The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint filed against him, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been licensed as a restricted barber and operating under the name of Miracles in Motion, located in Tampa, Florida. On May 9, 2006, the Department issued a Uniform Disciplinary Citation against Respondent in case numbered 2006030590 in the amount of $400. The fine, due to be paid by July 9, has not been paid. On October 13, 2006, the Department issued a Uniform Disciplinary Citation against Respondent in case numbered 2006058259 in the amount of $250. The fine, due to be paid by December 24, has not been paid. Also on October 13, 2006, the Department issued a Uniform Disciplinary Citation against Respondent in case numbered 2006058271 in the amount of $250. The fine, due to be paid by December 24, has not been paid. On October 24, 2006, the Department issued a Uniform Disciplinary Citation against Respondent in case numbered 2006063364 in the amount of $400. The fine, due to be paid by December 24, has not been paid. Respondent did not dispute the facts contained in these four Citations. Under the terms of the Citations, they, therefore, automatically became final orders 30 days after they were issued. Since Respondent has not paid those fines, he fails to be in compliance with four final orders of the Department. The total amount of fines not paid by Respondent pursuant to the four Citations involved in this proceeding is $1,300.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Respondent is not guilty of violating Section 476.204(1)(i), Florida Statutes, and dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint filed against him. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of May, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT 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 11th day of May, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Robyn Barineau, Executive Director Barbers' Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Philip F. Monte, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Elvis O'Neil Crooks 7117 Wrenwood Circle Tampa, Florida 33617
Findings Of Fact In 1977, Dr. Reavis applied for licensure as a medical doctor in Florida by endorsement pursuant to Section 458.051, [now Section 458.313(3)], Florida Statutes. Dr. Reavis was licensed in January 1978 by the Board. Dr. Reavis moved to Lakeland, Florida in 1978, where he has practiced medicine continuously since that time. The Board without actual notice to Dr. Reavis entered a Final Order on February 5, 1981, which purported to declare null and void the license of Dr. Reavis to practice medicine in Florida. Dr. Reavis became aware of the Board's action in 1984 when he sought to renew his license. Dr. Reavis immediately took steps to have the Board's order of February 5, 1981, rescinded. The Board reinstated the license of Dr. Reavis on February 15, 1984, but concurrently gave notice of its intent to reprimand Dr. Reavis for violation of Rule 21M-22.17, Florida Administrative Code. Rule 21M-22.17, Florida Administrative Code was enacted on December 12, 1983. Rule 21M-22.17, Florida Administrative Code, requires a doctor licensed by endorsement to present evidence to the Board of actually practicing in Florida. It is this provision of the rule which the Board alleges Dr. Reavis violated.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Medical Examiners dismiss forthwith the Notice of Intent to Reprimand, and take no penal action against the Respondent, Dr. Wilton Reavis. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of January, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of January, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Tully, Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Office of the Attorney General The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas L. Clarke, Jr., Esquire P.O. Drawer J Lakeland, Florida 33802 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dorothy Faircloth, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Medical Examiners 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by failing to secure the payment of workers' compensation, as alleged in the Stop-Work Order and 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and, if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement that employers in the State of Florida secure the payment of workers' compensation for their employees and corporate officers. Respondent, Shriji Krupa, Inc., is a Florida corporation engaged in business operations as a gas station (self-service and convenience-retail) in the State of Florida. Mr. Hemant Parikh, one of Respondent's corporate officers, testified that, on November 20, 2012, Respondent was inspected by Petitioner's Compliance Investigator, Mike Fuller. Mr. Fuller advised Mr. Parikh that Respondent needed to close the store. According to Mr. Hemant Parikh, at the time of inspection, Respondent had two corporate officers and four additional employees. Mr. Parikh explained that, at the time of inspection, Respondent had two store locations with three employees working at each locale. Mr. Shrikant Parikh, another corporate officer, testified that, at the time of inspection, Respondent was operating under the mistaken belief that its corporate officers were exempt from workers' compensation coverage. Pursuant to the