Findings Of Fact Respondent James Seay, who had worked as a teacher in Suwannee County for many years, was out sick first with a stomach virus and then with recurring head pain for the entire school week of March 4-8, 1991. He visited physicians on March 5, 7 and 8, and took three prescribed medicines. Mr. Seay telephoned the morning of March 4, 1992, and told Sonja Suber, a secretary who was "the designated person at the school," (T.48) responsible for obtaining substitute teachers and maintaining sick leave records, that he was ill and would not be in that day. The parties agree that respondent was on sick leave through March 8, 1991. On the evening of March 4, 1991, he telephoned Nancy Roberts, director of elementary education for the Suwanee County School District and principal of Douglass Center. When Mr.Seay told her he would not be in the following day, she cancelled an observation she had scheduled for his benefit. The next day or the day after Sonya Suber telephoned respondent to relay Ms. Roberts' advice that a meeting scheduled for March 11, 1991, had been cancelled. On Saturday, March 9, 1991, Mr. Seay telephoned Ms. Suber and said "that he would be coming Monday to the school but he would not report to the classroom." T. 29. He had earlier expressed to Ms. Roberts discomfort "with the students that were assigned" (T. 46) to him. On Monday, March 11, 1991, at 7:53 o'clock in the morning, he appeared as promised and signed in at Suwanee County School District's Douglass Center. After greeting Sonya Suber, he went to the teachers' lounge. He did not give any indication that he was unwell or make any request for leave. Ms. Roberts saw Mr. Seay reading a newspaper in the lounge. She asked him to accompany her to her office, where she "let him know that he was a teacher assigned to the Alternative Program at the Douglass Center and what his responsibilities were . . . working with the students there." T.50. Respondent handed Ms. Roberts one of his attorney's cards, and told her "that there was nothing [she] could do to make him go in that classroom and that he was not going to that classroom," (T.50) and asked her "to stop harassing him." Id. After Mr. Seay's return to the teachers' lounge, Ms. Roberts gave an account of events to Mr. Charles F. Blalock, Jr., petitioner here. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. The following morning Mr. Seay signed in at the Douglass Center at ten before eight, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, but he again went to the teachers' lounge rather than to his assigned classroom. Again he told nobody he was ill, and asked nobody for sick leave. Ms. Roberts twice asked him to go to his classroom. When she told him his failure to teach the class he had been assigned "could be construed as insubordination on his part," (T.53) he asked her to clarify what she meant by insubordination and, with her permission, made a tape recording of her answer. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. He refused to go to his classroom. On Wednesday, March 13, 1991, Mr. Blalock wrote a letter to Mr. Seay advising him that he was suspended with pay, and that, as superintendent, he would recommend suspension without pay and ultimately dismissal at the next regular meeting of the School Board. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4. When Ms. Roberts telephoned Thursday morning with word that Mr. Seay was at Douglass Center, Mr. Blalock went himself to speak to Mr. Seay. Twice he personally directed Mr. Seay to go to his classroom and get to work. Confronted with Mr. Seay's silent refusal, Mr. Blalock handed him the letter of suspension, dated the day before. When the School Board met, heard what had transpired, and listened to a presentation by Mr. Seay's lawyer, it decided that Mr. Seay should have a physical examination and be examined by a psychiatrist. At the school board meeting, nobody suggested that respondent was on sick leave at any time after March 8, 1991. In keeping with the collectively bargained agreement between the School Board and teachers like Mr. Seay under continuing contract with the School Board, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6, petitioner demanded that respondent go for medical and psychiatric examinations, by letter dated April 10, 1991. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7. A second, follow-up letter reiterating the demand, dated April 29, 1991, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 9, reached Mr. Seay by registered mail. As of the time of the hearing, Mr. Seay had not complied with the Board's demand that he submit to a physical examination and be examined by a psychiatrist.
Recommendation It is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That petitioner terminate respondent's employment. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of December, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II, 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 3rd day of December, 1992. APPENDIX FOR NO. 91-6046 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1-11 and 13-20 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 12 pertains to immaterial matters. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 21, respondent apparently also took the position that he had been on sick leave in the unemployment compensation case. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 22 and 23 pertain to subordinate matters. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1-3, 5-8 and 19 have been adopted in substance, insofar as material. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 4, 9-12, 21 and 24 pertain to subordinate matters. