The Issue The issues in this case are whether SDPhotonics, LLC (Respondent), failed to provide workers' compensation coverage; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing section 440.107, Florida Statutes. Section 440.107 mandates, in relevant part, that employers in Florida must secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage for their employees. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. At all times relevant, Respondent was a limited liability company, organized under the laws of the State of Florida, with its principal office currently located at 4304 Scorpius Street, UCF High Technology Incubator, Orlando, Florida. Dennis Deppe is the founder and CEO of SDPhotonics, LLC, which is a research and development company. Respondent is a non-construction type entity. Mr. Marquez is an insurance analysist II/investigator for the Department in the central part of the state. He has 12 years of experience in this position. His duties include making sure that businesses comply with the workers’ compensation laws of Florida. In order to perform his duties, Mr. Marquez has several methods to check for particular workers’ compensation coverage. Initially, Mr. Marquez may check the Division of Corporations website, “Sunbiz.org,” to obtain the name of the corporation; its federal identification number; the mailing and principle address(es), the registered agent; and corporate officer information. With this information, Mr. Marquez may check Petitioner’s internal database called: coverage and compliance automated system (CCAS). Using a corporate name, Mr. Marquez could check CCAS to see whether a corporation has workers’ compensation coverage. Insurance companies are also required to submit workers’ compensation coverage information, and Mr. Marquez could check that registry. Corporate officers may request an exemption from workers’ compensation coverage; however, the officer must apply for the exemption. Mr. Marquez could check that registry as well. In mid-December 2015, Mr. Marquez was assigned to check on Respondent’s workers’ compensation coverage. Mr. Marquez checked Petitioner’s CCAS system and determined that Respondent did not have a workers’ compensation policy or any active exemptions for its officers. On December 16, 2015, Mr. Marquez went to Respondent’s physical location and discovered that no one was present. He left a business card with a written request for someone to contact him. On December 17, 2015, Dr. Deppe contacted Mr. Marquez via telephone. Mr. Marquez identified himself and explained the reason for the call to Dr. Deppe. As was his custom, Mr. Marquez requested the name of Respondent’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier, the policy number and the effective date of the coverage. Dr. Deppe thought there was coverage through Paychex,3/ but he was unable to provide the requested information. Dr. Deppe stated he would look into it and return the call. On December 18, 2016, Mr. Marquez spoke with Dr. Deppe again. During that conversation, Dr. Deppe confirmed that Respondent did not have workers’ compensation coverage, but that he was working to have it by the end of the day. Later that same morning, Mr. Marquez met with Dr. Deppe and again requested the name of Respondent’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier, the policy number and the effective date of the coverage. Dr. Deppe was unable to provide the requested information, although he did provide the name of his insurance agent. Additionally, Dr. Deppe provided the names of Respondent’s five employees: James Beadsworth, Jason Leshin, Nick Cox, Jeremy Leshin, and Dennis Deppe. Mr. Marquez then stepped outside to his vehicle, and via his computer consulted the CCAS database to determine whether Respondent had secured workers’ compensation coverage or an exemption from the requirements for coverage for his employees. At that time, Mr. Marquez determined that Respondent did not have any current workers’ compensation coverage for its employees and Respondent did not have an exemption from such coverage from the Department. Mr. Marquez telephoned his supervisor, Robert Cerrone, who authorized the service of a Stop-Work Order along with a Request for Production of Business Records (Request) on Dr. Deppe on December 18, 2015. Both were served on Respondent at approximately 11:30 a.m. on December 18, 2015. The following Monday, Dr. Deppe presented to Petitioner’s Orlando field office, paid $1,000.00 towards the penalty and provided proof of coverage with the Hartford Casualty Insurance Company. Ms. Proano confirmed that the appropriate classification code for Respondent’s CEO was 8810 (for a clerical position) and for Respondent’s employees was 4511 (for “analytical laboratories, including laboratory, outside employees, collectors of samples”). These codes were derived from the Scopes Manual, which lists all of the various jobs that may be performed in the context of workers’ compensation. The manual is produced