record evidence, on November 28, 2012, Mr. Fuller served a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment on Respondent. Pursuant to the Stop-Work Order, Respondent was ordered to cease all business operations for all worksites in the state based on the following: Failure to secure the payment of workers' compensation in violation of sections 440.10(1), 440.38(1), and 440.107(2) F.S., by: failing to obtain coverage that meets the requirements of Chapter 440, F.S., and the Insurance Code. After receiving the Stop-Work Order, on that same date, Respondent obtained workers' compensation coverage with an effective date of November 29, 2012. Respondent has maintained appropriate coverage to date. Following the Stop-Work Order, Respondent submitted various records for Petitioner's review.2/ Petitioner's sole witness was Ms. Lynne Murcia. Ms. Murcia works in Petitioner's Bureau of Compliance wherein she calculates penalties for those employers found in violation of the workers' compensation laws. Ms. Murcia performs approximately 200 penalty calculations per year. Ms. Murcia first became involved with Respondent in January 2013, when she received an assignment to perform a penalty calculation. Ms. Murcia reviewed all records previously submitted by Respondent. From the records received, Ms. Murcia was able to determine that Respondent employed four or more employees on a regular basis. Ms. Murcia explained that "employees" include corporate officers that have not elected to be exempt from workers' compensation. After conducting a search within the Florida Division of Corporations, Ms. Murcia was able to determine that no exemptions existed for Respondent's corporate officers. Ms. Murcia further conducted a proof of coverage search via Petitioner's Coverage and Compliance Automated System ("CCAS"), which is a database that contains all insurance coverage and exemptions for each employer throughout the State of Florida. The search revealed that Respondent possessed appropriate coverage from November 29, 2012, to the present; however, no prior coverage was indicated. Ms. Murcia conducted a penalty assessment for the non- compliance period of November 29, 2009, through November 28, 2012. From the records submitted by Respondent, Ms. Murcia correctly identified Respondent's employees and gross wages paid during the penalty period. All of the individuals listed on the Penalty Worksheet of the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, dated August 27, 2014, were "employees" (as that term is defined in section 440.02(15)(a), Florida Statutes) of Respondent during the period of noncompliance listed on the penalty worksheet. From a description of the Respondent's business operations, Ms. Murcia determined Respondent's classification code. She explained that classification codes are established by the National Council of Compensation Insurance ("NCCI"). A classification code is a four-digit code number that is assigned to a specific group of tasks, duties, and responsibilities for a specific grouping of business. Ms. Murcia further testified that the classification codes are associated with a manual rate which is the actual dollar amount of risk associated with a particular code.3/ The manual rates are also established by NCCI. Class Code 8061, used on the penalty worksheet attached to the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and as defined by the NCCI Scopes Manual, is the correct occupational classification for Respondent. From the assigned classification code number, 8061, Ms. Murcia calculated the appropriate manual rate for the penalty period. The manual rates used on the penalty worksheet attached to the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment are the correct manual rates. The total penalty of $21,205.19 is the correct penalty for the employees listed on the penalty worksheet attached to the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, enter a final order determining that Respondent Shriji Krupa, Inc., violated the requirement in chapter 440, Florida Statutes, to secure workers' compensation coverage, and imposing a total penalty assessment of $21,205.19. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S TODD P. RESAVAGE 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 30th day of October, 2014.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that the Board of Nursing revoke respondent's license number 83209-2. It is further recommended that upon proof of counseling or other rehabilitative measures taken by respondent, the Board exercise its discretion to relicense respondent with examination after a period of six months has elapsed. Respectfully submitted and entered this 28th day of April, 1977, in Tallahassee Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Geraldine Johnson, R.N. Licensing and Investigative Coordinator Florida State Board of Nursing 6501 Arlington Expressway Bldg. B. Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Julius Finegold, Esquire 1005 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Patrick V. Clancy, Esquire 2420 Garfield Street Hollywood, Florida 33020
