The Issue Whether GMD Carpet, Inc., failed to comply with coverage requirements of the workers’ compensation law, Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for enforcing provisions of Florida law, specifically Chapter 440 of the Florida Statutes, which require that employers secure workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. Respondent, whose principal is Emmanuel Simone, Jr. (Mr. Simone), is in the business of providing carpet installation services. At all times material to this case, Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 440.02(16)(a), Florida Statutes. At all times material to this case, Respondent was legally obligated to provide workers' compensation insurance in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, for Mr. Simone and four other individuals employed by GMD. On or about May 21, 2004, Petitioner became aware that Mr. Simone and another GMD employee were working a carpet installation job in Broward County, Florida. Upon inquiry, Petitioner accurately determined that GMD had not furnished the required coverage, and that there was no valid exemption from the coverage requirement. Accordingly, on May 21, 2004, a Stop Work and Penalty Assessment Order was properly entered. Thereafter, Petitioner reviewed Respondent's payroll records, which revealed that GMD employed three other individuals under circumstances which obliged Respondent to provide workers’ compensation for these employees. Based upon Respondent's payroll records, Petitioner recalculated the penalty assessment to be imposed in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 440, and issued an Amended Order in the amount of $1,916.65 on May 25, 2004. Respondent did not intend to violate the law. Rather, he mistakenly believed that he held a valid exemption; that his wife was not an employee, but rather a helper; and that the three other carpet installers were subcontractors to whom he had no insurance-related obligations. It is undisputed that Petitioner correctly calculated the penalty prescribed by law in the amount of $1,916.65 based upon Respondent's records and applicable law.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order confirming the Stop Work Order and imposing a penalty in the amount of $1,916.65, as set forth in the Amended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of October, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS 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 15th day of October, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Colin M. Roopnarine, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Workers’ Compensation 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 Emmanuel Simone, Jr. Debra Simone GMD Carpet, Inc. 717 North 31st Avenue Hollywood, Florida 33021 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florid a 32399-0300 Pete Dunbar, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether Fantastic Construction of Daytona, Inc. (“Respondent”), failed to secure the payment of workers’ compensation 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 The Department is the state agency charged with enforcing the requirement of chapter 440, Florida Statutes, that employers in Florida secure workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Respondent is a corporation engaged in the construction industry with headquarters in Daytona Beach, Florida. On November 19, 2015, the Department’s compliance investigator, Scott Mohan, observed five individuals framing a single-family house at 173 Botefuhr Avenue in Daytona, Florida. Mr. Mohan interviewed the individuals he observed working at the jobsite and found they were working for Respondent on lease from Convergence Leasing (“Convergence”). Mr. Mohan contacted Convergence and found that all of the workers on the jobsite were employees of Convergence, except Scott Barenfanger. Mr. Mohan also confirmed that the workers’ compensation policy for Convergence employees was in effect. Mr. Mohan reviewed information in the Coverage and Compliance Automated System, or CCAS, for Respondent. CCAS indicated Respondent’s workers were covered for workers’ compensation by Convergence and that Respondent’s contract with Convergence was active. Mr. Mohan also confirmed, through CCAS, that Foster Coleman, Respondent’s president, had previously obtained an exemption from the workers’ compensation requirement, but that his exemption expired on July 18, 2015. Mr. Mohan then contacted Mr. Coleman via telephone and informed him that one of the workers on the jobsite was not on the active employee roster for Convergence, thus Respondent was not in compliance with the requirement to obtain workers’ compensation insurance for its employees. Mr. Coleman reported to the jobsite in response to Mr. Mohan’s phone call. Mr. Coleman admitted that Mr. Barenfanger was not on the Convergence employee leasing roster. Mr. Coleman subsequently obtained an application from Convergence for Mr. Barenfanger and delivered it to his residence. Mr. Mohan served Mr. Coleman at the jobsite with a Stop-Work Order and a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation (“BRR”). In response to the BRR, Respondent provided to the Department business bank statements, check stubs, copies of checks, certificates of liability insurance for various suppliers and subcontractors, and an employee leasing roster for most of the audit period from November 20, 2013, to November 19, 2015.1/ Respondent did not produce any check stubs for November and December 2013. Mr. Coleman testified, credibly, that his bookkeeper during that time period did not keep accurate records. Mr. Coleman did produce his business bank statements and other records for that time period. Based on the review of initial records received, the Department calculated a penalty of $17,119.80 and issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in that amount on February 18, 2016. On March 17, 2016, Respondent supplied the Department with additional records. Altogether, Respondent submitted over 400 pages of records to the Department. The majority of the records are copies of check stubs for checks issued on Respondent’s business bank account. The check stubs are in numerical order from 1349 to 1879, and none are missing. The check stubs were hand written by Mr. Coleman, who is 78 years old. Some of his writing on the check stubs is difficult to discern. On April 4, 2016, following review of additional records received, the Department issued a Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in the amount of $9,629.36. The Department assigned penalty auditor Sarah Beal to calculate the penalty assessed against Respondent. Identification of Employees Ms. Beal reviewed the business records produced by Respondent and identified Respondent’s uninsured employees first by filtering out payments made to compliant individuals and businesses, and payments made for non-labor costs. However, the evidence demonstrated that the Department included on its penalty calculation worksheet (“worksheet”) payments made to individuals who were not Respondent’s employees. Neal Noonan is an automobile mechanic. Mr. Noonan was neither an employee of, nor a subcontractor for, Respondent for any work performed by Respondent during the audit period. Mr. Noonan performed repairs on Mr. Coleman’s personal vehicles during the audit period. Checks issued to Mr. Noonan during the audit period were for work performed on Mr. Coleman’s personal vehicles. The Department’s worksheet included a “David Locte” with a period of noncompliance from June 19, 2014, through December 31, 2014. The basis for including Mr. Locte as an employee was a check stub written on December 10, 2014, to a business name that is almost indiscernible, but closely resembles “Liete & Locke” in the amount of $100. The memo reflects that the check was written for “architect plans.” Mr. Coleman recognized the worksheet entry of David Locte as pertaining to David Leete, an architect in Daytona. Mr. Leete has provided architectural services to Respondent off and on for roughly five years. Mr. Leete signs and seals plans for, among others, a draftsman named Dan Langley. Mr. Langley provides drawings and plans for Respondent’s projects. When Respondent submits plans to a local governing body which requires architectural drawings to accompany permit applications, Mr. Leete reviews and signs the plans. Mr. Leete was neither an employee of, nor a subcontractor for, Respondent during the audit period. The single payment made to Mr. Leete by Respondent during the audit period was for professional architectural services rendered. Mr. Langley was neither an employee of, nor a subcontractor for, Respondent during the audit period. Payments made to Mr. Langley during the audit period were for professional drafting services rendered. Among the names on the Department’s worksheet is R.W. Kicklighter. Mr. Kicklighter is an energy consultant whose office is located in the same building with Mr. Leete. Mr. Kicklighter prepares energy calculations, based on construction plans, to determine the capacity of heating and air-conditioning systems needed to serve the planned construction. Mr. Kicklighter was neither an employee of, nor a subcontractor for, Respondent during the audit period. Payments made to Mr. Kicklighter during the audit period were for professional services rendered. Respondent made a payment of $125 on September 15, 2014, to an entity known as Set Material. Set Material is a company that rents dumpsters for collection of concrete at demolition and reconstruction sites. Removal and disposal of the concrete from the jobsite is included within the rental price of the dumpster. The Department included on the worksheet an entry for “Let Malereal.” The evidence revealed the correct name is Set Material and no evidence was introduced regarding the existence of a person or entity known as Let Malereal. Set Material was neither an employee of, nor a subcontractor for, Respondent during the audit period. The single payment made to Set Material during the audit