The Issue The issue is whether the Stop-Work Order and 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued by Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation (Department), on July 1, 2015, and February 29, 2016, respectively, should be upheld.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the various requirements of chapter 440. Respondent is a Florida corporation with offices located at 1904 28th Avenue North, St. Petersburg, Florida. The company is engaged in the construction business, and its activities fall within the statutory definition of "construction industry." See § 440.02(8), Fla. Stat. Respondent also does business under the name of M & M Construction of South Florida, but both are the same corporate entity with the same Federal Employer Identification Number and use the same bank accounts. Respondent's assertion that the two are separate and work done under the "d/b/a" name cannot be used to establish liability under chapter 440 is rejected. On July 1, 2015, Munal Abedrabbo, a Department compliance inspector, made a random inspection of a job site at 4115 East Busch Boulevard, Tampa, where remodeling work on a commercial building was being performed. When he entered the premises, Mr. Abedrabbo observed Bernard Reed on a ladder painting an interior ceiling. After identifying himself, he informed Mr. Reed that he needed to verify his insurance coverage. Mr. Abedrabbo was directed to Mr. Cook, Respondent's vice-president and part owner, who acknowledged that he was the general contractor on the job and had three employees/painters working that day, Reed, James Dabnes, and John Russell. Mr. Cook informed the inspector that the three employees were leased from Paychek, Inc., an employee leasing company, and that firm provided workers' compensation coverage for the leased employees. Mr. Abedrabbo returned to his vehicle and accessed on his computer the Department of State, Division of Corporations, Sunbiz website to verify Respondent's status as a corporation. After verifying that it was an active corporation, he then checked the Department's Coverage and Compliance Automated System to verify whether Respondent had a workers' compensation policy or any exemptions. He was unable to find any active policy for Respondent, as the most recent policy had lapsed in January 2013. Mr. Cook has an exemption, covering the period October 20, 2014, through October 19, 2016, but the exemption is with a different company, Thomas Cook Carpenter, LLC. Mr. Abedrabbo spoke again with Mr. Cook and informed him that Department records showed no insurance coverage for his employees. Mr. Cook telephoned Paychek, Inc., and then confirmed that the three painters had no workers' compensation insurance. Mr. Cook explained that before he allowed Mr. Reed to begin work, Mr. Reed had shown him an insurance certificate that turned out to be "falsified," and then "conveniently lost it" when the inspector appeared. He also explained his firm "was caught with our pants down once before" and he did not want it to happen again. For that reason, he contended he was especially careful in hiring leased employees. Even so, he does not deny that Respondent has had no insurance in place since January 2013 and Paychek, Inc., failed to provide coverage. The Department issued a Stop Work Order and Penalty Assessment the same day. To determine the amount of Respondent's unsecured payroll for purposes of assessing a penalty in accordance with section 440.107(7)(d)(1), Florida Statutes, the Department requested Respondent to provide business records for the preceding two years. This period of non-compliance is appropriate, as Respondent was actively working in the construction industry during that time period without securing insurance. The request informed Mr. Cook that if complete records were not provided, the Department would use the imputation formula found in section 440.107(7)(e) to calculate the penalty. After reviewing the information provided by Respondent, on August 18, 2015, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in the amount of $114,144.52 for the period July 7, 2014, through June 30, 2015. Based on two depositions of Mr. Cook, a 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in the amount of $105,663.48 was issued on February 29, 2016. The Department penalty auditor calculated the final penalty assessment using the "imputed" method because insufficient business records were provided to determine Respondent's payroll for all relevant time periods, except the month of October 2014. In addition to missing bank statements and check images, Respondent failed to provide its entire second bank account. Although Mr. Cook contends some records were in the possession of M & M Construction of South Florida, and he could not access them in a timely manner, this does not excuse Respondent's failure to timely produce all relevant records. Under the imputed method, the penalty auditor used the average weekly wage ($841.57) times two to determine Respondent's payroll for the imputed portions. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.028(2); § 440.107(7)(e), Fla. Stat. The gross payroll was then divided by 100 in order to be multiplied by the applicable approved manual rates. The Department applied the proper methodology in computing the penalty assessment. A class code is a numerical code, usually four digits, assigned to differentiate between the various job duties or scope of work performed by the employees. The codes were derived from the Scopes Manual Classifications (Manual), a publication that lists all of the various jobs that may be performed in the context of workers' compensation. The Manual is produced by the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc., an authoritative data collecting and disseminating organization for workers' compensation. The Manual provides that class code 5474 applies to painters who perform painting activities. Reed, Dabnes, and Russell were assigned this code. Mr. Cook agrees this code is correct. Mr. Cook was assigned class code 5606 (construction executive) and placed on the penalty assessment because he is an owner of the corporation and was managing the work. Although Mr. Cook argues he had an exemption and should not be placed on the assessment, Department records reflect that Mr. Cook had an exemption with a different company during the audit period. Therefore, his inclusion in the employee census was correct. Because Respondent's business records included checks written to Kerry Francum for tile work, he was assigned class code 5348 (tile work) and placed on the penalty assessment as an employee. At his deposition, Mr. Cook acknowledged that Francum performed tile work for his firm and was an employee. At hearing, Mr. Cook changed his testimony and contended Francum was only a material supplier, not a subcontractor, and should not be on the penalty assessment. This assertion has not been accepted. Mr. Francum's inclusion on the assessment is appropriate. Respondent's business records also indicated a check was written to Kerry Randall, a tile subcontractor. At hearing, however, Mr. Cook established, without contradiction, that because of Mr. Randall's violent temper, he was paid a one-time fee of $1,000.00 and let go before he performed any work. Mr. Randall should be removed from the assessment. The Department has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is correct, less any amount owed for Mr. Randall.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order assessing Respondent the penalty in the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, less any amount owed for Mr. Randall. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of November, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER 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 21st day of November, 2016.
