty. At the hearing, Mr. Mobley testified that he has always been the sole proprietor of Marvin's Electric and that he has never had to pay employees. The two men with him on November 18, 2014, were there because Mr. Mobley was in poor health and needed help digging the trench from the house to the shed. He testified that he never received notice from the Department that his exemption was expiring and that, in the midst of several major surgeries, he forgot that it was time to renew his exemption. Mr. Mobley's testimony was eloquent and credible, but the equitable considerations that he raised have no effect on the operation of chapter 440 or the imposition of the penalty assessed pursuant thereto.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, assessing a penalty of $1,373.56 against Marvin's Electric Service, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of August, 2015, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of August, 2015.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner applied to the Respondent for licensure as a general lines, and a life and health insurance agent on or about February 8, 1990. By letter dated May 17, 1990, the Petitioner was informed that his applications for examination were denied based upon a finding that he lacked fitness or trustworthiness to engage in the insurance business. Petitioner timely requested a hearing to determine if he is qualified to take these licensure examinations. On or about January 3, 1986, the Petitioner entered a plea of guilty to two counts in a superseding indictment filed in Case Number 84-00603(S)-05 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Based upon this plea, the Petitioner was found guilty of conspiracy to defraud an insurance company and filing a false insurance claim, each count being a felony involving moral turpitude. He was sentenced to three years probation, and ordered to pay a fine of $10,000. Special conditions of probation included prohibiting the Petitioner from engaging in the insurance business, and requiring that he make restitution to the Hartford Insurance Group in the sum of $1,778.08. On or about August 15, 1986, the Insurance Department of the State of New York revoked the Petitioner's insurance broker's license, based upon his felony conviction as set forth above. The Petitioner successfully completed his period of probation in New York on January 2, 1989, including payment of the $10,000 fine and restitution in the amount of $1,778.08. On or about September 22, 1989, the Board of Parole of the State of New York issued a Certificate of Relief from Disabilities to the Petitioner which removes bars to employment and licensure automatically imposed by the laws of the State of New York as a result of his conviction. However, this Certificate specifies that it shall not prevent any administrative or licensing body or board from relying upon this conviction as a basis for the exercise of its discretionary power to refuse to issue a license. The Petitioner failed to disclose on his applications for examination that his insurance broker's license in New York had been revoked. In fact, he specifically answered "no" to the question on these applications concerning whether his license had ever been revoked in another state. The Petitioner did disclose on his applications for examination that he had been charged with a felony in New York, and indicated that he had entered a plea to a single charge. He stated on his applications, however, that he had not been convicted by any court. The Petitioner claims that he did not know that his New York license had been revoked. Rather, he testified that he had sought to surrender his license in New York after his conviction in 1986, and thought that the administrative action had been concluded with his license surrender. He claims he never was notified of any hearing, and did not receive a copy of the order of revocation issued by the Insurance Department in New York. The Petitioner also claims that he entered his plea of guilty as a matter of convenience in order to avoid a long and expensive trial, and on the advise of his counsel. He maintains that he did not file a false insurance claim and did not conspire to defraud any insurance company. Rather, he testified that he was very ill at the time, and did not expect to live. In order to avoid the strain and expense of a trial, and since he did not believe he would ever again be physically able to engage in the insurance business, he agreed to resolve the criminal charges against him with a plea of guilty to two counts in the superseding indictment issued against him. Finally, he testified that he indicated on his applications that he had not been convicted by any court since he had not had a jury trial, and he was under the impression that a person can be convicted only if found guilty by a jury. Based upon his demeanor at hearing, it is found that the Petitioner is a credible witness and that his claims that he did not know his New York license had been revoked and that he thought a person could only be convicted if found guilty by a jury are truthful. Nevertheless, the Petitioner was in error regarding both claims, and as a result, he answered questions on his applications in a false and incomplete manner. He was convicted on two felony counts, and his license was revoked in New York based on those convictions.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Respondent enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner's challenge to the determination that he is not qualified to take the examination for licensure as a general lines, and a life and health insurance agent. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 1991 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 2nd day of April, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Rulings on the Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding 1. Rejected as a summary of the evidence (Exhibit P-2) and not a proposed finding of fact. Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted and Rejected, in part, in Finding 6. Adopted, in part, in Finding 2, but otherwise rejected as unnecessary, simply a summation of testimony, and as not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding 8. Rejected in Finding 9. Rejected as a comment on the record and not a proposed finding of fact. Rulings on the Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark E. Berman, Esquire 2450 Hollywood Boulevard Suite 401 Hollywood, FL 33020 Gordon Thomas Nicol, Esquire Division of Legal Services 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Bill O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel The Capitol, PLaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Honorable Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300