by the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc., the nation’s most authoritative data collecting and disseminating organization for workers’ compensation. The corresponding approved manual rates for the classification codes 8810 and 4511 were applied using the methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)1. and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.027 to determine the appropriate penalty. Petitioner is statutorily authorized to use an audit period of two years from the issuance of the Stop-Work Order. Respondent employed less than four employees during 2013 and 2014, and did not have to have worker’s compensation cover. Petitioner only computed the penalty for 2015 because Respondent had five employees during that time. Petitioner has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent failed to secure workers’ compensation for its employees as required by chapter 440, Florida Statutes. Petitioner determined the appropriate penalty using section 440.107(7)(d)1. The amount of Respondent’s penalty, $6,092.10, is subject to a reduction of $3,843.23, which is the amount it paid to obtain the appropriate insurance. The amended penalty amount is $2,248.87.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, issue a final order upholding the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and assess a penalty in the amount of $2,248.87.5/ DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of July, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of July, 2016.
The Issue The issues in this case are: (1) whether Respondent, PFR Services Corp., failed to secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage for its employees in violation of chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2017)2/; and (2) if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement that employers in the State of Florida secure the payment of workers' compensation insurance covering their employees, pursuant to chapter 440. Respondent is a Florida corporation. At all times relevant to this proceeding, its business address was 8040 Northwest 95th Street, Hialeah, Florida. The evidence establishes that Respondent was actively engaged in business during the two-year audit period, from October 17, 2015, through October 16, 2017, pertinent to this proceeding.3/ The Compliance Investigation On October 16, 2017, Petitioner's compliance investigator, Cesar Tolentino, conducted a workers' compensation compliance investigation at a business located at 8040 Northwest 95th Street, Hialeah, Florida. The business was being operated as a restaurant, to which National Council on Compensation Insurance ("NCCI") class code 9082 applies. Tolentino observed Maria Morales, Gabriela Nava, and Geraldine Rodriquez performing waitressing job duties and Rafael Briceno performing chef job duties. The evidence established that these four persons were employed by Respondent. Additionally, the evidence established that corporate officers Rosanna Gutierrez and Mary Pineda were employed by Respondent.4/ The evidence established that neither had elected to be exempt from the workers' compensation coverage requirement. In sum, the evidence established that Respondent employed six employees, none of whom were independent contractors, and none of whom were exempt from the workers' compensation coverage requirement. Tolentino conducted a search of Petitioner's Coverage and Compensation Compliance Automated System, which consists of a database of workers' compensation insurance coverage policies issued for businesses in Florida, and all elections of exemptions filed by corporate officers of businesses in Florida. Tolentino's search revealed that Respondent had never purchased workers' compensation coverage for its employees; that its corporate officers had not elected to be exempt from the workers' compensation coverage requirement; and that Respondent did not lease employees from an employee leasing company. Gutierrez acknowledged that Respondent had not purchased workers' compensation coverage for its employees, and told Tolentino that she did not know it was required. Based on Tolentino's investigation, on October 16, 2017, Petitioner served Stop-Work Order No. 17-384 ("Stop-Work Order") on Respondent. At the time Tolentino served the Stop-Work Order, he informed Gutierrez that if Respondent obtained a workers' compensation policy and provided Petitioner a receipt of the amount paid to activate the policy within 28 days of issuance of the Stop-Work Order, Respondent's penalty would be reduced by the amount paid to activate the policy. On October 16, 2017, Petitioner, through Tolentino, also served on Respondent a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation ("Business Records Request"), requesting Respondent provide several categories of business records covering the two-year audit period from October 16, 2015, to October 16, 2017. Specifically, Petitioner requested that Respondent provide its payroll documents