Findings Of Fact 10. The factual allegations contained in the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment issued on February 17, 2009, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on May 19, 2009, and the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on June 5, 2009, which are fully incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted as the Department’s Findings of Fact in this case.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment act by discriminating against Petitioner on the basis of race in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Westbrooks is an African-American female. In 2000, Ms. Westbrooks began her employment with the City in a billing position in Customer Service as an Account Clerk. She performed very well in that position and received an above satisfactory rating. In 2002, a Junior Accountant position became available, and Ms. Westbrooks applied for the position. The position description for a Junior Accountant indicates that the position’s duties included “Professional accounting work covering all fixed assets accounting and reporting.” Further, the position description indicates that the minimum qualifications consisted of the following: Associate’s degree in Accounting or related field, with some work experience in an accounting environment OR An equivalent combination of training and experience which provides the required knowledge, skills and abilities. Carlos Perez, the City’s Finance Director and a Certified Public Accountant (CPA), performed the hiring for the Junior Accountant position. He hired Ms. Westbrooks for the Junior Accountant position. Mr. Perez considered Ms. Westbrooks’ performance in the Junior Accountant position as excellent. She consistently received performance ratings of above satisfactory and merit increases. In 2006, an Accountant position became available. The City advertised the position. The announcement for the position indicated that the position’s duties included “complex technical work performing professional accounting work covering all phases of account maintenance, classification, analysis, and expenditure control of all phases of City wide fiscal transactions.” Further, the announcement indicated that the minimum requirements for the position were: Bachelors degree in Accounting, Finance or a closely related field with major coursework in accounting . . . plus one to two years experience in accounting. OR An equivalent combination of training and experience which provides the required knowledge, skills, and abilities. Moreover, the announcement provided that “Only those applicants who most closely meet the specific requirements for the position will be contacted for an interview.” Ms. Westbrooks applied for the Accountant position. No dispute exists that Ms. Westbrooks does not possess a bachelor’s degree in accounting. She has an Associates in Arts (AA) degree in Business Administration, which she obtained in 1993. At all times material hereto, the City had a tuition reimbursement program, wherein an employee of the City could obtain a degree and receive tuition reimbursement for obtaining the degree. Ms. Westbrooks was aware of the reimbursement program but chose not to avail herself of it in order to obtain a bachelor’s degree in accounting. However, she did avail herself of the program to obtain certifications associated with her position as a Junior Accountant. No dispute exists that Ms. Westbrooks met the minimum requirements for the Accountant position, satisfying the alternative requirement of equivalent combination of training and experience. Ms. Westbrooks was provided an interview. An interview panel conducted the interviews and rated the applicants, who were interviewed, on a scale of 0 through 5. The interview panel consisted of the City’s Chief Accountant, Budget Administrator, and Pension Administrator. Only the applicants who had an overall rating of 3.0 or higher on the interview were submitted by the City’s Personnel Administration Director, Rebecca Jones, to Mr. Perez. Ms. Jones is an African American and is female. Mr. Perez makes the final decision as to who is hired for accounting positions. He was the final decision-maker for this Accounting position. Mr. Perez is not African American. Only three persons received an overall interview rating of 3.0 or higher. Ms. Westbrooks was one of the three persons, and she received the highest interview score. On December 6, 2006, Ms. Jones submitted to Mr. Perez the names of the three persons, with their interview scores: Laura Westbrooks 4.0 Ronald Castrillo 3.4 Bayard Louis 3.3 Mr. Perez had never hired an accountant who did not have a four-year college degree, i.e., a bachelor’s degree, regardless of race. His position was that the person hired for the Accountant position, and all of his accountants, needed a four-year college degree because that person, as all of his accountants, would be fourth in line to head the Finance Department, as Acting Finance Director, behind himself, the Assistant Finance Director, and the Chief Accountant—at least once a year he (Mr. Perez), the Assistant Finance Director, and the Chief Accountant all attend a conference together; and that a person with a four-year college degree has the technical ability needed to perform in the position, whereas, a