period was for dumpster rental. The Department’s worksheet contains an entry for “CTC” for the penalty period of January 1, 2014, through May 1, 2014. Respondent made a payment to “CTC” on April 11, 2014, in connection with a job referred to as “964 clubhouse.” The records show Respondent made payments to Gulfeagle Supply, Vern’s Insulation, John Wood, Bruce Bennett, and Ron Whaley in connection with the same job. At final hearing, Mr. Coleman had no recollection what CTC referred to. Mr. Coleman’s testimony was the only evidence introduced regarding identification of CTC. CTC could have been a vendor of equipment or supplies for the job, just as easily as an employee. The evidence is insufficient to support a finding that CTC was an employee of, or a subcontractor for, Respondent during the audit period. The check stub for check 1685 does not indicate to whom the $60 payment was made. The stub reads “yo for Doug.” The Department listed “Doug” as an employee on its worksheet and included the $60 as wages to “Doug” for purposes of calculating workers’ compensation premiums owed. At hearing, Mr. Coleman was unable to recall ever having employed anyone named Doug, and had no recollection regarding the January 7, 2015, payment. The evidence was insufficient to establish that “Doug” was either Respondent’s employee or subcontractor during the audit period. Ken’s Heating and Air was not an employee of, nor a subcontractor to, Respondent for any work undertaken by Respondent during the audit period. Ken’s Heating and Air conducted repairs on, and maintenance of, Mr. Coleman’s personal residence during the audit period. Checks issued to Ken’s Heating and Air during the audit period were payments for work performed at Mr. Coleman’s personal residence. Barry Smith is an electrical contractor. Mr. Smith was neither an employee of, nor subcontractor to, Respondent for any work performed by Respondent during the audit period. Mr. Smith did make repairs to the electrical system at Mr. Coleman’s personal residence during the audit period. Checks issued to Mr. Smith during the audit period were payments for work performed at Mr. Coleman’s personal residence. The remaining names listed on the Department’s penalty calculation worksheet were accurately included as Respondent’s employees.2/ Calculation of Payroll Mr. Coleman’s exemption certificate expired on July 18, 2015, approximately four months shy of the end of the audit period. Payments made by Respondent to Mr. Coleman during the time period for which he did not have a valid exemption (the penalty period) were deemed by the Department as wages paid to Mr. Coleman by Respondent. Respondent’s business records show seven checks written either to Mr. Coleman or to cash during that time period in the total amount of $3,116.52. The Department included that amount on the worksheet as wages paid to Mr. Coleman. Check 1873 was written to cash, but the check stub notes that the payment of $1,035.69 was made to Compliance Matters, Respondent’s payroll company. Check 1875 was written to cash, but the check stub notes that the payment of $500 was made to Daytona Landscaping. The evidence does not support a finding that checks 1873 and 1875 represented wages paid to Mr. Coleman. The correct amount attributable as wages paid to Mr. Coleman during the penalty period is $1,796.52. Respondent’s employees Tyler Eubler, Brian Karchalla, Keith Walsh, and John Strobel, were periodically paid by Respondent during the audit period in addition to their paychecks from Convergence. Mr. Coleman testified that the payments were advances on their wages. He explained that when working on a job out of town, the crew would arrive after Convergence had closed for the day, and Mr. Coleman would pay them cash and allow them to reimburse him from their paychecks the following day. Unfortunately for Respondent, the evidence did not support a finding that these employees reimbursed Mr. Coleman for the advances made. The Department correctly determined the payroll amount attributable to these employees. The Department attributed $945 in payroll to “James Sharer.” The Department offered no evidence regarding how they arrived at the name of James Sharer as Respondent’s employee or the basis for the payroll amount. James Shores worked off-and-on for Respondent. Mr. Coleman recognized the worksheet entry of “James Sharer” as a misspelling of Mr. Shores’ name. Respondent’s records show payments totaling $535 to Mr. Shores during the audit period. The correct amount of payroll attributable to Mr. Shores from Respondent during the audit period is $535. The Department included wages totaling $10,098.84 to Mr. Barenfanger during the period of noncompliance from November 20, 2013, to December 31, 2013. The Department imputed the average weekly wage to Mr. Barenfanger for that period because, in the Department’s estimation, Respondent did not produce records sufficient to establish payroll for those two months in 2013. See § 440.107(7)(e), Fla. Stat. The voluminous records produced by Respondent evidenced not a single payment made to Mr. Barenfanger between January 2014, and November 19, 2015. Even if Mr. Coleman had not testified that he did not know or employ Mr. Barenfanger before November 19, 2015, it would be ludicrous to find that he worked weekly for Respondent during the last two months of 2013. Mr. Coleman testified, credibly, that Mr. Barenfanger worked the jobsite for Respondent on November 18 and 19, 2015, but not prior to those dates. The evidence does not support a finding that the worksheet entry for Mr. Barenfanger in the amount of $10,098.84 accurately represents wages attributable to Mr. Barenfanger during the period of noncompliance. The Department’s worksheet includes an employee by the name of Ren W. Raly for the period of noncompliance from January 1, 2014, through May 1, 2014, and a Ronnie Whaley for the period of noncompliance from June 19, 2014 through December 31, 2014. Mr. Coleman testified that he never had an employee by the name of Raly and he assumed the first entry was a misspelling of Ronnie Whaley’s name. Mr. Coleman testified that Ronnie Whaley was a concrete finisher and brick layer who did work for Respondent. Mr. Coleman testified that he submitted to the Department a copy of Mr. Whaley’s “workers’ comp exempt,” but that they must not have accepted it. The records submitted to the Department by Respondent do not contain any exemption certificate for Ronnie Whaley. However, in the records submitted to the Department from Respondent is a certificate of liability insurance dated February 25, 2014, showing workers’ compensation and liability coverage issued to Direct HR Services, Inc., from Alliance Insurance Solutions, LLC. The certificate plainly states that coverage is provided for “all leased employees, but not subcontractors, of Ronald Whaley Masonry.” The certificate shows coverage in effect from February 1, 2013, through February 1, 2015. Petitioner did not challenge the reliability of the certificate or otherwise object to its admissibility.3/ In fact, the document was moved into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit P1. Petitioner offered no testimony regarding whether the certificate was insufficient proof of coverage for Mr. Whaley during the periods of noncompliance listed on the worksheet. The evidence does not support a finding that Mr. Whaley was an uninsured individual during the periods of noncompliance. Thus, the wages attributed to Mr. Whaley by the Department were incorrect. Ms. Beal assigned the class code 5645—Carpentry to the individuals correctly identified as Respondent’s uninsured employees because this code matched the description of the job being performed by the workers on the jobsite the day of the inspection. Ms. Beal correctly utilized the corresponding approved manual rates for the carpentry classification code and the related periods of noncompliance to determine the gross payroll to the individuals correctly included as Respondent’s uninsured employees. Calculation of Penalty For the employees correctly included as uninsured employees, Ms. Beal applied the correct approved manual rates and correctly utilized the methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)1. and Florida Administrative Code Rules 69L-6.027 and 69L-6.028 to determine the penalty to be imposed. For the individuals correctly included as uninsured employees, and for whom the correct payroll was calculated, the correct penalty amount is $2,590.06. The correct penalty for payments made to Mr. Coleman during the penalty period is $571.81. The correct penalty for payments made to James Shores is $170.24. The correct total penalty to be assessed against Respondent is $3,332.11. The Department demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent was engaged in the construction industry in Florida during the audit period and that Respondent failed to carry workers’ compensation insurance for its employees at times during the audit period as required by Florida’s workers’ compensation law. The Department demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent employed the employees named on the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, with the exception of Ken’s Heating and Air, CTC, Don Langly, Ren W. Raly, R.W. Kicklighter, Dave Locte, Let Malereal, Ronnie Whaley, and “Doug.” The Department did not demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that it correctly calculated the gross payroll attributable to Mr. Coleman and Mr. Shores. The Department demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Beal correctly utilized the methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)1. to determine the appropriate penalty for each of Respondent’s uninsured employees. The Department did not demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the correct penalty is $9,629.36. The evidence demonstrated that the correct penalty to be assessed against Respondent for failure to provide workers’ compensation insurance for its employees during the audit period is $3,332.11.