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 13 and 15 are immaterial since respondent never requested sick leave. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 14, 16, 17 and 18 have been rejected as unsupported by the weight of the evidence. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 20, Ms. Roberts' testimony in that regard is unrebutted. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 22, there is no disagreement. Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 23 pertains to an immaterial matter. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Charles Blalock, Superintendent Suwanee County School Board 224 W. Parshley Street Live Oak, FL 32060 J. Victor Africano, Esquire Post Office Box 1450 Live Oak, FL 32060 Linsey Moore, Esquire 50 East 2nd Street Jacksonville, FL 32206
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) should grant the Petition for Relief, charging the Respondent with discrimination based on handicap (back and knee injuries), in violation of Section 760.10, Fla. Stat. (1989).
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Ulysess S. Uqdah, is a carpenter. He has injured his back on-the-job with a construction company other than the Respondent in 1981 or 1982 and, with another construction company other than the Respondent, in early 1984. On one of those occasions, the Petitioner received worker compensation. On both occasions, after a period of time off, the Respondent returned to work with the same employer without any continuing difficulties. In 1984 or 1985, while working for a construction company other than the Respondent, the Petitioner hurt his knee while on the job. He took time off, received worker compensation, and ultimately required surgery. After recuperating from the surgery, the Petitioner was able to return to work. Other than occasional recurring pain, the Petitioner does not worry about the knee, and his knee does not significantly hamper him in the performance of his work as a carpenter. On or about December 12, 1986, the Petitioner was hired by the Respondent, Pace Construction Corporation of Georgia. The Respondent was aware of the Petitioner's prior injuries. He disclosed them on his written employment application. The application also disclosed that the Petitioner had received worker compensation. The Petitioner worked for the Respondent until June 17, 1988, when he was terminated because of the Respondent's lack of work. During his employment with the Respondent, the back and knee injuries did not cause the Petitioner any difficulties in performing his work, and his work was satisfactory. In fact, the Separation Notice states: "Ulysess has proved himself to be a very good worker and gives 100% at all times. He has leadership qualities and shows his concern for the success of the project." The Respondent's regular practice was 1/ to box up all paperwork relating to a construction project when it is completed and put the paperwork in storage. The paperwork from finished projects was stored off the premises of the main business office and was not accessible to the Respondent for reference in connection with subsequent construction projects. 2/ In approximately late 1989 or early 1990, when the Respondent started a major new project in Tampa, the Petitioner applied to again work as a carpenter for the Respondent. His application was held, along with others applying for work, until the Respondent was ready to begin hiring. In approximately March, 1990, the project superintendent reviewed the applications, selected those he wanted to hire, and forwarded those applications to the Respondent's business office for processing. The Petitioner's application was among those selected. In accordance with the Respondent's normal practices, arrangements were made to have the Petitioner and the other chosen applicants undergo a drug and physical examination. The Petitioner's examinations took place on or about March 16, 1990. Meanwhile, the Respondent's personnel office verified the answers given by the Petitioner and the other chosen applicants to the question on the employment application asking whether the applicant had ever received worker compensation. The Respondent located a worker compensation claim report from April, 1989, which noted as to the Petitioner: "10/13/83 West Coast Form. LT- Back" and "4/24/86 Johnson Glen LT-Left leg/ft." 3/ This indicated that the Petitioner had received worker compensation on those two occasions. The Respondent's personnel office forwarded the worker compensation report to the project superintendent, who told the Petitioner that he would not be hired. The Petitioner understood the superintendent to say that the Petitioner was not being hired because of his history of on-the-job injuries and because it would not be in the best interest of the Respondent to hire the Petitioner. The Petitioner understood the superintendent to mean that the prior injuries, which had resulted in worker compensation, would handicap the Petitioner in his ability to perform his assigned duties as carpenter and that the Respondent did not want to have to pay worker compensation if the Petitioner reinjured himself. The superintendent testified that he told the Petitioner he was not being hired because he had falsified his answer to the question on the employment application concerning worker compensation history. It was the Respondent's company policy not to hire any applicant who failed to disclose on his employment application the receipt of worker compensation in the past. This is because a special disability fund would pay worker compensation