consisting of time sheets, time cards, attendance records, earnings records, check stubs, check images, and payroll summaries, as applicable. Petitioner also requested that Respondent provide, as applicable, its federal income tax documents; account documents, including business check journals and statements and cleared checks for all open or closed business accounts; cash and check disbursements records; workers' compensation coverage records; and independent contractor records. At the time Tolentino served the Business Records Request, he informed Gutierrez that if Respondent obtained a workers' compensation policy and provided Petitioner the complete business records requested within ten business days, Respondent's penalty would be reduced by 25 percent. The evidence establishes that Respondent did not provide any business records within that time period, so is not entitled to receive that penalty reduction. On November 16, 2017, Petitioner issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, assessing a total penalty of $35,262.32 against Respondent for having failed to secure workers' compensation coverage for its employees during the audit period. On December 14, 2017, Gutierrez met with Tolentino and, at that time, provided documentation to Petitioner showing that Respondent had acquired workers' compensation coverage for its employees, effective October 28, 2017, and had paid $3,966.00 for the policy. At the December 14, 2017, meeting, Gutierrez presented an envelope postmarked October 30, 2017, showing that Respondent had mailed Petitioner proof of having obtained the workers' compensation coverage within 28 days of the date the Stop-Work Order was issued; however, this mail was returned, so Petitioner did not receive such proof within 28 days. The evidence established that this mail was returned to Respondent on December 4, 2017——several days after the 28-day period had expired, and too late for Respondent to take additional steps to deliver to Petitioner the proof of its having purchased the workers' compensation policy.5/ Because Petitioner did not receive Respondent's proof of having purchased a workers' compensation policy within 28 days of issuance of the Stop-Work Order, it did not reduce the penalty imposed on Respondent by the amount that Respondent had paid for the premium. The evidence also establishes that at the December 14, 2017, meeting, Respondent tendered to Petitioner a cashier's check in the amount of $1,000.00. As a result of having received proof of workers' compensation coverage for Respondent's employees, Petitioner issued an Agreed Order of Conditional Release from Stop-Work Order ("Order of Conditional Release") on December 14, 2017, releasing Respondent from the Stop-Work Order. The Order of Conditional Release expressly recognized that Respondent "paid $1,000.00 as a down payment for a penalty calculated pursuant to F.S. 440.107(7)(d)1." Additionally, page 1 of 3 of the Penalty Calculation Worksheet attached to the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment admitted into evidence at the final hearing reflects that Respondent paid $1,000.00 toward the assessed penalty of $35,262.32. This document shows $34,262.32 as the "Balance Due." Calculation of Penalty to be Assessed Petitioner penalizes employers based on the amount of workers' compensation insurance premiums the employer has avoided paying. The amount of the evaded premium is determined by reviewing the employer's business records. In the Business Records Request served on October 16, 2017, Petitioner specifically requested that Respondent provide its payroll documents, federal income tax documents, disbursements records, workers' compensation coverage records, and other specified documents. When Gutierrez met with Tolentino on December 14, 2017, she provided some, but not all, of the business records that Petitioner had requested. Respondent subsequently provided additional business records to Petitioner, on the eve of the final hearing. Petitioner reviewed all of the business records that Respondent provided. However, these business records were incomplete because they did not include check images, as specifically required to be maintained and provided to Petitioner pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.015(6). Check images are required under Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.015(6) because such images reveal the payees, which can help Petitioner identify the employees on the employer's payroll at any given time. This information is vital to determining whether the employer complied with the requirement to have workers' compensation coverage for all of its employees. Because Respondent did not provide the required check images, the records were insufficient to enable Petitioner to calculate Respondent's payroll for the audit period. Under section 440.107(7)(e), business records provided by the employer are insufficient to enable Petitioner to calculate the employer's payroll for the period