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 Fantastic Construction of Daytona, Inc., violated the workers’ compensation insurance law and assessing a penalty of $3,332.11. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of August, 2016, 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 18th day of August, 2016.
The Issue Whether this cause is barred by a release of all claims.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Florida Commission On Human Relations (FCHR) on or about December 13, 2003, based upon "race" and "national origin." The charge alleges that the employer removed Petitioner from working on a machine with which Petitioner had been familiar for eight years and assigned him to a machine for which he had not been trained, while the old machine was assigned to "a white person who has been working for less than one year." The original Charge did not contain allegations of lost seniority, pay, benefits, or of unlawful termination. On or about December 6, 2004, the FCHR entered its "Determination: No Cause," and notified the parties. On December 27, 2004, Petitioner filed his Petition for Relief, which alleged that the employer constantly assigned Petitioner to very "mterse" [sic.] jobs because the employer wanted Petitioner to leave, and the employer was "neglecting and careless to my needs." The Petition contains no specific allegation of constructive termination, i.e., that Petitioner was somehow forced into leaving Respondent's employ. The case was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) on or about January 5, 2005. On or about January 18, 2005, Respondent responded to the Division's Initial Order by providing potential hearing dates. Petitioner filed no response. On January 28, 2005, a Notice of Hearing for April 4, 2005, was entered and mailed. On March 1, 2005, Respondent filed a Motion for Summary Final Order, together with supporting documentation including an affidavit of Joseph W. Standley, the attorney who had represented the Respondent Employer in Petitioner's workers' compensation claim against the employer. Petitioner did not timely respond in writing to Respondent's Motion, as he is permitted to do by Florida Administrative Code Rule 28-106.204. Therefore, the undersigned was at liberty to rule upon the pending Motion without a hearing. Furthermore, pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, the pending Motion may be treated as a Motion for a Recommended Order of Dismissal. However, it was clear to the undersigned that oral argument or further memoranda on the pending Motion would be helpful, due to specific provisions of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, The Florida Workers' Compensation Act, and the Administrative Code Rules promulgated thereunder. So, in an abundance of caution, the following provisions were contained in the Order entered March 21, 2005: The disputed-fact hearing now scheduled for April 4, 2005, is hereby cancelled. Petitioner Eligio Orellana is hereby granted to and until April 4, 2005, in which to either (a) file a written response in opposition to the Motion or (b) telephone the secretary to the undersigned at the number below to schedule oral argument by telephone. In the event Petitioner avails himself of neither option above, the Motion will be considered sua sponte. Petitioner requested of the secretary to the undersigned that oral argument by telephone be scheduled. Arrangements were made for a telephonic conference with both parties. However, Petitioner did not appear and participate in the pre-arranged telephonic conference call, so another Order was entered on April 15, 2005. That Order provided as follows: This cause came on for oral argument of Respondent's Motion for Summary Final Order by a telephonic conference on April 13, 2005. Despite Petitioner's request for this opportunity, which request was made late, pursuant to the Order entered March 21, 2005, and despite Petitioner agreeing to that date and time for the conference call, Petitioner did not appear by telephone. Therefore, Respondent was permitted to argue the pending Motion, which will be treated as a motion for a recommended order of dismissal. The undersigned having heard Respondent's argument, the parties are granted 15 days from date of this Order in which to state, in writing, filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings, their respective positions with regard to the pending Motion, specifically addressing the effect, if any, of Rule 4.143, Florida Workers' Compensation Rules and its successor, Florida Administrative Code Rule 60Q-6.123(1)(c). Copies of these rules are attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A." Respondent addressed the issues raised by the Petition for Relief, the pending Motion, and the foregoing Order, by timely filing further written argument and exhibits. Once again, Petitioner filed a paper but it failed to address the issues. On July 22, 2005, another Order to clarify facts and law was entered, providing Petitioner a last opportunity to be heard. That Order provided: Petitioner did not file a response in writing to Respondent's Motion for Summary Final Order as permitted by Florida Administrative Code Rule 28-106.204, and did not appear by telephone on April 13, 2005, when oral argument was scheduled for his benefit. Petitioner did file an explanation, of sorts, as to why he did not appear for the April 13, 2005, conference call, but that explanation did not address the Order entered herein on April 15, 2005, which Order allowed Petitioner to send the undersigned a written argument demonstrating his opposition to the pending Motion. Respondent responded in writing to the April 15, 2005 Order, as permitted. On its face, that material sets forth good cause why this case should be dismissed, the reason being that Petitioner entered into a full and complete release of Respondent while fully advised by an attorney. Florida Administrative Code Rule 60Y- 5.006, authorizes dismissal of discrimination complaints on several grounds, including "(2) The complaint has been resolved by negotiated settlement pursuant to subsection 60Y-5.003(10), F.A.C." However, in an abundance of caution, it is ORDERED: Petitioner shall show cause, in writing, filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings, at the address below the signature line of this document why this cause should not be dismissed. Specifically, Petitioner is permitted to send a written response (1) stating why any factual allegation contained in any of Respondent's previously filed materials is not true and correct; (2) giving any reason the Confidential Release and Settlement Agreement and Petitioner's Affidavit provided by Respondent should not be presumed valid; and (3) stating any reason this cause should not be dismissed for the reasons put forth by Respondent. In order to be considered, Petitioner's Response must be filed at the address below not later than August 10, 2005. On July 28, 2005, Petitioner filed a letter-response dated July 25, 2005, asking to speak to the undersigned and requesting that the case "stay alive" and move forward. Petitioner's letter-response disputed no facts or law asserted by Respondent. Accordingly, all the facts and documents presented by Respondent are presumed valid, and Respondent's pending Motion may be treated as a motion for recommended order of dismissal, to be determined upon the pleadings, without further evidence. On February 7, 2005, in a workers' compensation claim by Petitioner against Respondent Employer and the Employer's insurance carrier, Petitioner signed two settlement agreements. One settlement agreement complied with the requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, with regard to specific issues cognizable under the Florida Workers' Compensation Act and was entitled "Joint Stipulation for Settlement under Florida Statutes Sections 440.20(11)(c), (d) and (e) (2001)." The other settlement agreement, entitled "Confidential Release and Settlement Agreement" was more general and provided in pertinent part: Payment to Employee. The Employer/Carrier shall pay Employee the lump sum of $500.00 within fourteen (14) business days after Employee executes this Agreement and the Employee's withdrawal of the charge of discrimination, if any, which may be pending and is accepted and acted upon by the EEOC and the JEOC through an administrative dismissal of the charge or within fourteen (14) days of the approval of the Motion for Approval of Attorney's Fees, whichever is later. This settlement is being entered into simultaneously with a settlement of the workers' compensation claim and the consideration outlined above is provided for therein. [R]eleases and discharges the Employer [Premium Waters, Inc.] and Carrier, and