The Issue The issues are whether, under section 440.107, Florida Statutes, Petitioner may calculate a penalty assessment for a failure to secure the payment of workers' compensation for one day as though the failure persisted over two years and whether Petitioner may calculate a penalty assessment based on double the statewide average weekly wage (AWW) when the lone uncovered employee earned $10 per hour.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was incorporated in 2008 by Ineido Soler, Sr., and his son, Ineido Soler, Jr. Since the corporation began operations, the wife of Mr. Soler, Jr., Idalmis Pedrero, has served as the office manager of this family-owned company. At all material times, Respondent has contracted with a personnel leasing company to handle employee matters, such as securing the payment of workers' compensation. Ms. Pedrero's responsibilities include informing the employee leasing company of new hires, so the company can obtain workers' compensation coverage, which typically starts the day following notification. On the afternoon of November 22, 2015, Mr. Soler, Jr., telephoned his wife and told her that he and his father had hired, at the rate of $10 per hour, a new employee, Geony Borrego Lee, who would start work the following morning. Customarily, Ms. Pedrero would immediately inform the employee leasing company. However, Ms. Pedrero was working at home because, six days earlier, she had delivered a baby by caesarian section, and she was still recuperating and tending to her newborn. A fatigued Ms. Pedrero did not notify the employee leasing company that day of the new hire. Late the next morning, Ms. Pedrero was awakened by a call from her husband, who asked her if she had faxed the necessary information to the employee leasing company. Ms. Pedrero admitted that she had not done so, but would do so right away. She faxed the information immediately, so that the employee leasing company could add Mr. Lee to the workers' compensation policy, effective the next day, November 24. Uncovered for November 23, Mr. Lee joined three other employees of Respondent and performed roofing work at a worksite. Late in the afternoon of November 23, one of Petitioner's investigators conducted a random inspection of Respondent's worksite and determined that Respondent had secured the payment of workers' compensation for the three other employees, but not for Mr. Lee. The investigator issued an SWO on the day of the inspection, November 23. The SWO contains three parts. First, the SWO orders Respondent to cease work anywhere in the state of Florida. Second, the SWO includes an Order of Penalty Assessment, which does not contain a specific penalty, but instead sets forth the formula by which Petitioner determines the amount of the penalty to assess. Tracking the statute discussed below, the formula included in the SWO is two times the premium that the employer would have paid when applying approved manual rates to the employer's payroll "during periods for which it has failed to secure the payment of compensation within the preceding 2-year period." Third, the SWO includes a Notice of Rights, which advises Respondent that it may request a chapter 120 hearing. On November 24, Petitioner released the SWO after Respondent had secured the payment of workers' compensation for Mr. Lee. On November 25, the investigator hand delivered to Respondent a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation (Request). The Request covers November 24, 2013, through November 23, 2015, and demands records in eight categories: identification of employer, occupational licenses, payroll documents, account documents, disbursements, contracts for work, identification of subcontractors, and documentation of subcontractors' workers' compensation coverage. The Request identifies "payroll documents" as: all documents that reflect the payroll of the employer . . . including . . . time sheets, time cards, attendance records, earning records, check stubs and payroll summaries for both individual employees and aggregate records; [and] federal income tax documents and other documents reflecting the . . . remuneration paid or payable to each employee . . . . The Request adds: The employer may present for consideration in lieu of the requested records, proof of compliance with F.S. 440 by a workers' compensation policy or coverage through employee leasing for all periods of this request where such coverage existed. If the proof of compliance is verified by the Department the requested records for that time period will not be required. The Request warns: If the employer fails to provide the required business records sufficient to enable the . . . Division of Workers' Compensation to determine the employer's payroll for the period requested for the calculation of the penalty provided in section 440.107(7)(d), F.S., the imputed weekly payroll for each employee shall be the statewide average weekly wage as defined in section 440.12(2), F.S., multiplied by 2. The Department shall impute the employer's payroll at any time after ten, but before the expiration of twenty eight business days after receipt by the employer of [the Request]. (FAC 69L-6.028) . . . . On December 11, 2015, Respondent provided the following documents to Petitioner: itemized invoices, including for workers' compensation premiums, from the employee leasing company to Respondent and checks confirming payment, but the invoices and checks are from December 2011; an employee leasing agreement signed by Respondent on August 1, 2014, and signed by the employee leasing company on August 5, 2014; an employee leasing application