for which the records are requested, Petitioner is authorized to impute the weekly payroll for each employee as constituting the statewide average weekly wage multiplied by 1.5. To calculate the amount of the penalty due using the imputed method, Petitioner imputes the gross payroll for each employee for each period during which that employee was not covered by required workers' compensation insurance. To facilitate calculation, Petitioner divides the gross payroll amount for each employee for the specific non-compliance period by 100.6/ Petitioner then multiplies this amount by the approved NCCI Scopes Manual rate——here, 2.34, which applies to restaurants——to determine the amount of the avoided premium for each employee for each non-compliance period. This premium amount is then multiplied by two to determine the penalty amount to be assessed for each employee not covered by required workers' compensation insurance for each specific period of non- compliance. Performing these calculations, Petitioner determined that a penalty in the amount of $35,262.32 should be assessed against Respondent for failing to provide workers' compensation insurance for its employees, as required by chapter 440, for the period from October 17, 2015, through October 16, 2017. As discussed above, on December 14, 2017, Respondent paid a down payment of $1,000.00 toward the penalty, and this was expressly recognized in the Stop-Work Order that was issued that same day. Thus, the amount of the penalty to be assessed against Respondent should be reduced by $1,000.00, to $34,262.32. As previously noted, this amount is identified on page 1 of 3 of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment as the "Balance Due." As discussed in paragraphs 17 and 18, above, the evidence establishes that Respondent purchased a workers' compensation policy to cover its employees within 11 days of issuance of the Stop-Work Order, and mailed to Petitioner proof of having purchased such policy on October 30, 2017——well within the 28-day period for providing such proof. However, as discussed above, this mail was returned to Respondent on December 4, 2017——too late for Respondent to take additional steps to provide such proof to Petitioner within the 28-day period. There is no evidence in the record showing that failure of the mailed proof to be received by Petitioner was due to any fault on Respondent's part. Respondent's Defenses On behalf of Respondent, Gutierrez testified that Respondent did everything that Tolentino had told them to do. Respondent purchased workers' compensation insurance and provided proof to Petitioner that its employees were covered.7/ Gutierrez also testified that although Respondent's business was created in May 2013, it did not begin operating and, therefore, did not have any employees, until January 2016.8/ However, as previously noted, the persuasive evidence does not support this assertion.
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 PFR Services Corp. violated the requirement in chapter 440, Florida Statutes, to secure workers' compensation coverage for its employees during the audit period, and imposing a penalty of $30,296.32. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of January, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS 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 14th day of January, 2019.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent failed to provide workers' compensation insurance coverage for employees, and, if so, what penalty should be assessed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for, inter alia, monitoring businesses within the state to ensure that such businesses are providing the requisite workers' compensation insurance coverage for all employees. The Division's headquarters are located in Tallahassee, Florida, but its investigators are spread throughout the state in order to more effectively monitor businesses. Respondent is a construction company that has been operating in excess of 30 years. It is a small company and usually only has a few employees at any given time. The company is located in Charlotte Harbor, Florida. Workers' compensation coverage is required if a business entity has one or more employees and is engaged in the construction industry in Florida. Workers' compensation coverage may be secured via three non-mutually exclusive methods: 1) The purchase of a workers' compensation insurance policy; 2) Arranging for the payment of wages and workers' compensation coverage through an employee leasing company; or 3) Applying for and receiving a certificate of exemption from workers' compensation coverage, if certain statutorily-mandated criteria are met. On January 8, 2009, Ira Bender, investigator for the Division, was doing on-site inspections in Port Charlotte, Florida. Bender stopped at the site on Edgewater Drive where new construction was underway at a YMCA. Bender observed a man (later identified as Thomas Woodall) sweeping the floor. Bender