any affiliated and related companies, and their attorneys, officers, directors, shareholders, agents, and employees of any of them, from all claims, actions demands, rights and causes of action (including any right to demand or receive attorney's fees) whether known or unknown by the Employee, that the Employee may have arising out of, based on, or relating directly or indirectly to, the Employee's employment with the Employer or the termination of that employment, the accident dated 06/25/03, and any events occurring during such employment or thereafter until the date of this Agreement. This release and waiver includes, but is not limited to, a release of any claims, actions, demands, rights or causes of action the employee may have under any federal, state, or local laws or regulations currently in effect and/or applicable to Employee, including, but not limited to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1991, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1991, the National Labor Relations Act, Chapter 440 of the Florida Statutes, Chapters 448 and 760 of the Florida Statutes, the Equal Pay Act, Fair Labor ad [sic] Standards Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1871, as amended (42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and 1985), and any other statutory or common law claims including, without limitation claims for negligence, gross negligence, wrongful discharge and/or retaliation under state or federal law, including but not limited to, Fla. Stat. 440.205, and all claims of any nature which were raised or could have been raised in any charge, arising out of the injuries, accident, and employment which are the subject of this settlement, in which the Employee now has, has had, or might ever have against the Employer or Servicing Agent, or any of its or their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, directors, successors, predecessors, assigns, or any other person or entity so connected or related to the Employer or Servicing Agent, without any limitation thereof or thereon in the event the United States government or any of its entities or administrative bodies makes any claim against the Employer, its Servicing Agent, and/or its insurance Carrier, for reimbursement of any medical expenses incurred, or that may be incurred in the future as a result of the workers' compensation accident of 06/25/03, the Employee agrees to indemnify and hold the Employer, its Servicing Agent and/or its insurance Carrier harmless from any such claims. The Employee further agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Employer and Carrier against all liabilities, claims, losses and expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees and costs, arising out of the industrial injuries which are the subject of this settlement. Dismissal/Withdrawal of Charge. As a condition precedent to receipt of payment described in Section 1 hereof, Employee shall deliver to counsel for the Employer/Carrier a copy of an executed document withdrawing the Charge, if any, with evidence that it has been filed with an EEOC and the JEOC. Upon receipt of proof that the EEOC and JEOC have dismissed the Charge, the Employer shall make payment as described above. There were clearly two types of release contemplated, two types of release executed, and two amounts of money were intended to flow from the Employer to the Petitioner. One amount of money was to be paid upon the Judge of Compensation Claims' approval of the workers' compensation settlement, and $500.00 was to be paid when Petitioner dismissed his EEOC claim. The affidavit of Joseph W. Standley, with its attachments, dated February 28, 2005, has established that the foregoing "Confidential Release and Settlement Agreement" (see Finding of Fact 22), was signed by Petitioner, under oath, and was signed by Petitioner's workers' compensation attorney; and that Petitioner's own affidavit averred that he had "read, or . . . had read to [him], and underst[oo]d the terms of the . . . Confidential Release." The affidavit of Joseph W. Standley, dated April 28, 2005, and filed with Respondent's May 2, 2005 Memorandum in response to the April 15, 2005 Order herein, established that Mr. Standley represented the employer, Premium Waters, Inc., and its insurance carrier, Cincinnati Casualty, in the settlement of Petitioner's workers' compensation claim in Eligio Orellana, [Claimant] v. Premium Water[s, Inc., Employer] and Cincinnati Casualty [Carrier], OJCC Case No. 04-029070JDO. Mr. Standley's affidavit is unrefuted that the Claimant in that case (Petitioner herein) had the benefit and assistance of legal counsel throughout his workers' compensation claim, and that Petitioner's attorney received, reviewed, and signed, along with Petitioner, and returned the documents considered in accomplishing the settlement of the workers' compensation case. Mr. Standley has sworn that Petitioner was represented by counsel throughout the workers' compensation claim, through and including accomplishment of the settlement and approval by the Judge of Compensation Claims, and that as parts of the overall settlement of Petitioner's workers' compensation claim, there were a "Joint Stipulation for Settlement" as required by Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and a separate "Confidential Release and Settlement Agreement," and an affidavit by Petitioner that he had read, or had read to him, and understood "the terms of the Joint Stipulation for Settlement and [the] Confidential Release;" that the Confidential Release was signed under oath by Petitioner and Petitioner's attorney; and that "neither the release signed under oath by Petitioner and his attorney, nor Petitioner's affidavit were included among the papers presented to the Judge of Compensation Claims." Mr. Standley's two affidavits, together with their supporting documents, are unrefuted, because Petitioner did not offer any objection or oppositional response.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing uncontroverted or undisputed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief and Charge of Discrimination herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. 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 26th day of August, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Howard, Esquire Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Eligio Orellana Post Office Box 1800 Interlachen, Florida 32148 Russell W. LaPeer, Esquire Landt, Wiechens, LaPeer & Ayres 445 Northeast Eighth Avenue Ocala, Florida 34470
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2016), by failing to secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage, as alleged in the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment; and, if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement of chapter 440 that employers in Florida secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage for their employees and corporate officers. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. Respondent sells roof coating and provides installation services in the Bradenton, Florida, area. The Investigation On April 20, 2015, the Department received a public referral that Respondent was operating without a roofing license or workers' compensation coverage. The case was assigned by the Department to Compliance Investigator Germaine Green ("Green"). Green first checked the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations, Sunbiz website to verify Respondent's status as an active corporation. Green then checked the Department's Coverage and Compliance Automated System ("CCAS") to see whether Respondent had a workers' compensation policy or any exemptions. An exemption is a method in which a corporate officer can exempt himself from the requirements of chapter 440. See § 440.05, Fla. Stat. CCAS is the Department's internal database that contains workers' compensation insurance policy information and exemption information. Insurance providers are required to report coverage and cancellation information, which is then input into CCAS. Green's CCAS search revealed that Respondent had no coverage or exemptions during the relevant period. Because Green was not aware of any specific job site at which Respondent was working, she issued a Business Records Request ("BRR") No. 1 to Respondent seeking records for an audit period of January 1, 2015, through April 29, 2015, to determine compliance. Respondent provided payroll records and bank statements. Respondent's president, Felecia Bly ("Bly"), contacted Green and described the nature of the business as a roof coating business that sells a sealant that coats roofs to seal leaks and extend their longevity. Bly explained that Respondent used commissioned salesmen to review the county assessor's