person without a four-year degree would not have the technical ability needed. Further, as to the accounting focus of a junior accountant position versus an accountant position, a junior accountant’s focus is fixed assets, whereas, accountants are involved with all aspects of accounting, which includes and goes beyond fixed assets. Mr. Perez had made Ms. Westbrooks aware of his position, regarding accountants, during her tenure in the Junior Accountant position. Ms. Jones did not consider Mr. Perez’s position and action, regarding the hiring of accountants, as being discriminatory. Mr. Perez’s final requirement of a four-year college degree in order to be hired by him as an accountant became the City’s requirement. Mr. Perez offered the Accountant position to Mr. Castrillo who had an AA degree in Business Administration, a Bachelor’s degree in Accounting and who was scheduled to graduate the following semester with a Master’s degree in Accounting. However, Mr. Castrillo did not accept the position due to the failure to agree on a salary. The Accountant position was re-advertised. Ms. Westbrooks remained eligible for the Accountant position and was, therefore, in the pool of applicants to be considered; but was not re-interviewed because the interview questions did not change On March 8, 2007, Ms. Jones submitted to Mr. Perez the names of the applicants who had an overall rating of 3.0 or higher on the interview, together with their interview scores: Tricia Beerom 4.0 Sampson Okeke 3.4 Mirtha Servat 3.3 Mr. Perez hired Ms. Beerom for the Accountant position. Ms. Beerom had a Bachelor of Science degree in Accounting and Management and was an African-American female. Ms. Westbrooks believed that she was not afforded an opportunity to advance because of Mr. Perez’s position regarding accountants possessing a four-year degree and that, therefore, she was discriminated against. However, even though the City had a policy against discrimination and a procedure to file discrimination complaints, she chose not to proceed through the City’s discrimination process because she had no faith in the City. Ms. Westbrooks believed that she was not going to be treated fairly by the City in any attempt by her to achieve upward mobility, which caused her to continuously experience stress, which negatively impacted her health. She eventually resigned from the City. Ms. Westbrooks’ resignation was effective May 4, 2007. At the time of her resignation, Ms. Westbrooks’ salary was $40,000. After her resignation, she received her contributions to the City’s retirement system in the amount of approximately $13,000. In September 2008, over a year after her resignation from the City, Ms. Westbrooks obtained employment with the University of Miami, School of Medicine, as a Grant and Contracts Specialist, with a salary of $41,500. Ms. Westbrooks did not identify any employees who were in classified positions as herself, who were or were not African American and who had upward mobility in positions, and who did not have four-year college degrees. Classified positions are protected by the City’s Civil Service rules and must be advertised. Ms. Westbrooks did identify City employees who were in unclassified positions, not a classified position like herself, i.e., directors and city manager, who did not have four-year college degrees, and who were and were not African American. Unclassified positions are not protected by the City’s Civil Service rules and need not be advertised. The city manager hires all department directors. No dispute exists that, at all times material hereto, a former Director of Purchasing was a white female and a long term employee, who had an AA, not a four-year degree, and who was promoted through the ranks; a Director of Public Works was a white male and a long-term employee, who had an AA, not a four- year degree, and who was promoted through the ranks. No dispute exists that the City’s City Manager is an African-American male who does not have a four-year college degree. No dispute exists that, at all times material hereto, all of the City’s Department Directors, who are African American, have four-year college degrees. The EEOC instituted an “E-RACE Initiative (Eradicating Racism and Colorism from Employment)” and developed a “set of detailed E-RACE goals and objectives to be achieved within a five-year timeframe from FY [fiscal year] 2008 to FY [fiscal year] 2013.” Included in the E-RACE Initiative, were “Best Practices for Employers and Human Resources/EEO Professionals,” which included best practices for recruitment, hiring and promotion. The E-RACE Initiative was implemented by the EEOC subsequent to the action complained of by Ms. Westbrooks and was not demonstrated to be federal law, rule, or regulation; and was, therefore, not shown to have the force or impact of law. The E-RACE Initiative is not applicable to the instant case.
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 finding that the City of North Miami did not commit a discriminating employment practice against Laura A. Westbrooks in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended, by failing to hire her for an accounting position. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of September, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of September, 2009.