questioned Woodall and was told that Woodall worked for Respondent. When asked about his workers' compensation insurance coverage, Woodall advised that his insurance was maintained through Frank Crum Leasing Company ("Crum"). Bender called Crum and found that although Woodall had been carried as an employee of Respondent in the past, he had been released from coverage. The reason for his release was that his employment had been terminated for lack of business. Bender called Respondent to inquire about workers' compensation coverage. He was told that Respondent did not realize Woodall had been dropped from the Crum insurance coverage and that he would be reinstated immediately. In fact, coverage was restarted on that same day. Based on his finding that an employee had been working without coverage, Bender called his supervisor and provided his findings. The supervisor authorized issuance of a SWO based on the findings. The SWO was served on Respondent via hand- delivery at 11:45 a.m., on January 8, 2009. The SWO was also posted at the work site. The Division then requested business records from Respondent in order to determine whether there were any violations. If there were violations, then the Division would ascertain the amount of penalty to assess. Respondent cooperated and submitted the business records, as requested. After review of the business records, the Division issued its first Amended Order of Penalty Assessment ("Order") on January 14, 2009. The process employed by the Division was to locate all uncovered employees, i.e., those working without workers' compensation insurance for any period of time. The employees were then assigned a class code from the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) publication. Each trade or type of employment is assigned a code which sets the rate to be applied to an individual depending on the type of work he/she is performing. The Division assigned codes to the employees, determined how much the employee had been paid during the period of non-coverage, assigned the rate to the gross pay, and calculated the insurance premium needed to cover the worker for the time in question. A penalty of 1.5 times the premium was then assigned. The Order assessed a total penalty of $21,165.98 against Respondent. Respondent objected to the amount and refused to sign it due to errors contained in the Penalty Worksheet attached to the Order. Signing the Order would have allowed Respondent to return to work, but he refused to sign because he knew it was not correct. Pursuant to discussions between the parties and "additional records received," the Division issued a second Order on January 16, 2009, assessing a penalty of $6,501.27. Respondent believed that the Division was still in error and provided yet additional information--some verbal--to the Division. A third Order was issued on January 21, 2009, reducing the penalty to $3,309.56. However, Respondent still believed the penalty worksheet contained errors. Again, Respondent refused to sign and provided additional information to the Division. The Division issued a fourth Order on January 28, 2009, assessing a penalty of $2,822.24. That Order had an error concerning the spelling of an employee's name, but the penalty amount was correct. Respondent would not sign the fourth Order, because he did not believe he had intentionally violated any statute or rule concerning workers' compensation coverage for his employees. A corrected (fifth amended) Order was ultimately issued on May 19, 2009.1 The fifth Order asserts the amount of penalty now in dispute, which is the same amount appearing in the fourth amended Order. Respondent signed the fifth Order and entered into a payment plan for payment of the penalty, paying a down payment of $1,000 and monthly payments of $30 until paid in full. Respondent takes great offense to the fact that the penalty assessments were not faxed to him more quickly. He maintains that he had every intention to resolve this matter as quickly as possible, but the Division delayed and dragged out the process. The penalty worksheet attached to the fifth Order listed nine "Employee Names" that are subject to the penalty assessment. Each will be discussed below. The first "employee" is listed as "Cash" and is assigned Class Code 5403. This "employee" represents checks found in Respondent's records with the payee listed as "cash- casual labor" totaling $2,178.00 in gross payroll. Code 5403 was assigned because that is the code used by Crum for Respondent's general business. The manual rate for Code 5403 is $24.74. A penalty of $808.26 was assessed for that employee. The second employee is Jacob Prewitt. Prewitt was assigned Class Code 5221, due to the word "driveway" appearing on a check issued to him. Driveway work falls under a lower approved manual rate ($10.37) than general construction. The gross payroll amount was $1,960, and the penalty assigned to Prewitt was $304.88. The third employee is Woodall, assigned a Class Code of 5606, with