website to determine the square footage of a residence. The salesman then contacted property owners to determine whether they experienced leaks and offered the product and installation. The salesmen did not go on the roofs. Respondent considered its salesmen independent contractors to whom they issued IRS Forms 1099. Respondent used subcontractors to perform the installations. According to Respondent, these workers had their own businesses or exemptions. Respondent also used the services of part-time workers for a short period that addressed and sent post cards marketing Respondent's business. Based on her conversation with Bly, Green determined that the business should be categorized as "roofing," which is classified as National Council on Compensation Insurance ("NCCI") class code 5551 and is considered a type of construction activity under Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.021(2)(cc). Green also determined Respondent was non-compliant with the obligation to secure workers' compensation coverage for its workers. The corporate officers did not have exemptions, and several individuals, identified as sales and roofing subcontractors, did not have their own businesses or exemptions and, therefore, were employees. Petitioner did not issue a Stop-work Order because Respondent came into compliance on June 22, 2015, by securing exemptions for the corporate officers. Petitioner issued a BRR No. 5 for additional records from July 1, 2013, through June 21, 2015, to make a penalty calculation for the two-year period of non-compliance. Penalty Calculation The Department assigned Penalty Auditor Christopher Richardson ("Richardson") to calculate the penalty assessed against Respondent. Richardson reviewed the business records produced by Respondent and properly identified the amount of gross payroll paid to Respondent's workers on which workers' compensation premiums had not been paid. Richardson researched Respondent's corporate officers and Respondent's subcontractors to determine those periods when they were not compliant with chapter 440 during the audit period. Richardson determined that Respondent was not compliant for the period of June 22, 2013, through June 21, 2015. Respondent's compliant subcontractors (those with their own workers' compensation insurance or exemptions) were not included in the penalty. The business records ultimately produced by Respondent were sufficient for Richardson to calculate a penalty for the entire audit period. The initial OPA was in the amount of $257,321.16. After receiving and reviewing additional records supplied by Respondent, an Amended OPA was issued in the amount of $51,089.52. After a deposition of Bly's assistant, Sueann Rafalski ("Rafalski"), who provided additional details regarding those individuals and businesses identified in the Amended OPA, a 2nd Amended OPA was issued on July 18, 2016, in the amount of $43,542.16. During the hearing, Respondent disputed a few items that the Department subsequently voluntarily removed in the 3rd Amended OPA. The Department's Motion for Leave to Amend Order of Penalty Assessment was granted on September 29, 2016. Respondent disputed the inclusion of referral fees to Hicks and Campbell, a customer reimbursement payment to Robert Nyilas, payment to House Medic for work done on the Bly's home, and a loan repayment to the Bly's son, Brian Bly. The Department correctly removed any penalties associated with Hicks, Campbell, Robert Nyilas, House Medic, and Brian Bly. The Department also removed $14,200.00 from the penalty that Respondent disputed as repayments toward a $150,000.00 loan from its corporate officers. Respondent continues to dispute the penalty calculation for all others identified in the 3rd Amended OPA, except for the inclusion of the payment to Unexpected Blessings. For the penalty assessment calculation, Richardson consulted the classification codes listed in the Scopes® Manual, which has been adopted by the Department of Financial Services through rules 69L-6.021 and 69L-6.031. Classification codes are assigned to various occupations to assist the calculation of workers' compensation insurance premiums. Richardson assigned the class codes based on information provided by Bly. Richardson then utilized the corresponding approved manual rates for those classification codes and the related periods of non-compliance. Richardson applied the correct approved manual rates and correctly utilized the methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)l. and rules 69L-6.027 and 69L-6.028 to determine the penalty. Penalty for the Blys Respondent admits that during the audit period, the business did not carry workers' compensation insurance coverage, and its corporate officers, Glenn and Felecia Bly ("the Blys"), did not have workers' compensation exemptions. Because neither Mr. nor Mrs. Bly was engaged in the application of the roofing materials, the Department correctly assigned class code 8742, for sales and marketing, to them. However, the Department miscalculated the gross income of the Blys. Respondent provided check stubs and its accountant's itemization of payments to the Blys, which constituted repayment of loans from Respondent to the Blys. No evidence to the contrary was presented to indicate these sums were anything other than loan repayments. The Department erroneously included these sums in its calculation of gross payroll to the Blys. Although the Department made a $14,000.00 deduction from gross income for the Blys during this period as "loan repayments," no explanation was provided regarding how this sum was ascertained and why the Department disregarded the information of Respondent's accountant showing repayments during the relevant period in the amount of $19,200.00. The Department obviously accepted the testimony of Bly that, in fact, a portion of what the Department previously concluded was gross income to the Blys, was rather repayments for loans made to Respondent. Accordingly, in the absence of any evidence by the Department of how it parceled out which portion of money paid to the Blys constituted wages and which portion was loan repayments, the Department failed to demonstrate clearly and conclusively that the penalty associated with payments to the Blys is accurate.2/ Penalty for Postcard Mailers Three women, Meghan Saulino, Kimberly Kalley, and Stacy Boettner, were identified by Bly as independent contractors she hired to address and mail postcards for Respondent. According to Bly and Rafalski, these workers were college students who did the work at home, on their own time, and were paid by the job. This arrangement did not last long because the women did not like the work, and the task was transferred to Minuteman, a printing and copying business. These women are included in the Second Amended OPA and are assigned class code 8742 for sales and marketing. Respondent contends they should not be included because they were not employees. No evidence was presented to refute that these three women were merely casual workers whose duties (addressing and mailing postcards) were not in the course of the trade, business, profession, or occupation of Respondent (selling and installing roof coating). Accordingly, the amount included in the penalty for their work, $78.18, should be excluded from the 3rd Amended OPA. Penalty for Commissioned Salesmen Respondent contends that its commissioned sales people are all independent contractors who performed jobs for others. These salespeople included Kevin Kalley, Robert Patton, Gino Barone, Scott De Alessandro, Scott Black, and Tim Paige. However, no evidence was presented of the independent contractor agreements for these individuals, certificates of exemption for them for the penalty period, or evidence that these individuals owned their own businesses. As such, the Department was correct in including the amounts received by the salespeople as gross income for purposes of the penalty calculations. Penalty for Roof Coating Installers Respondent similarly argues that its roof coating installers were independent contractors. The roof coating installers included Bill Boettner, owner of Unexpected Blessings who did not have an exemption during the penalty period, and his business, Unexpected Blessings. Again, no evidence was presented of certificates of exemption for the penalty period or evidence that Unexpected Blessings had coverage. As such, the Department was correct in including the amounts received by the roof coating installers as gross income for purposes of the penalty calculations. Penalty for Other Independent Contractors Respondent argues that Rafalski and Bobby McGranahan ("McGranahan") should not be included in the penalty calculation because they were independent contractors not directly associated with Respondent's business. Rafalski was hired by Bly to help with personal errands and to respond to the audit which serves as a basis for this action. McGranahan is alleged to have run errands for the roof coating installers and acted as a handyman for Respondent before becoming a salesperson for Respondent. It is undisputed that Rafalski and McGranahan performed duties directly related to Respondent's business. Although Rafalski testified at her deposition that she considered herself an independent contractor, it was clear she worked on-site and was the individual most familiar with Respondent's business operations and internal accounting practices. McGranahan's duties, of shopping for supplies for the roofing installers, and then selling for Respondent, were directly related to Respondent's business. No evidence was presented demonstrating that either Rafalski or McGranahan owned their own business or had an exemption. Accordingly, they were properly included in the Department's 3rd Amended OPA.