for such employees only if the receipt of worker compensation in the past was disclosed on the written employment application. The Petitioner claims that he in fact disclosed on his application his receipt of worker compensation in the past and that the Respondent's claim to the contrary is a pretext for intentional discrimination on the basis of a perceived handicap. The Respondent's evidence was that, at that point in time, the Respondent's policy was to discard the application and similar paperwork on applicants who were not hired. Now, after the claims the Petitioner made in this case, the Respondent keeps this documentation. Neither party could produce the Petitioner's application at the final hearing to clarify whether the Petitioner had in fact disclosed on his application his receipt of worker compensation in the past. 4/ The Petitioner concedes that, on or about April 11, 1990, he was advised by an investigator with the Florida Commission on Human Relations that the Respondent was contending it declined to hire the Petitioner due to false statements on his employment application relating to worker compensation. The Respondent submitted persuasive evidence that, besides hiring the Petitioner in 1986 with knowledge of past injuries, it has continued to hire other individuals with a history of on-the-job injuries. The Respondent also submitted persuasive evidence that it has fired employees when it later came to the attention of the Respondent that the employee had falsified an employment application, particularly by falsely stating that worker compensation had not been received in the past. It is found that the Respondent declined to hire the Petitioner based on the Respondent's perception that the Petitioner had falsified his employment application by stating that he had not received worker compensation in the past. It is specifically found that the Respondent did not discriminate against the Petitioner due to a handicap or perceived handicap. There is no evidence of any reason why the Respondent would have discriminated against the Petitioner due to a handicap or perceived handicap. To the contrary, the evidence is clear that the Respondent viewed the Petitioner as being fully capable of performing the job of carpenter satisfactorily notwithstanding his prior back and knee injuries. 5/ In light of the findings made in this case, it would appear that the Petitioner misunderstood the statement made by the job superintendent as to the reasons why the Petitioner was not being hired. This proceeding resulted from the Petitioner's misunderstanding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order denying the Petition for Relief filed in this case. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of December, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of December, 1991.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the "Administrative Complaint for Revocation of Certificate of Registration" (Administrative Complaint) filed with DOAH on September 13, 2011, and, if so, the action that should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency of the State of Florida responsible for administering the revenue laws of the State of Florida, including the imposition and collection of the state's sales and use taxes pursuant to chapter 212, Florida Statutes, and the state's corporate income taxes pursuant to chapter 220. Petitioner provides unemployment compensation tax collection services under contract with the Agency for Workforce Innovation through an interagency agreement pursuant to section 443.1316. Respondent is an active for-profit corporation with its principal address at 4401 Annette Street, West Palm Beach, Florida 33409. Respondent is a "dealer" as that term is defined by section 212.06(2), and holds certificate of registration number 60-8014787127-3. Respondent failed to timely file sale tax returns for the months of February and June 2011. Petitioner assessed Respondent an estimated tax liability of $2,000 for the months of February 2011 and June 2011. Respondent filed returns but failed to timely remit payment for the sale and use tax in the amount of $24,529.84 due and owing for the months of June, September, and December 2008; March, June, September, and December 2009; January through December 2010; and January, April, and May 2011. Due to its failure to timely file and/or remit taxes due, Respondent is liable for interest in the sum of $2,505.56, penalty in the sum of $2,526.36, and fees in the sum of $2,687.47, as of July 1, 2011. Respondent is an employing unit as defined in subsection 443.036(2), and is subject to the unemployment compensation tax provisions of chapter 443, as provided in section 443.1215. Respondent failed to timely file unemployment compensation tax reports for the calendar quarters ending June 30, September 30, and December 31, 2009; March 31, June 30, September 30, and December 31, 2010; and March 31 and June 30, 2011. As a result, Petitioner assessed Respondent an estimated unemployment compensation tax liability of $4,500.00 as of July 1, 2011. Due to its failure to timely file the unemployment compensation tax reports, Respondent is liable for interest thereon in the sum of $490.06, penalty in the sum of $450.00, and fees in the sum of $443.31, as of July 1, 2011. Respondent issued Petitioner worthless checks for the unemployment taxes due for the calendar quarters ending June 30, 2006; December 31, 2008; and March 31, 2009. As a result, Respondent still owes Petitioner unemployment compensation taxes in the sum of $425.34, interest in the sum of $119.09, and fees in the sum of $111.70. Respondent