Conclusions THIS PROCEEDING came on for final agency action and Alex Sink, Chief Financial Officer of the State of Florida, or her designee, having considered the record in this case, including the request for administrative hearing received from L & T BUILDING, LLC, the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby finds that: 1. On December 28, 2009, the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (hereinafter “Department”) issued a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 09-361-1A to L & T BUILDING, LLC. The Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein L & T BUILDING, LLC was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, and must conform to Rule 28-106.2015, Florida Administrative Code. 2. On December 28, 2009, the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment was personally served on L & T BUILDING, LLC. A copy of the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit A” and incorporated herein by reference. 3. On January 11, 2010, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to L & T BUILDING, LLC. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $381,102.00 against L & T BUILDING, LLC. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein L & T BUILDING, LLC was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, and must conform to Rule 28-106.2015, Florida Administrative Code. 4. On January 19, 2010, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was personally served on L & T BUILDING, LLC. A copy of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit B” and incorporated herein by reference. 5. On February 22, 2010, the Department issued a 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to L & T BUILDING, LLC. The 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $40,371.25 against L & T BUILDING, LLC. The 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein L & T BUILDING, LLC was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, and must conform to Rule 28-106.2015, Florida Administrative Code. 6. On February 22, 2010, the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was personally served on L & T BUILDING, LLC. A copy of the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit C” and incorporated herein by reference. 7. On March 1, 2010, the Department issued a 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to L & T BUILDING, LLC. The 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $42,371.25 against L & T BUILDING, LLC. The 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein L & T BUILDING, LLC was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the 3rd . Amended Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, and must conform to Rule 28-106.2015, Florida Administrative Code. 8. On May 5, 2010, the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was personally served on L & T BUILDING, LLC. A copy of the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit D” and incorporated herein by reference. 9. On May 26, 2010, L & T BUILDING, LLC filed a petition for administrative review (“Petition”) with the Department which was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned DOAH Case No. 10-3301. A copy of the Petition is attached hereto as “Exhibit E”. . 10. On August 17, 2010, counsel for L & T BUILDING, LLC filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of L & T BUILDING, LLC’s Petition with the Division of Administrative Hearings. As a result, Administrative Law Judge S.D. Cleavinger entered an Order Closing File, relinquishing jurisdiction of this matter to the Department. A copy of the Order Closing File is attached hereto as “Exhibit F”. | FINDINGS OF FACT 11. The factual allegations contained in the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment issued on December 28, 2009, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on January 11, 2010, the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on February 22, 2010, and the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on March 1, 2010, attached as “Exhibit A”, “Exhibit B”, “Exhibit C“, and “Exhibit D”, respectively, and fully incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted as the Department’s Findings of Fact in this case.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Elite Restoration and Construction, LLC (Respondent), violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes,1/ by failing to secure the payment of workers’ compensation, as alleged in the Stop-Work Order and Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment; and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure the payment of workers' compensation for the benefit of their employees and corporate officers. Respondent is an active Florida corporation that was formed on August 28, 2009, with a principal address of 7185 West Village Drive, Homosassa, Florida 34446. Respondent was engaged in business operations in the state of Florida during the entire period of November 2, 2014, to November 1, 2016. Brian Johnson (Respondent’s owner or Mr. Johnson) is Respondent's sole shareholder, owning 100 percent of the stock. The Department's investigator, Michael Robinson, commenced a random worksite compliance investigation on November 1, 2016, at a gas station at 970 Atlantic Boulevard, Jacksonville, Florida 32225. He observed Respondent's owner, Mr. Johnson, and three others, Tim Neeld, Derrick Windier, and James Ingash, painting a metal canopy covering the gas pumps. Mr. Johnson told the investigator that his company, Elite Restoration & Construction, LLC, was a subcontractor for Aluminum Plus of DeLand, Florida. By searching the Division's Coverage and Compliance Automated System, the investigator determined that Brian Johnson obtained a workers' compensation exemption on October 12, 2016, or 20 days prior to the investigation, and further determined that an employee leasing contract previously held by Respondent terminated on January 15, 2015, which is more than nine months prior to the investigation. Mr. Johnson confirmed that Respondent had an exemption for himself, effective October 12, 2016, but did not have any workers' compensation insurance for its employees. On November 1, 2016, after consulting with a supervisor, the Department's investigator issued the Stop-Work Order, which was posted at Respondent's worksite and personally served upon Respondent’s owner. On the same day, the investigator also personally served the Request for Production, which requested business records to determine Respondent's payroll during the two-year penalty period proscribed by section 440.107(7)(d)1., which in this case is from November 2, 2014, to November 1, 2016. The Request for Production explicitly states that the requested records must be provided within 10 business days from receipt of the request. Respondent obtained