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, enter a final order assessing a penalty against Respondent in the amount of $34,552.20. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of October, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of October, 2016.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent had a sufficient amount of workers’ compensation coverage during the time period in question; and, if not, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Division is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement in chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2015),1/ that employers in Florida secure workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. While an exemption can be obtained for up to three corporate officers, any employer in the construction industry with at least one employee must have workers’ compensation coverage. § 440.02(15), Fla. Stat. Kent Howe works for the Division as a compliance investigator based in Orlando, Florida. As part of his job responsibilities, Mr. Howe visits construction sites in order to verify that employers in the construction industry have obtained workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. Mr. Kehr was the owner and sole corporate officer of JNK. Mr. Howe visited a construction site in Port Orange, Florida, on the morning of December 10, 2015, and saw Mr. Kehr and two other men building the interior walls/frames of a house. Mr. Howe talked to the two men (James Hicks and James Garthwait) working with Mr. Kehr, and they reported that Mr. Kehr was paying them approximately $8.00 an hour. Mr. Kehr told Mr. Howe that Messrs. Hicks and Garthwait had been working for him for approximately two hours that morning. Mr. Kehr also stated that he had not obtained workers’ compensation coverage for Messrs. Hicks and Garthwait. Following those conversations, Mr. Howe returned to his car and accessed the Division’s Coverage and Compliance Automated System (“CCAS”) and learned that JNK had no workers’ compensation coverage. Mr. Howe also determined from CCAS that Mr. Kehr had obtained an exemption from workers’ compensation coverage that had been in effect from November 18, 2014, through November of 2016.2/ After relaying that information to his supervisor, Mr. Howe received authorization to serve Mr. Kehr with a Stop- Work Order, and he did so on December 10, 2015. That Stop-Work Order required JNK to “cease all business operations for all worksites in the State” based on the Division’s determination that JNK had failed to obtain workers’ compensation coverage. In addition, the Stop-Work Order stated that JNK would be penalized an amount “[e]qual to 2 times the amount [JNK] would have paid in premium when applying approved manual rates to the employer’s payroll during periods for which it [had] failed to secure the payment of compensation within the preceding 2-year period.” Along with the Stop-Work Order, Mr. Howe also served a “Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation” (“the BRR”) on Mr. Kehr. In order to ascertain JNK’s payroll disbursements during the relevant time period and the resulting penalty for JNK’s failure to obtain workers’ compensation coverage, the BRR requested that JNK remit several different types of business records covering the period from November 10, 2014, through December 10, 2015. Mr. Howe explained during the final hearing that the Division usually reviews business records pertaining to the two years preceding the Stop Work Order.3/ Because JNK came into existence on November 10, 2014, the Division’s review was limited to examining the period between November 10, 2014, and December 10, 2015. The business records sought by the Division included items such as time sheets, payroll summaries, check journals, certificates of exemption, and evidence that any JNK subcontractors had obtained workers’ compensation coverage. Section 440.107(7)(e) provides that if an employer fails to provide business records sufficient to enable the Department to ascertain the employer’s actual payroll for the time period in question, then the Division will estimate the employer’s actual payroll for that time period by imputing the employer’s payroll based on the statewide average weekly wage. The Division then multiplies that amount by two. JNK did not provide business records typically sought by the Division. Instead, JNK responded to the BRR by producing a written statement from Mr. Kehr indicating that he founded JNK in November of 2014, but did no work until July of 2015. That initial job involved fixing a set of stairs for $200. Afterwards, Mr. Kehr performed three separate small jobs between July and November of 2015, earning approximately $550. Because the Division could not ascertain JNK’s actual payroll from the documentation provided by JNK, the Division imputed JNK’s payroll for the time period in question and issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on January 19, 2016, seeking to impose a penalty of $61,424.04. Phillip Sley calculated the aforementioned penalty amount by filling out a worksheet that has been adopted by the Division through Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.027. The first step in completing the worksheet required Mr. Sley to assign a classification code to the type of work that Mr. Howe witnessed Messrs. Kehr, Hicks and Garthwait performing at the Port Orange worksite on December 10, 2015. Classification codes come from the Scopes® Manual, which has been adopted by the Department through rule 69L-6.021. Each code within the Scopes® Manual pertains to an occupation or type of work, and each code has an approved manual rate used by insurance companies to assist in the calculation of workers’ compensation insurance premiums. The imputed weekly payroll for each employee and corporate officer “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.” See Fla. Admin. Code. R. 69L-6.028(3)(d). In the instant case, Mr. Sley determined “5645” was the appropriate classification code. According to the Scopes Manual, [w]hen all of the carpentry work in connection with the construction of residential dwellings not exceeding three stories in height is performed by employees of the same carpentry contractor or general contractor responsible for the entire dwelling construction project, the work is assigned to Code 5645. This includes the construction of the sill, rough framework, rough floor, wood or light-gauge steel studs, wood or lighted-gauge steel joists, rafters, roof deck, all types of roofing materials, sidewall sheathing, siding, doors, wallboard installation, lathing, windows, stairs, finished flooring, cabinet installation, fencing, detached structures, and all interior wood trim. Mr. Sley’s next step in calculating the penalty amount was to determine the period of non-compliance. With regard to Mr. Kehr, the Department asserted that JNK failed to have workers’ compensation coverage between the date of JNK’s inception (November 10, 2014) and the date that Mr. Kehr received an exemption from the workers’ compensation coverage requirement (November 18, 2014). Despite having no evidence that Messrs. Hicks and Garthwait worked for JNK on any day other than December 10, 2015, the Division’s penalty calculation was based on an assumption that Messrs. Hicks and Garthwait worked for JNK from November 10, 2014, through December 10, 2015. Mr. Sley’s next step was to calculate JNK’s gross payroll for the time period in question. Because JNK did not provide the Division with business records that would have enabled the Division to calculate JNK’s actual payroll, Mr. Sley based JNK’s payroll on the statewide average weekly wage determined by the Department of Economic Opportunity for the time period in question.4/ Mr. Sley then