is required to file with Petitioner corporate income tax returns each year pursuant to the provisions of chapter 220. Respondent failed to timely file corporate income tax returns and/or pay the tax due to Petitioner for the tax years 2008, 2009, and 2010. Due to its failure to timely file corporate income tax returns and/or pay the tax due, Respondent is liable for penalties in the sum of $450.00 and fees in the sum $25.00, as of July 1, 2011. Petitioner has issued and filed against Respondent delinquent tax warrants, notices of liens, or judgment lien certificates in the public records for the collection of delinquent sales and use tax, delinquent unemployment compensation tax, and delinquent corporate income tax. Petitioner served upon Respondent a Notice of Conference on Revocation of Registration via mail on May 23, 2011, advising Respondent of a conference to be held June 22, 2011. No one appeared on behalf of Respondent at the conference scheduled on June 22.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order that revokes Respondent's certificate of registration. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 31st day of January, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Nancy Terrel, Acting General Counsel Department of Revenue The Carlton Building, Room 204 501 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 6668 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668 Lisa Vickers, Executive Director Department of Revenue The Carlton Building, Room 104 501 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Joseph Mellichamp, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Michael Lawrence Cohen, Esquire Michael L. Cohen Law Offices 1803 South Australian Avenue West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 Carrol Y. Cherry, Esquire Office of the Attorney General Revenue Litagation Bureau The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
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 case is whether Respondent failed to provide workers' compensation insurance coverage for employees, and, if so, what penalty should be assessed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for, inter alia, monitoring businesses within the state to ensure that such businesses are providing the requisite workers' compensation insurance coverage for all employees. The Division's headquarters are located in Tallahassee, Florida, but its investigators are spread throughout the state in order to more effectively monitor businesses. Respondent is a construction company that has been operating in excess of 30 years. It is a small company and usually only has a few employees at any given time. The company is located in Charlotte Harbor, Florida. Workers' compensation coverage is required if a business entity has one or more employees and is engaged in the construction industry in Florida. Workers' compensation coverage may be secured via three non-mutually exclusive methods: 1) The purchase of a workers' compensation insurance policy; 2) Arranging for the payment of wages and workers' compensation coverage through an employee leasing company; or 3) Applying for and receiving a certificate of exemption from workers' compensation coverage, if certain statutorily-mandated criteria are met. On January 8, 2009, Ira Bender, investigator for the Division, was doing on-site inspections in Port Charlotte, Florida. Bender stopped at the site on Edgewater Drive where new construction was underway at a YMCA. Bender observed a man (later identified as Thomas Woodall) sweeping the floor. Bender questioned Woodall and was told that Woodall worked for Respondent. When asked about his workers' compensation insurance coverage, Woodall advised that his insurance was maintained through Frank Crum Leasing Company ("Crum"). Bender called Crum and found that although Woodall had been carried as an employee of Respondent in the past, he had been released from coverage. The reason for his release was that his employment had been terminated for lack of business. Bender called Respondent to inquire about workers' compensation coverage. He was told that Respondent did not realize Woodall had been dropped from the Crum insurance coverage and that he would be reinstated immediately. In fact, coverage was restarted on that same day. Based on his finding that an employee had been working without coverage, Bender called his supervisor and provided his findings. The supervisor authorized issuance of a SWO based on the findings. The SWO was served on Respondent via hand- delivery at 11:45 a.m., on January 8, 2009. The SWO was also posted at the work site. The Division then requested business records from Respondent in order to determine whether there were any violations. If there were violations, then the Division would ascertain the amount of penalty to assess. Respondent cooperated and submitted the business records, as requested. After review of the business records, the Division issued its first Amended Order of Penalty Assessment ("Order") on January 14, 2009. The process employed by the Division was to locate all uncovered employees, i.e., those working without workers' compensation insurance for any period of time. The employees were then assigned a class code from the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) publication. Each trade or type of employment is assigned a code which sets the rate to be applied to an individual depending on the type of work he/she is performing. The Division assigned codes to the employees, determined how much the employee had been paid during the period of non-coverage, assigned the rate to the gross pay, and