an Agreed Order of Conditional Release from the Stop-Work Order on November 8, 2016, by terminating the three workers observed during the compliance investigation who did not have workers’ compensation coverage and paying the Department a $1,000 down payment toward the penalty that would be calculated in this case. Respondent produced business records for penalty calculation on November 17, 2016, and February 28, 2017, which is beyond the 10-day time period required by the Request for Production.2/ The Department's penalty auditor, Lynne Murcia, used those records to calculate a $21,475.30 penalty for failing to comply with the workers' compensation insurance requirements of chapter 440. On April 20, 2017, when Respondent’s owner came to the Department’s Jacksonville office, he was personally served with the Amended Penalty and advised of his right to seek administrative review of the Stop-Work Order and Amended Penalty. Mr. Johnson filed a petition for hearing on behalf of Respondent on May 5, 2017, stating that the penalty calculated was wrong because it included income earned in states other than Florida. Respondent produced additional business records on May 17, August 21, and August 31, 2017, for the purpose of demonstrating that a portion of his company’s payroll was derived from work completed at worksites outside of Florida, and arguing that the out-of-state payroll should not be included in the penalty calculation. The invoices showed $182,056.78 in total income, consisting of $77,268 from 14 jobs in Florida, and $104,788.60 for 14 jobs outside of the State of Florida. Upon initial review, the Department’s auditor declined to make any adjustments because the invoices did not provide information showing earnings of specific employees for jobs outside of Florida. Thereafter, Mr. Johnson produced additional records that allowed the Department’s auditor to trace out-of-state employment to transactions in Respondent’s general ledger. The Department's auditor reviewed Respondent's additional records and removed out-of-state payroll and per diem payments. In accordance with that review, the Department issued the 2nd Amended Penalty which reduced the penalty to $16,671.14. The 2nd Amended Penalty also reduced the 2016 payroll attributed to Respondent's owner. Respondent was an "employer" in the state of Florida, as that term is defined in section 440.02(16), from November 2, 2014, to November 1, 2016. Respondent did not secure the payment of workers' compensation insurance coverage, nor have others secured the payment of workers' compensation insurance coverage for the employees listed on the penalty worksheet of the 2nd Amended Penalty during the periods of noncompliance listed on the penalty worksheet. None of the employees listed on the penalty worksheet of the 2nd Amended Penalty had a valid Florida workers' compensation coverage exemption during the periods of noncompliance listed on the penalty worksheet. In the past, Respondent had an employee leasing contract with Southeast Personnel Leasing, Inc. That contract was terminated on January 15, 2015, due to the leasing company’s concerns about out-of-state employment that would not be covered by the leasing company's workers' compensation insurance. None of the employees listed on the penalty worksheet of the 2nd Amended Penalty were "independent contractors" as that term is defined in section 440.02(15)(d)1. None of the employees listed on the penalty worksheet of the 2nd Amended Penalty were employees of a temporary labor company. Employees on the penalty worksheet of the 2nd Amended Penalty are correctly classified under Class Code 5474, painting, as defined in the "Scopes Manual" published by the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc. (NCCI), and adopted in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.021(2)(jj). The approved manual rates used in the penalty worksheet of the 2nd Amended Penalty, as defined by the NCCI Scopes Manual and adopted by the Office of Insurance Regulation, are the correct manual rates for the corresponding periods of noncompliance listed on the penalty worksheet. In calculating the 2nd Amended Penalty, the Department’s auditor used the worksheet required by rule 69L-6.027, along with Respondent’s bank statements, check images, general ledger, and tax returns filed with the Internal Revenue Service. The auditor capped Respondent’s owner’s pay for that portion of 2014 falling within the penalty period because his salary and dividend totaling $73,484 in 2014 exceeded the statewide average of $862.51 per week or $44,850.52 per year. She also adjusted the period of noncompliance for Mr. Johnson, pursuant to rule 69L-6.028(2), because he obtained an exemption from Florida’s Workers’ Compensation Law on October 12, 2016. The auditor explained that she used Respondent’s tax returns for 2014 and 2015 because she believed they were the most reliable indication of salaries and wages, officer compensation, and payroll for outside services and subcontractors. She further explained that she used Respondent’s tax returns and general ledger as the most accurate sources for determining payroll for 2016. The auditor’s explanation is reasonable and credited. Mr. Johnson questioned the auditor’s method of determining payroll and offered alternative methods using spreadsheets he created to identify what he called “member draws” and other summaries. The invoices provided by Respondent to the Department, however, do not match the summaries; and Respondent’s method of determining payroll, when compared to the method utilized by the Department, is not accurate or reliable. The auditor’s method reflected in the 2nd Amended Penalty appropriately applied approved manual rates corresponding to Class Code 5474, painting, to determine the evaded workers’ compensation insurance premium. Then, the evaded premium was properly multiplied by two in accordance with section 440.107(7)(d)1.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order, consistent with this Recommended Order, upholding the Stop-Work Order and imposing the penalty set forth in the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment against Elite Restoration and Construction, LLC. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of February, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of February, 2018.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2016), by failing to secure payment of workers’ compensation coverage, as alleged in the Stop-Work Order for Specific Worksite Only (“SWO”) and Amended Order of Penalty Assessment (“AOPA”); and, if so, whether Petitioner correctly calculated the proposed penalty assessment against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Background The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement of the Workers' Compensation Law that employers secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage for their employees and corporate officers. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. The Department is the agency responsible for conducting random inspections of jobsites and investigating complaints concerning potential violations of workers’ compensation rules. Allstate is a corporation engaged in business in the State of Florida. Allstate was organized on May 23, 2005. Edgar A. Ezelle is the president and registered owner of Allstate. The address of record for Allstate is 8217 Firetower Road, Jacksonville, Florida 32210. In March 2017, Respondent was hired as the general contractor to renovate a hotel at a jobsite located at 3050 Reedy Creek Boulevard. When Respondent accepted the project, Prestige Handyworkers, LLC (“Prestige”), a subcontractor, was working on the jobsite. Although Prestige was hired by the previous general contractor, Respondent continued to work with Prestige. On June 15, 2017, the Department’s investigator, Kirk Glover, conducted a routine visit to the jobsite to conduct a compliance investigation. Mr. Glover observed six individuals performing construction-related work at the site. Mr. Glover conducted an interview of the individuals and took notes during the course of his interviews. Mr. Glover identified the individuals as: Luis Miguel Paz; Joseph A. Pizzuli; Roger Penley, Jr.; Georgios Rapanakis; Stavros Georgios Rapanakis; and Joseph Youngs. The six individuals were employed by subcontractor Prestige to perform work on behalf of Allstate. Luis Miguel Paz, Joseph A. Pizzuli, and Roger Penley, Jr., were engaged in painting work; Georgios Rapanakis and Stavros Georgios Rapanakis were supervising the other workers; and Joseph Youngs was engaged in cleanup of the construction site. The workers did not testify at the final hearing. Mr. Glover then contacted Allstate president, Edward Ezelle, who confirmed he was the general contractor for the jobsite and that he retained Prestige as the subcontractor for the site. Mr. Glover conducted a search of the Department’s Coverage and Compliance Automated System (“CCAS”), which revealed that Respondent did not have active workers’ compensation coverage for Prestige or its employees. Prestige did not have workers’ compensation coverage for its employees. The search of CCAS revealed that Mr. Ezelle had an active workers’ compensation coverage exemption, effective July 27, 2015, through July 26, 2017. Based on the results of his investigation, on June 16, 2017, Mr. Glover issued an SWO to Allstate for failure to maintain workers’ compensation coverage for its employees. On June 19, 2017, Mr. Glover hand-served a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculations (“Records Request”). The Records Request directed Respondent to produce business records for the time period of June 16, 2015, through June 15, 2017. Respondent did not provide any business records to the Department. Mr. Ezelle testified that Allstate did not conduct business in Florida for the period of September 2016 through March 2017. While the undersigned has no reason to doubt Mr. Ezelle’s testimony that his business was not active during that time period, Respondent failed to produce records in response to the Records Request to support his testimony. Penalty Assessment To calculate the penalty assessment, the Department uses a two-year auditing period looking back from the date of the SWO, June 16, 2017, also known as the look-back period. Generally, the Department uses business records to calculate the penalty assessment. If the employer does not produce records sufficient to determine payroll for employees, the Department uses the imputed payroll to assess the penalty as required by section 440.107(7)(e) and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.028. Eunika Jackson, a Department penalty auditor, was assigned to calculate the penalty assessment for Respondent. Based upon Mr. Glover’s observations at the jobsite on June 16, 2017, Ms. Jackson assigned National Council on Compensation Insurance (“NCCI”) classification code 5474 to calculate the penalty. Classification code 5474 applies to work involving painting. Ms. Jackson applied the approved manual rates for classification 5474 for each of the six individuals working on the jobsite. The application of the rates was utilized by the methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)1. and rule 69L- 6.027 to determine the penalty assessment. The manual rate applied in this case was $11.05 for the period of June 16, 2015, through December 31, 2015; and $11.02 for the period of January 1, 2016, through June 15, 2017. The statewide average weekly wage, effective January 1, 2017, was used to calculate the penalty assessment. Georgios Rapanakis and Starvos Georgios Rapanakis had a workers’ compensation exemption for the period of June 16, 2015, through June 10, 2016. However, they were not covered by an exemption from June 11, 2016, through June 15, 2017. Although Mr. Ezelle has an exemption, his exemption was not in effect for a short period of July 19, 2015, through July 26, 2015. None of the other employees had an exemption. Based upon the Department’s calculation, the penalty assessment for the imputed payroll would be $153,908.20. On November 17, 2017, the Department filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Order of Penalty Assessment (“Motion for Leave to Amend”). The Department sought leave from the undersigned to amend the penalty assessment. The Department, as a party, is not authorized to amend a penalty without leave from the undersigned after the matter was filed with the Division. See § 120.569(2)(a) and Fla. Admin. Code R. 28-106.202. Despite the AOPA reflecting an issued date of July 14, 2017, the record supports a finding that the AOPA was issued November 17, 2017, the date the undersigned granted the Department’s Motion for Leave to Amend. Thus, the Department issued the AOPA for the imputed payroll 105 business days after Respondent received the Records Request.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order as follows: finding that Respondent failed to secure and maintain workers’ compensation coverage for its subcontractors; and dismissing the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of January, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN 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 26th day of January, 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: Christina Pumphrey, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 (eServed) Edgar Ezelle Allstate Custom Contracting, Inc. 8217 Firetower Road Jacksonville, Florida 32210 Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 (eServed)
The Issue Whether 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.