multiplied that amount by two.5/ After converting the payroll numbers into a percentage, Mr. Sley multiplied the payroll amounts by the approved manual rate. As noted above, every classification code is associated with a particular manual rate determined by the Office of Insurance Regulation, and a manual rate corresponds to the risk associated with a particular occupation or type of work. Manual rates associated with potentially dangerous activities will have higher manual rates than activities with little or no potential danger. Mr. Sley’s next step was to calculate a premium for obtaining workers compensation coverage for Messrs. Kehr, Hicks, and Garthwait. Mr. Sley then multiplied that premium by two in order to calculate the individual penalties resulting from JNK not having workers’ compensation coverage for Messrs. Kehr, Hicks, and Garthwait. The sum of those amounts was $61,424.04. The evidence produced at the final hearing established that Mr. Sley utilized the correct class code, average weekly wage, and manual rates in his calculation of the penalty set forth in the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. The Division has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that JNK was in violation of the workers’ compensation coverage requirements of chapter 440. In particular, the Division proved by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Kehr had no workers’ compensation coverage for himself and no exemption from November 10, 2014, through November 17, 2014. However, the Division did not demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that Messrs. Hicks and Garthwait were employees of JNK on any day other than December 10, 2015. Mr. Kehr testified during the final hearing that Messrs. Hicks and Garthwait were working for him on December 10, 2015. He also testified that he was paying them at a rate of $8.00 an hour. However, Mr. Kehr persuasively testified that Messrs. Hicks and Garthwait had not worked for him at any other time between November 10, 2014, and December 10, 2015. The undersigned finds Mr. Kehr’s testimony on this point to be credible. Messrs. Hicks and Garthwait did not testify during the final hearing in this matter. There is no evidence that Messrs. Hicks and Garthwait worked for JNK at any time other than December 10, 2015. Because there is no evidence indicating that Messrs. Hicks and Garthwait were employees of JNK at any time other than December 10, 2015, during the time period in question, the undersigned finds that the Department failed to carry its burden of proving that $61,424.04 is the appropriate penalty. Based on the above findings, the undersigned finds that the correct penalty resulting from Mr. Kehr’s lack of coverage is $627.48. The worksheet completed by Mr. Sley indicates that is the amount of the $61,424.04 penalty associated with Mr. Kehr’s lack of coverage. As for the penalties associated with the lack of coverage for Messrs. Hicks and Garthwait on December 10, 2015, the undersigned multiplied the average weekly wage utilized by the Division ($841.57) by two. That results in a weekly gross payroll amount of $1,683.14. Dividing $1,683.14 by five results in a daily gross payroll amount of $336.63. Dividing $336.63 by 100 and then multiplying the result by 15.91 (the approved manual rate utilized by the Division for the period from January 1, 2015, through December 10, 2015) yields a daily premium of $53.62. Multiplying $53.62 by two results in a penalty of $107.23. Multiplying $107.23 by two yields $214.46, JNK’s penalty for not having workers’ compensation coverage for Messrs. Hicks and Garthwait on December 10, 2015. JNK’s total penalty is $841.94. Because section 440.107(7)(d)1. mandates a minimum penalty of $1,000, the undersigned finds that $1,000 is the correct penalty for the instant case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation enter a final order imposing impose a $1,000 penalty on Donald Kehr, d/b/a JNK Framing Inc., a Dissolved Florida Corporation. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of August, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S G. W. CHISENHALL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of August, 2016.
The Issue Whether Respondents violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by failing to secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage, as alleged in the Stop-Work Orders, and, if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with enforcing the requirement of chapter 440, Florida Statutes, that employers in Florida secure workers' compensation coverage for their employees. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Respondents are gas station/convenience stores located in South Florida. Northlake was created by Nazma Akter on May 6, 2014. MB was created by Ms. Akter on March 23, 2010. Congress Valero was created by Muhammad Saadat on July 21, 2011. Hena was created by Ms. Akter and Abu Ahsan on December 14, 2011. Hayma was created by Ms. Akter on December 14, 2011. Blue Heron was created by Ms. Akter on August 4, 2009. At all times relevant hereto, Respondents were duly-licensed to conduct business in the state of Florida. On February 2, 2015, the Department's Compliance Investigator Robert Feehrer, began a workers' compensation compliance investigation of Gardenia, LLC. Investigator Feehrer called the number listed for Gardenia, LLC, and was provided with a corporate office address. On February 10, 2015, upon arrival at Gardenia, LLC's, corporate office located at 165 US Highway 1, North Palm Beach, Florida, 33408, Investigator Feehrer spoke with Operations Manager Mohammad Hossain. Mr. Hossain stated that Gardenia, LLC, was a paper corporation and existed only for the purpose of paying unemployment taxes on the "six stores." Mr. Hossain went on to provide Investigator Feehrer with a list of Respondents and names of the employees that worked at each store. As an employee of Gardenia, LLC, and Respondents, Mr. Hossain's statements are party opponent admissions and bind Respondents. Lee v. Dep't of Health & Rehab. Servs., 698 So. 2d 1194, 1200 (Fla. 1997). With Mr. Hossain's statements and the list of Respondents' employees, Investigator Feehrer then consulted the Division of Corporations website, www.sunbiz.org, and confirmed that Respondents were current, active Florida companies. Investigator Feehrer then consulted the Department's Coverage and Compliance Automated System ("CCAS") for proof of workers' compensation coverage and exemptions associated with Respondents. Investigator Feehrer's CCAS search revealed that Respondents had no workers' compensation policies and no exemptions. On February 24, 2015, Investigator Feehrer conducted site visits at each of the six stores. Ms. Akter and Mr. Hossain accompanied Investigator Feehrer during these site visits. At all times material hereto, Ms. Akter was a corporate officer or managing member of each of the six Respondents. Muhammed Saadat and Abu Ahsan were corporate officers or managing members of Congress Valero, Hena, and Blue Heron. Kazi Ahamed was a corporate officer or managing member of Congress Valero and Hayma. Kazi Haider and Mohammed Haque were managing members of Hayma. All received compensation from the companies with which they were involved. Although Investigator Feehrer only personally observed one employee working at each location during his site visits, the payroll records revealed that at least four employees (including corporate officers or managing members without exemptions) received compensation for work at each location during the relevant period. Investigator Feehrer required additional information to determine compliance, and with Respondents' permission, contacted Respondents' accountant. Investigator Feehrer met with the accountant at least two times to obtain relevant information prior to March 30, 2015. Upon Ms. Akter's authorization, the accountant provided tax returns and payroll information for Respondents' employees. Information from Ms. Akter and Mr. Hossain also confirmed the specific employees at each of the six stores during the period of March 30, 2013, through March 30, 2015. On March 30, 2015, based on his findings, Investigator Feehrer served six Stop-Work Orders and Orders of Penalty Assessment. The Stop-Work Orders were personally served on Ms. Akter. Mr. Hossain was present as well and confirmed the lists of employees for each of the six stores were accurate. In April 2015, the Department assigned Penalty Auditor Christopher Richardson to calculate the six penalties assessed against Respondents. Respondent provided tax returns for the audit period and payroll transaction details were provided, as well as general ledgers/breakdowns, noting the employees for each Respondent company. Based on