calculated the insurance premium needed to cover the worker for the time in question. A penalty of 1.5 times the premium was then assigned. The Order assessed a total penalty of $21,165.98 against Respondent. Respondent objected to the amount and refused to sign it due to errors contained in the Penalty Worksheet attached to the Order. Signing the Order would have allowed Respondent to return to work, but he refused to sign because he knew it was not correct. Pursuant to discussions between the parties and "additional records received," the Division issued a second Order on January 16, 2009, assessing a penalty of $6,501.27. Respondent believed that the Division was still in error and provided yet additional information--some verbal--to the Division. A third Order was issued on January 21, 2009, reducing the penalty to $3,309.56. However, Respondent still believed the penalty worksheet contained errors. Again, Respondent refused to sign and provided additional information to the Division. The Division issued a fourth Order on January 28, 2009, assessing a penalty of $2,822.24. That Order had an error concerning the spelling of an employee's name, but the penalty amount was correct. Respondent would not sign the fourth Order, because he did not believe he had intentionally violated any statute or rule concerning workers' compensation coverage for his employees. A corrected (fifth amended) Order was ultimately issued on May 19, 2009.1 The fifth Order asserts the amount of penalty now in dispute, which is the same amount appearing in the fourth amended Order. Respondent signed the fifth Order and entered into a payment plan for payment of the penalty, paying a down payment of $1,000 and monthly payments of $30 until paid in full. Respondent takes great offense to the fact that the penalty assessments were not faxed to him more quickly. He maintains that he had every intention to resolve this matter as quickly as possible, but the Division delayed and dragged out the process. The penalty worksheet attached to the fifth Order listed nine "Employee Names" that are subject to the penalty assessment. Each will be discussed below. The first "employee" is listed as "Cash" and is assigned Class Code 5403. This "employee" represents checks found in Respondent's records with the payee listed as "cash- casual labor" totaling $2,178.00 in gross payroll. Code 5403 was assigned because that is the code used by Crum for Respondent's general business. The manual rate for Code 5403 is $24.74. A penalty of $808.26 was assessed for that employee. The second employee is Jacob Prewitt. Prewitt was assigned Class Code 5221, due to the word "driveway" appearing on a check issued to him. Driveway work falls under a lower approved manual rate ($10.37) than general construction. The gross payroll amount was $1,960, and the penalty assigned to Prewitt was $304.88. The third employee is Woodall, assigned a Class Code of 5606, with a manual rate of $3.84. That code is used for supervisors and is, again, not as dangerous an occupation as general construction. The gross payroll for this entry was $1,008, and the penalty assessed for Woodall was $58.07. Cash is the fourth employee and has been covered in the discussion in paragraph 16, above. Barry Lawrence is the fifth employee; he is assigned Class Code 5437 as a cabinet maker/installer with a manual rate of $13.01. Lawrence had a Verification Letter issued by the Division indicating he was exempt from workers' compensation coverage. However, that exemption was limited to cabinet- making. By installing the cabinets, Lawrence performed work outside his exemption status. The gross payroll for his work was $6,200, and the penalty assessed for Lawrence was $1,209.33. Respondent was completely unaware that the exemption letter did not cover installation and had, in fact, always allowed cabinet- makers to install the cabinets as well. Brunderman Builders is listed as the sixth employee. It is assigned Class Code 5403 with a manual rate of $14.39. The gross payroll for this entry was $550, resulting in a penalty assessment of $118.73. The seventh employee is Jorge Gonzolas, assigned Class Code 5403, the general contracting code. Gonzolas was the employee of a contractor who was subcontracting with Respondent. The contractor died unexpectedly, and Gonzolas was left without payment for the work he had performed. Respondent generously decided to pay Gonzolas for his work, thereby, effectively making Gonzolas a de facto employee. The amount paid Gonzolas was $599.00; the penalty assessed for Gonzolas was $129.30. Woodall is again listed as employee number eight, this time with Class Code 5610, reflecting casual labor he did on one date that his insurance was not in place. The payroll amount for this work was $37.50. The penalty assessed for Woodall was $4.02. The ninth employee was Julio Garcia, assigned Class Code 8742 for outside sales, with a manual rate of $.64. The payroll amount for Garcia was $1,300. His penalty assessment amount was $12.48. Garcia was another one of the deceased subcontractor's employees that Respondent volunteered to pay for work Garcia had performed. The total payroll at issue for Respondent was $14,477.50. The total premium for that amount of payroll would have been $1,881.48, and the penalty assessed was $2,822.84. This is a fairly insignificant portion of Respondent's $5.5 million annual payroll. Respondent did not intentionally attempt to avoid the payment of workers' compensation insurance for its employees. There is no pattern of avoidance or indication that non-payment was Respondent's goal. Rather, there are plausible and reasonable explanations about the unpaid premiums. For Woodall, Respondent believed he was still covered through the Crum policy. For Gonzolas and Garcia, Respondent was simply attempting to be a nice guy. For Prewitt, the employee's exemption had unknowingly lapsed. For Lawrence, Respondent relied upon a Verification Letter from the state, but misinterpreted its scope. The Division, on the other hand, only pursued Respondent based on an actual finding of non-coverage. But for Woodall's presence at a work site doing manual labor (sweeping the floor), the Division would not have looked at Respondent's records. There is no indication the Division acted other than in strict accordance to its governing rules.