Findings Of Fact Tooze holds certificate number R-0434 as a Certified Public Accountant practicing in the State of Florida and held such certificate in good standing on January 1, 1974. At that time, Tooze was subject to professional certification requirements set forth in Chapter 473, Florida Statutes. The records of the Board reflect that Tooze provided no evidence of the completion of any courses or studies that would give him credits toward the reestablishment of his professional competency in the period between January 1, 1974, and April 2, 1977. On October 15, 1976, Tooze sat for an examination which was approved by the Board and given to practicing Certified Public Accountants pursuant to applicable law requiring re- establishment of professional competency. Tooze received a score of 64 out of a possible score of 100. The established passing grade for the examination is 75. Tooze received nine credit hours for the examination he took. On May 13, 1977, the Board suspended Tooze's certificate R-0434 as a Certified Public Accountant for failing to comply with requirements for the reestablishment of his professional knowledge and competency to practice public accounting. The questions to be answered in the uniform written professional examination administered to Tooze on October 15, 1976, were based upon "Current Authoritative Literature" which included Accounting Principles Board's Opinions, Accounting Research Bulletins, Statements and Interpretations of the Financial Accounting standards Board, Statements on Auditing standards, and the Laws and Rules of the Florida State Board of Accountancy. Tooze challenges sixteen of these one hundred questions on the grounds that the approved answers are incorrect and that the answer selected by Tooze is the proper choice. The questions attacked by Tooze are numbers 13, IS, 18, 51, 56, 61, 63, 67, 72, 74, 78, 80, 82, 95, 96 and 99. The title of the uniform written professional examination is "Examination of Current Authoritative Accounting and Auditing Literature and Rules of the Florida State Board of Accountancy. The approved answer to each of the questions on the examination is that which is mandated by the "Current Authoritative Literature." The examination does not purport to seek answers outside of the requirements of the Current Authoritative Literature. Each of the approved answers in the sixteen questions listed above are consistent with the demands of the Current Authoritative Literature. Each of Tooze's answers is contrary to the provisions of the Current Authoritative Literature. Accordingly, the answers selected by Tooze are not the best answers and were properly graded incorrect on his examination answer sheet.
Findings Of Fact The factual allegations contained in the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment issued on February 25, 2009, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on March 2, 2009, the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on March 6, 2009, the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on April 20, 2009, and the 4th Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on September 21, 2009, attached as "Exhibit A," "Exhibit B," "Exhibit C," Exhibit "D," and Exhibit "F," respectively, and fully incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted as the Department's Findings of Fact in this case.
Conclusions THIS PROCEEDING came on for final agency action and Jeff Atwater, Chief Financial Officer of the State of Florida, or his designee, having considered the record in this case, including the request for administrative hearing received from LUIS AMAYA, D/B/A MAY I HELP YOU HANDYMAN SERVICE, CORP, A DISSOLVED FLORIDA CORPORATION AND MAY I HELP YOU HANDYMAN SERVICE, CORP, the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and the 4th Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby finds that: On February 25, 2009, the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation (hereinafter "Department") issued a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in Division of Workers' Compensation Case No. 09-049-D? to LUIS AMAYA, D/B/A MAY I HELP YOU HANDYMAN SERVICE, CORP, A DISSOLVED FLORIDA CORPORATION AND MAY I HELP YOU HANDYMAN SERVICE, CORP. The Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein LUIS AMAYA, D/B/A MAY I HELP YOU HANDYMAN SERVICE, CORP, A DISSOLVED FLORIDA CORPORATION AND MAY I HELP YOU HANDYMAN SERVICE, CORP was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, and must conform to Rule 28-106.2015, Florida Administrative Code. On February 25, 2009, the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment was served by personal service on LUIS AMAYA, D/B/A MAY I HELP YOU HANDYMAN SERVICE, CORP, A DISSOLVED FLORIDA CORPORATION AND MAY I HELP YOU HANDYMAN SERVICE, CORP. A copy of the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as "Exhibit A" and incorporated herein by reference. On March 2, 2009, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to LUIS AMAYA, D/B/A MAY I HELP YOU HANDYMAN SERVICE, CORP, A DISSOLVED FLORIDA CORPORATION AND MAY I HELP YOU HANDYMAN SERVICE, CORP. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $249,479.80 against LUIS AMAYA, D/B/A MAY I HELP YOU HANDYMAN SERVICE, CORP, A DISSOLVED FLORIDA CORPORATION AND MAY I HELP YOU HANDYMAN SERVICE, CORP. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein LUIS AMAYA, D/B/A MAY I HELP YOU HANDYMAN SERVICE, CORP, A DISSOLVED FLORIDA CORPORATION AND MAY I HELP YOU HANDYMAN SERVICE, CORP was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, and must conform to Rule 28-106.2015, Florida Administrative Code. On March 2, 2009, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served by personal service on LUIS AMAYA, D/B/A MAY I HELP YOU HANDYMAN SERVICE, CORP, A DISSOLVED FLORIDA CORPORATION AND MAY I HELP YOU HANDYMAN SERVICE, CORP. A copy of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as "Exhibit B" and incorporated herein by reference. On March 6, 2009, the Department issued a 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to LUIS AMAYA, D/B/A MAY I HELP YOU HANDYMAN SERVICE, CORP, A DISSOLVED FLORIDA CORPORATION AND MAY I HELP YOU HANDYMAN SERVICE, CORP. The 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $235,409.69 against LUIS AMAYA, D/B/A MAY I HELP YOU HANDYMAN SERVICE, CORP, A DISSOLVED FLORIDA CORPORATION AND MAY I HELP YOU HANDYMAN SERVICE, CORP. The 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein LUIS AMAYA, D/B/A MAY I HELP YOU HANDYMAN SERVICE, CORP, A DISSOLVED FLORIDA CORPORATION AND MAY I HELP YOU HANDYMAN SERVICE, CORP was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days ofreceipt of the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, and must conform to Rule 28-106.2015, Florida Administrative Code. On March 6, 2009, the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served by personal service on LUIS AMAYA, D/B/A MAY I HELP YOU HANDYMAN SERVICE, CORP, A DISSOLVED FLORIDA CORPORATION AND MAY I HELP YOU HANDYMAN SERVICE, CORP. A copy of the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as "Exhibit C" and incorporated herein by reference. On April 20, 2009, the Department issued a 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to LUIS AMAYA, D/B/A MAY I HELP YOU HANDYMAN SERVICE, CORP, A DISSOLVED FLORIDA CORPORATION AND MAY I HELP YOU HANDYMAN SERVICE, CORP. The 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $52;334.24 against LUIS AMAYA, D/B/A MAY I HELP YOU HANDYMAN SERVICE, CORP, A DISSOLVED FLORIDA CORPORATION AND MAY I HELP YOU HANDYMAN SERVICE, CORP. The 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein LUIS AMAYA, D/B/A MAY I HELP YOU HANDYMAN SERVICE, CORP, A DISSOLVED FLORIDA CORPORATION AND MAY I HELP YOU HANDYMAN SERVICE, CORP was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, and must conform to Rule 28-106.2015, Florida Administrative Code. On April 20, 2009, the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served by personal service on LUIS AMAYA, D/8/A MAY I HELP YOU HANDYMAN SERVICE, CORP, A DISSOLVED FLORIDA CORPORATION AND MAY I HELP YOU HANDYMAN SERVICE, CORP. A copy of the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as "Exhibit D" and incorporated herein by reference. On May 1, 2009, LUIS AMAYA, D/8/A MAY I HELP YOU HANDYMAN SERVICE, CORP, A DISSOLVED FLORIDA CORPORATION AND MAY I HELP YOU HANDYMAN SERVICE, CORP filed a petition for administrative review with the Department. The petition for administrative review was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings on May 19, 2009, and the matter was assigned DOAH Case No. 09-2763. A copy of the petition is attached hereto as "Exhibit E" and incorporated herein by reference. On September 21, 2009, the Department issued a 4th Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to LUIS AMAYA, D/B/A MAY I HELP YOU HANDYMAN SERVICE, CORP, A DISSOLVED FLORIDA CORPORATION AND MAY I HELP YOU HANDYMAN SERVICE, CORP. The 4th Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $30,869.44 against LUIS AMAYA, D/B/A MAY I HELP YOU HANDYMAN SERVICE, CORP, A DISSOLVED FLORIDA CORPORATION AND MAY I HELP YOU HANDYMAN SERVICE, CORP. The 4th Amended Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein LUIS AMAYA, D/B/A MAY I HELP YOU HANDYMAN SERVICE, CORP, A DISSOLVED FLORIDA CORPORATION AND MAY I HELP YOU HANDYMAN SERVICE, CORP was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the 4th Amended Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the 4th Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, and must conform to Rule 28-106.2015, Florida Administrative Code. On September 21, 2009, the 4th Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served by personal service on LUIS AMAYA, D/B/A MAY I HELP YOU HANDYMAN SERVICE, CORP, A DISSOLVED FLORIDA CORPORATION AND MAY I HELP YOU HANDYMAN SERVICE, CORP. A copy of the 4th Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as "Exhibit F" and incorporated herein by reference. On September 23, 2009, the Department received a letter from LUIS AMAYA, D/B/A MAY I HELP YOU HANDYMAN SERVICE, CORP, A DISSOLVED FLORIDA CORPORATION AND MAY I HELP YOU HANDYMAN SERVICE, CORP, stating that he wished to withdraw his request for administrative hearing. A copy of the letter to withdraw the request for hearing is attached hereto as "Exhibit G" and incorporated herein by reference. On September 23, 2009, the Administrative Law Judge issued an Order Relinquishing Jurisdiction and Closing File. A copy of the Order Relinquishing Jurisdiction and Closing File is attached hereto as "Exhibit H" and incorporated herein by reference.