Investigator Feehrer's observations of the six stores on February 24, 2015, Auditor Richardson used the classification code 8061 listed in the Scopes® Manual, which has been adopted by the Department through Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.021(1). Classification code 8061 applies to employees of gasoline stations with convenience stores. Classification codes are four-digit codes assigned to various occupations by the National Council on Compensation Insurance to assist in the calculation of workers' compensation insurance premiums. In the penalty assessment, Auditor Richardson applied the corresponding approved manual rate for classification code 8061 for the related periods of non-compliance. The corresponding approved manual rate was correctly utilized using the methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)1. and rule 69L-6.027 to determine the final penalties. The Department correctly determined Respondents' gross payroll pursuant to the procedures required by section 440.107(7)(d) and rule 69L-6.027. On January 14, 2016, the Department served the six Amended Orders of Penalty Assessment on Respondents, assessing penalties of $1,367.06 for Northlake, $9,687.00 for MB, $12,651.42 for Congress Valero, $18,508.88 for Hena, $7,257.48 for Hayma, and $4,031.60 for Blue Heron. The Department has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Respondents were engaged in the gasoline station, self-service/convenience store industry in Florida during the periods of noncompliance; that Respondents failed to secure the payment of workers' compensation for their employees, as required by Florida's Workers' Compensation Law; and that the Department correctly utilized the methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)1. to determine the appropriate penalties.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a consolidated final order upholding the Stop-Work Orders and the Amended Orders of Penalty Assessment in the amounts of $1,367.06 for Northlake Mobile Enterprises, Inc.; $9,687.00 for MB Food and Beverage, Inc.; $12,651.42 for Congress Valero, Inc.; $18,508.88 for Hena Enterprises, Inc.; $7,257.48 for Hayma Enterprises, Inc.; and $4,031.60 for Blue Heron BP, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of June, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of June, 2016.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Axiom Construction Design Corporation (Axiom), 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 the various requirements of chapter 440, Florida Statutes. Section 440.107(3) mandates, in relevant part, that employers in Florida must secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage for their employees. At all times relevant, Axiom was a small Florida corporation engaged in the construction industry, principally installing drywall. Axiom’s principal office is located at 1067 Walt Williams Road, Lakeland, Florida. Mr. Pratt is Axiom’s owner, sole corporate officer, and registered agent. On July 23, 2014, Randall Durham conducted a job site workers’ compensation compliance investigation (Compliance Investigation). Mr. Durham spoke with Mr. Pratt at a job site at 109 Cattleman Road, the new Sarasota mall. Mr. Pratt and Al Lappohn were working the job site at the new mall. Mr. Pratt had a workers’ compensation policy in place with Southeast Personnel Leasing. Mr. Lappohn did not have an exemption from workers’ compensation coverage, and he was not covered by Axiom’s Southeast Personnel Leasing policy. On July 23, 2014, Mr. Pratt, as Axiom’s representative, was hand-served a Stop-Work Order1/ and a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation (Request). This Request encompassed all of Axiom’s payroll documents, account documents, disbursements, workers’ compensation coverage policies, and professional employer organization records from January 4, 2013, through July 23, 2014. Mr. Pratt provided the certificates of liabilities, payroll and tax records for 2013, and additional business records to the Department. These records were given to Mr. Knopke to calculate the penalty. In reviewing the records, Mr. Knopke determined that Mr. Pratt, Mr. Lappohn and Frank Cutts were employees of Axiom, and that Axiom did not provide workers’ compensation coverage for them. Mr. Cutts worked for Axiom at a Family Dollar Store build-out in Orlando in early 2014. Mr. Cutts swept up after the drywall was installed in the store, and was paid $125. Axiom conceded it owed the workers’ compensation penalty based on the work Mr. Lappohn and Mr. Cutts performed. The business records provided that during the audit period Mr. Pratt had dual employment, payment being paid outside of leasing. Dual employment is when a business has a leasing policy and there is extraneous payroll that is paid outside of the leasing policy. Payments received outside of a leasing policy are considered unsecured payroll for the purposes of calculating a penalty against an employer. Mr. Knopke included Mr. Pratt’s outside distributions in the penalty calculation. The “Scopes Manual” is published by the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc. (NCCI), the nation’s most authoritative data collecting and disseminating organization for workers’ compensation. The manual contains certain codes related to the construction industry and trades considered to be within that industry. The installation of drywall, wallboard, sheetrock, plasterboard or cement board is considered to be “construction” under the relevant codes in the manual. The manual, with its codes and classifications, is relied upon in the insurance industry and has been adopted by the Department in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.021. Mr. Knopke, using the manual, determined the appropriate classification code for Respondent’s employees was 5445. Mr. Knopke applied the correct rates and used the methodology found in section 440.107(7)(d)1., and Florida Administrative Code Rules 69L-6.027 and 69L-6.028 to calculate the penalty assessment. Based upon the testimony and exhibits, the 3rd Amended Penalty Assessment in the amount of $20,221.62 is accurate and correct.
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 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and assess a penalty in the amount of $20,221.62. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of June, 2015, 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 2nd day of June, 2015.
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 The issue is whether Respondent is liable for a penalty of $286,400.01 for the alleged failure to maintain workers’ compensation insurance for its employees in violation of Subsection 440.107(7)(d), Florida Statutes (2008).1
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure the payment of workers’ compensation for the benefit of their employees in accordance with the requirements of Section 440.107. Respondent is a Florida corporation engaged in the construction business. On May 19, 2009, Petitioner's investigator inspected one of Respondent's job sites located at 6665 Mirabella Lane, Naples, Florida. The purpose of the inspection was to determine whether Respondent was in compliance with workers' compensation requirements. The investigator observed workers laying concrete block in a residential development under construction. The investigator interviewed the workers and learned the identity of the individual owner of Respondent. The investigator determined through the Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) that Respondent had secured workers' compensation coverage. However, Respondent maintained minimum coverage identified in the record as an "if any" policy. An "if any" policy imposes a premium based on zero employees and zero payroll and requires Respondent to notify the insurer of any new employees within three days of being hired. Respondent had reported no workers to his workers' compensation carrier, but had reported 54 employees for purposes of unemployment compensation taxes.2 None of the individuals reported for unemployment compensation taxes had secured workers' compensation coverage for themselves. Respondent is liable for workers' compensation for the 54 workers described in the preceding paragraph, which the trier of fact finds are employees of Respondent. None of the workers has an exemption from workers' compensation coverage. Petitioner correctly calculated the amount owed by Respondent, which is $286,400.01.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order imposing a penalty assessment in the amount of $286,400.01. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of July, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of July, 2010.
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.