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, upholding the assessment of a penalty of $2,822.24 against Respondent, Brunderman Building Company, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of October, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of October, 2009.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent complied with coverage requirements of the workers' compensation law, Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. A determination of whether Respondent functioned as an employer is a preliminary issue to be resolved.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency of state government currently responsible for enforcing the requirement of Section 440.107, Florida Statutes, that employers secure the payment of compensation for their employees. Respondent works in the construction industry as a house framer. Petitioner's investigator received a report of a violation of the workers' compensation law on May 21, 2002. When the investigator arrived at the construction site located at 8225 Southwest 103rd Street Road, Ocala, Florida, he observed four men, including Respondent, installing trusses at a residence under construction. Respondent was identified by the other men as the person for whom they were working on the job. All four men told the investigator that they were employees of Dove Enterprises (DOVE). Upon further investigation, the owner of DOVE and also the general contractor of record, Steven Slocumb, stated to the investigator that DOVE operated as the subcontractor for Triple Crown Homes. Slocumb further stated that DOVE, through Slocumb, in turn subcontracted the work to Respondent on a piece rate or square foot basis. Respondent, according to Slocumb, in turn hired the other three men. When Petitioner's investigator returned to the construction site, the four men were gone. None of the four men had an exemption from coverage requirements of the workers' compensation law and none of them had workers' compensation insurance. Consequently, the investigator determined that Respondent was an employer both of himself and the three other workers and that all four were unprotected by workers' compensation insurance. On June 27, 2002, the investigator issued the Stop Work and Penalty Assessment Order at issue in this proceeding. The Order levied the minimum penalty under Section 440.107, Florida Statutes, of $1,100.00. Slocumb and Respondent appeared at the final hearing. Respondent's position was that he and the other three men were employees of DOVE. None of the men produced documentation of such an employment relationship. Rather, documentation presented shows that DOVE paid Respondent for equipment rental. Additionally, payments to Respondent from DOVE for the jobs in question did not include adjustments for employment taxes that would have applied had Respondent been an employee. Respondent's testimony is not credited. Slocumb confirmed the facts determined by the investigator. Slocumb's testimony was candid, direct and creditable.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order confirming the Stop Work and Penalty Assessment Order at issue in this proceeding. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of July, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of July, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Lawrence Simon 1683 Southeast 160th Terrace Oklawaha, Florida 33379 David C. Hawkins, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Workers' Compensation 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Lower Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida. The Respondent has adopted Fla. Admin. Code Rule 8B-5.11(5)(a), a rule governing practice and procedure before Appeals Referees in appeals from the grant or denial of unemployment benefits by Claims Examiners. This rule provides: Copies of the Notice of Hearing shall be mailed by first class mail to all inter- ested parties and their attorneys or autho- rized agents of record at least seven (7) days in advance of the hearing. Hearings held pursuant to Fla. Admin. Code, Chapter 8B-5 are hearings de novo. The Florida Administrative Procedure Act requires that agencies give not less than fourteen (14) days notice of hearing in all proceedings in which the substantial interests of a party are determined by an agency. Section 120.57(1)(b)2, Fla. Stat. (1978). The Respondent is not exempt from this requirement, and has obtained no waiver of this requirement. Petitioner, MARIE LOUISNE, resides at 19315 S.W. 117th Court, Miami, Florida. Petitioner filed a claim for unemployment benefits on or about February 28, 1978. Her claim was denied by a Claims Examiner, and Petitioner timely appealed this decision. On Nay 24, 1978, the Respondent mailed Petitioner a Notice of Hearing, informing her that a hearing on her appeal would be held before an Appeals Referee on May 31, 1978. That Notice was given pursuant to the challenged rule. Petitioner received that Notice on May 25, 1978. Petitioner contends, and Respondent now agrees, that this Notice is inadequate. Section 120.57(1)(b)2, Fla. Stat. (1978) Petitioner filed this action on May 30, 1978, alleging that she was a party to the scheduled proceeding, and that her substantial interests would be affected at the hearing scheduled for May 31, 1978, in that her entitlement to unemployment benefits depended upon the outcome of that hearing. The Respondent has stipulated to these allegations. The parties have stipulated to the Petitioner's standing to maintain this action.