for Mr. Lee dated November 23, 2015, showing his date of birth as November 20, 1996, his hourly pay as $10, and his hire date as November 23, 2015; and an employee census dated December 1, 2015, showing, for each employee, a date of hire and, if applicable, date of termination. Partially compliant with the Request, this production omitted any documentation of workers' compensation coverage prior to August 1, 2014, and any documentation of payroll except for Mr. Lee's rate of pay. On December 14, 2015, Respondent filed with Petitioner its request for a chapter 120 hearing. On December 30, 2016, Petitioner issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment (Amended Assessment), which proposes to assess a penalty of $63,434.48. On the same date, Petitioner transmitted the file to DOAH. Petitioner issued a Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on February 16, 2016, which is mentioned in, but not attached to, the Prehearing Stipulation that was filed on April 26, 2016, but the second amended assessment reportedly leaves the assessed penalty unchanged from the Amended Assessment. In determining the penalty assessment, Petitioner assigned class code 5551 from the National Council on Compensation Insurance because Mr. Lee was performing roofing work; determined that the entire two-year period covered in the Request was applicable; identified the AWW as $841.57 based on information provided by the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity for all employers subject to the Florida Reemployment Assistance Program Law, sections 443.01 et seq., Florida Statutes, for the four calendar quarters ending June 30, 2014; applied the appropriate manual rates for class code 5551 to $841.57, doubled, and divided the result by 100--all of which yielded a result of $31,717.24, which, doubled, results in a total penalty assessment of $63,434.48. There is no dispute that the classification code for Mr. Lee is code 5551, the AWW is $841.57, and the manual rates are 18.03 as of July 1, 2013, 18.62 as of January 1, 2014, and 17.48 as of January 1, 2015. Because Petitioner determined that Respondent had failed to provide sufficient evidence of its payroll, Petitioner calculated the penalty assessment by using the AWW of $841.57, doubled, instead of Mr. Lee's actual rate of $10 per hour. Petitioner's calculations are mathematically correct. For the 5.27 weeks of 2013, the penalty assessment is $3198.58 based on multiplying the AWW, doubled, by the manual rate of 18.03 divided by 100 multiplied by 2 and multiplied by 5.27. For the 52 weeks of 2014, the penalty assessment is $32,593.67 based on multiplying the AWW, doubled, by the manual rate of 18.62 divided by 100 multiplied by 2 and multiplied by 52. For the 46.44 weeks of 2015, the penalty assessment is $27,326.48 based on multiplying the AWW, doubled, by the manual rate of 17.48 divided by 100 multiplied by 2 and multiplied by 46.44. Adding these sums yields a total penalty assessment of $63,118.73, which approximates Petitioner's penalty assessment calculation of $63,434.48. (Mistranscription of difficult-to- read manual rates or a different rule for handling partial weeks may account for the small difference.) Respondent challenges two factors in the imputation formula: the two-year period of noncompliance for Mr. Lee instead of one day's noncompliance and the AWW, doubled, instead of Mr. Lee's $10 per hour rate of pay. Underscoring the differences between the two-year period of noncompliance and double the AWW and the actual period of noncompliance and Mr. Lee's real pay rate, at the start of the two-year period, Mr. Lee was three days past his 16th birthday and residing in Cuba, and Mr. Lee continues to earn $10 per hour as of the date of the hearing. The impact of Petitioner's use of the two-year period of noncompliance and double the AWW is significant. If the calculation were based on a single day, rather than two years, the assessed penalty would be less than the statutory minimum of $1000, which is described below, even if double the AWW were used. One day is 0.14 weeks, so the penalty assessment would be $82.38 based on multiplying the AWW, doubled, by the manual rate of 17.48 divided by 100 multiplied by 2 and multiplied by 0.14. If the calculation were based on the entire two years, rather than a single day, the assessed penalty would be about one-quarter of the proposed assessed penalty, if Mr. Lee's actual weekly rate of pay were used instead of double the AWW. Substituting $400 for twice the AWW in the calculations set forth in paragraph 15 above, the penalty would be $760.14 for 2013, $7746.92 for 2014, and $6494.17 for 2015 for a total of $15,001.23. Explaining why Petitioner treated one day of noncompliance as two years of noncompliance, one of Petitioner's witnesses referred to Mr. Lee as a "placeholder" because the real focus of the imputation formula is the employer. The same witness characterized the imputation formula as a "legal fiction," implying that the formula obviously and, in this case, dramatically departs from the much-smaller penalty that would result from calculating exactly how much premium that Respondent avoided by not covering the modestly paid Mr. Lee on his first day of work. Regardless of how Petitioner characterizes the imputation formula, the statutory mandate, as discussed below, is to determine the "periods" during