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Raul A. Correa, M.D. (Dr. Correa), failed to provide workers' compensation coverage, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing section 440.107, Florida Statutes (2013). That section mandates, in relevant part, that employers in Florida secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage for their employees. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. At all times relevant, Dr. Correa was a Florida small business engaged in the practice of medicine, with his principal office located at 2505 Manatee Avenue West, Bradenton, Florida. Dr. Correa is not incorporated. On February 12, 2014, Ms. Green conducted an on-site workers’ compensation compliance investigation (compliance investigation) of Dr. Correa’s office. After identifying herself to the receptionist, Ms. Green met Dr. Correa and explained the reason for her presence, a compliance investigation. Dr. Correa telephoned his wife who handles his office management from their residence. Mrs. Correa immediately faxed a copy of the liability insurance policy to the office. However, that liability policy did not include workers’ compensation coverage. After a telephonic consultation with her supervisor, Ms. Green served a Request for Production of Business Records (Request) on Dr. Correa at 11:50 a.m. on February 12, 2014. This Request encompassed records from October 1, 2013, through February 12, 2014, for all of Dr. Correa’s payroll documents, account documents, disbursements, and workers’ compensation coverage policies. Ms. Green consulted the Department’s Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) database to determine whether Dr. Correa had secured workers’ compensation coverage or an exemption from the requirements for coverage for his employees. CCAS is a database Ms. Green consults during the course of her investigations. Ms. Green determined from CCAS that Dr. Correa did not have any current workers’ compensation coverage for his employees and he did not have an exemption from such coverage from the Department. The records reflected that Dr. Correa’s last active workers’ compensation coverage was in 2004. Dr. Correa obtained workers’ compensation coverage on February 20, 2014. Approximately one month later, Ms. Green served a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation on Dr. Correa. Dr. Correa produced the requested records. These records were given to Lynne Murcia, one of the Department’s penalty auditors, to calculate the penalty. Ms. Murcia determined that the appropriate classification code for Dr. Correa’s employees was 8832, which incorporates physicians and clerical workers. This code was derived from the Scopes Manual, which lists all of the various jobs that may be performed in the context of workers’ compensation. The manual is produced by the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc., the nation’s most authoritative data collecting and disseminating organization for workers’ compensation. Dr. Correa listed seven employees on the Florida Department of Revenue Unemployment Compensation Tax (UCT-6) form for the time period of the non-compliance. The UCT-6 form lists those employees who are subject to Florida’s Unemployment Compensation Law. Ms. Murcia reasonably relied upon the UCT-6 filings for the relevant time period to calculate Dr. Correa’s gross payroll in Florida. Using Dr. Correa’s payroll chart, the UCT reports, and the classification codes for each employee, Ms. Murcia calculated the penalty assessment for the three-year penalty period preceding the investigation. This three-year period is the allocated time for reviewing coverage for those who do not have the appropriate workers’ compensation coverage. On April 9, 2014, Ms. Murcia determined the penalty to be $4,287.12. However, upon receipt of additional information regarding a former employee of Dr. Correa, an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment of $3,898.77 was issued on July 28, 2014. Dr. Correa’s position is that his practice is a small “mom and pop” operation. He employs members of his family to run the business side of his practice. His daughter, Antonia, works as Dr. Correa’s “doctor’s assistant.” She works at the various nursing homes that Dr. Correa services. Antonia believed that the nursing homes’ liability insurance would cover her, and she was not subject to workers’ compensation coverage. However, she was, in fact, paid by Dr. Correa. Dr. Correa’s daughter-in-law, Valeria, works from her home computer completing the medical billing for her father-in- law. She has been working in this capacity for approximately 14- 16 years, and it never occurred to her that she needed workers’ compensation coverage. She was paid by Dr. Correa. Dr. Correa’s brother-in-law, Mr. Collado, runs all the errands for the practice. He may go to the bank, take care of car maintenance, buy office supplies or fix things, all in support of Dr. Correa’s practice. Mr. Collado receives regular pay checks from Dr. Correa. Dr. Correa testified that his wife is his office manager and has been since he opened the practice in 1978. Mrs. Correa works from their home, in a small home office. She does all the paper work related to the practice. Dr. Correa firmly believed that he did not require workers’ compensation coverage because some of his employees were “independent contractors” or never worked in his office, but at other locations (individual homes, nursing homes, or just outside the office). Dr. Correa believed his insurance agent who did not think Dr. Correa needed the workers’ compensation coverage. Based upon the testimony and exhibits, the amended penalty assessment in the amount of $3,898.77 is accurate.
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, issue a final order upholding the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and assessing a penalty in the amount of $3,898.77. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of September, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 September, 2014.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation's (Department's) Stop Work Order and Second Amended Penalty Assessment and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with enforcement of the laws related to workers' compensation pursuant to Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. On August 15, 2006, Katina Johnson, a workers' compensation compliance investigator for the Division, observed two men painting the exterior of a home at 318 First Street, in Jacksonville. The two men were identified as William Furr and his son, Corey Furr. Upon inquiry, Mr. Furr stated that he held a lifetime exemption from workers' compensation requirements. He provided to Ms. Johnson a copy of his exemption card, which was issued April 30, 1995, in the name of Arby's Painting & Decorating. The exemption card had no apparent expiration date. 4. In 1998, Sections 440.05(3) and 440.05(6), Florida Statutes, were amended, effective January 1, 1999, to limit the duration of construction workers' compensation exemptions to a period of two years. Express language in the amended statute provided that previously held "lifetime exemptions" from workers' compensation requirements would expire on the last day of the birth month of the exemption holder in the year 1999. Ms. Johnson researched Respondent's status on the Department's Compliance and Coverage System (CCAS) database that contains all workers compensation insurance policy information from the carrier to an insured, and determined that Respondent did not have a State of Florida workers' compensation insurance policy. The CCAS database indicated that Respondent previously held an exemption as a partner for Arby's Painting and Decorating, and that the exemption expired December 31, 1999. Ms. Johnson also checked the National Council on Compensation Insurance ("NCCI") database which confirmed that Respondent did not have a current workers' compensation insurance policy in the State of Florida. After conferring with her supervisor, Ms. Johnson issued a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment to Respondent on August 15, 2006. She also made a request for business records for the purpose of calculating a penalty for lack of coverage. Respondent submitted a written payroll record for his son, Corey Furr, along with a summary of what Respondent had earned on various jobs he performed from 2004 through 2006 and a Miscellaneous Income Tax Form 1099 for himself. On August 30, 2006, he also provided to the Department a copy of his occupational license with the City of Jacksonville. Based on the financial records supplied by Respondent, Ms. Johnson calculated a penalty for a single day, August 15, 2006, for Corey Furr. She calculated a penalty from January 1, 2005, through August 15, 2006, for William Furr. Ms. Johnson assigned a class code to the type of work performed by Respondent using the SCOPES Manual, multiplied the class code's assigned approved manual rate with the payroll per one hundred dollars, and then multiplied the result by 1.5. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a penalty of $5,296.37. A Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was issued November 1, 2006, with a penalty of $5,592.95. This Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was issued because Ms. Johnson used the incorrect period of violation for Respondent when she initially calculated the penalty. On August 25, 2006, Respondent entered into a Payment Agreement Schedule for periodic payment of the penalty, and was issued an Order of Conditional Release from Stop-Work Order by the Department. Respondent paid ten percent of the assessed penalty, provided proof of compliance with Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by forming a new company and securing workers' compensation exemptions for both himself and his son, Corey Furr, and agreed to pay the remaining penalty in sixty equal monthly payments. Respondent claims that he was not aware of the change in the law and continued to operate under the belief that his "lifetime exemption" remained valid. Although under no statutory obligation to do so, the Department sent a form letter to persons on record as holding exemptions to inform them of the change in the law and the process to be followed to obtain a new exemption.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Division of Workers' Compensation enter a Final Order affirming the Stop Work Order issued August 15, 2006, and the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued to Respondent on November 1, 2006. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of February, 2007.