which Respondent failed to secure workers' compensation insurance within the two-year period covered by the Request. The focus is necessarily on the employee found by the investigator to be uncovered and any other uncovered employees. Petitioner must calculate a penalty based on how long the employee found by the investigator on his inspection has been uncovered, determining how many other employees, if any, in the preceding two years have been uncovered, and calculating a penalty based on how long they were uncovered. There is evidence of one or two gaps in coverage during the relevant two years, but Petitioner has failed to prove such gaps by clear and convincing evidence. One of Petitioner's witnesses testified to a gap of one month "probably" from late January to late February 2015. This witness relied on Petitioner Exhibit 2, but it is completely illegible. Ms. Pedrero testified that Respondent had workers' compensation coverage since 2011, except for a gap, which she thought had occurred prior to August 2014, which is the start date of the current policy. This conflicting evidence does not establish by clear and convincing evidence any gap, and, even if a gap had been proved, no evidence establishes the number of uncovered employees, if any, during such a gap, nor would such a gap justify enlarging the period of noncompliance for Mr. Lee. Ms. Pedrero testified that her mother-in-law, Teresa Marquez cleaned the office and warehouse on an occasional basis, last having worked sometime in 2015. Respondent never secured workers' compensation coverage for Ms. Marquez, but she did no roofing work and appears to have been a casual worker, so her periods of employment during the two-year period covered by the Request would not constitute additional periods for which Respondent failed to secure workers' compensation insurance. Based on the foregoing, Petitioner has proved by clear and convincing evidence only a single day of noncompliance, November 23, concerning one employee, Mr. Lee, within the relevant two-year period for the purpose of calculating the penalty assessment. Likewise, Petitioner has proved by clear and convincing evidence a rate of pay of only $10 per hour for the purpose of calculating the penalty assessment. At no time has Respondent provided payroll records of all its employees for November 23, 2015. Respondent Exhibit E covers payroll for Respondent's employees for a two-week period commencing shortly after November 23, 2015. But the evidence establishes that Mr. Lee's rate of pay was $80 for the day, which, as discussed below, rebuts the statutory presumption of double the AWW.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order determining that Respondent has failed to secure the payment of workers' compensation for one employee for one day within the two-year period covered by the Request and imposing an administrative penalty of $1000. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of July, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of July, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Jonathan Anthony Martin, Esquire Trevor S. Suter, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 (eServed) Daniel R. Vega, Esquire Robert Paul Washington, Esquire Taylor Espino Vega & Touron, P.A. 2555 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 220 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 (eServed) Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact On November 7, 1994, Officer Borras stopped a vehicle owned and operated by the Petitioner, Dade Towing and Transportation. At such time the vehicle was being driven by an individual identified as Feliciano Villapando, Jr., and the route of the vehicle placed it on Weston Road in Broward County, Florida. Officer Borras weighed the vehicle on four scales in accordance with his Department training, and calculated the total gross vehicle weight at 157,700 pounds. Officer Borras determined that the vehicle was 77,700 pounds over its statutory weight maximum and issued a citation which assessed a penalty in the amount of $3,885.00. Petitioner's employees were present during the weighing procedure. The scales used to weigh the vehicle were certified as accurate by the Florida Department of Agriculture pursuant to a biannual inspection. No objection to the weighing procedure or the gross weight calculation of the vehicle has been raised by Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Transportation enter a final order denying Petitioner's request for a refund of the assessed penalty. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of January, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH, 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 12th day of January, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-1950 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner: 1. None submitted. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 5 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Murray M. Wadsworth, Jr. Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Cindy S. Price Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Carl Bundy Transportation Manager Dade Towing and Transportation 7320 Northwest 70th Street Miami, Florida 33166 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Thornton J. Williams General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399