a manual rate of $3.84. That code is used for supervisors and is, again, not as dangerous an occupation as general construction. The gross payroll for this entry was $1,008, and the penalty assessed for Woodall was $58.07. Cash is the fourth employee and has been covered in the discussion in paragraph 16, above. Barry Lawrence is the fifth employee; he is assigned Class Code 5437 as a cabinet maker/installer with a manual rate of $13.01. Lawrence had a Verification Letter issued by the Division indicating he was exempt from workers' compensation coverage. However, that exemption was limited to cabinet- making. By installing the cabinets, Lawrence performed work outside his exemption status. The gross payroll for his work was $6,200, and the penalty assessed for Lawrence was $1,209.33. Respondent was completely unaware that the exemption letter did not cover installation and had, in fact, always allowed cabinet- makers to install the cabinets as well. Brunderman Builders is listed as the sixth employee. It is assigned Class Code 5403 with a manual rate of $14.39. The gross payroll for this entry was $550, resulting in a penalty assessment of $118.73. The seventh employee is Jorge Gonzolas, assigned Class Code 5403, the general contracting code. Gonzolas was the employee of a contractor who was subcontracting with Respondent. The contractor died unexpectedly, and Gonzolas was left without payment for the work he had performed. Respondent generously decided to pay Gonzolas for his work, thereby, effectively making Gonzolas a de facto employee. The amount paid Gonzolas was $599.00; the penalty assessed for Gonzolas was $129.30. Woodall is again listed as employee number eight, this time with Class Code 5610, reflecting casual labor he did on one date that his insurance was not in place. The payroll amount for this work was $37.50. The penalty assessed for Woodall was $4.02. The ninth employee was Julio Garcia, assigned Class Code 8742 for outside sales, with a manual rate of $.64. The payroll amount for Garcia was $1,300. His penalty assessment amount was $12.48. Garcia was another one of the deceased subcontractor's employees that Respondent volunteered to pay for work Garcia had performed. The total payroll at issue for Respondent was $14,477.50. The total premium for that amount of payroll would have been $1,881.48, and the penalty assessed was $2,822.84. This is a fairly insignificant portion of Respondent's $5.5 million annual payroll. Respondent did not intentionally attempt to avoid the payment of workers' compensation insurance for its employees. There is no pattern of avoidance or indication that non-payment was Respondent's goal. Rather, there are plausible and reasonable explanations about the unpaid premiums. For Woodall, Respondent believed he was still covered through the Crum policy. For Gonzolas and Garcia, Respondent was simply attempting to be a nice guy. For Prewitt, the employee's exemption had unknowingly lapsed. For Lawrence, Respondent relied upon a Verification Letter from the state, but misinterpreted its scope. The Division, on the other hand, only pursued Respondent based on an actual finding of non-coverage. But for Woodall's presence at a work site doing manual labor (sweeping the floor), the Division would not have looked at Respondent's records. There is no indication the Division acted other than in strict accordance to its governing rules.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, upholding the assessment of a penalty of $2,822.24 against Respondent, Brunderman Building Company, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of October, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of October, 2009.
The Issue The issues presented are (1) whether Respondent properly secured the payment of workers’ compensation insurance coverage and, if not, what penalty is warranted for such failure; and (2) whether Respondent conducted business operations in violation of a stop-work order and, if so, what penalty is warranted for such violation.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a corporation domiciled in Georgia and engaged in the business of electrical work, which is a construction activity. On July 2, 2004, Petitioner's investigator Katina Johnson visited 6347 Collins Road, Jacksonville, Florida, on a random job site visit. Investigator Johnson inquired of Respondent's superintendent at the job site whether Respondent had secured the payment of workers’ compensation coverage. She was informed that Respondent had done so and was subsequently provided with a Certificate of Liability Insurance from Respondent’s agent in Georgia, the Cowart Insurance Agency, Inc. Investigator Johnson also obtained a copy of Respondent’s workers’ compensation insurance policy which had a policy period of September 23, 2003, to September 23, 2004. The policy and the information contained in the Certificate of Liability Insurance were not consistent. Keith Cowart, Respondent’s insurance underwriter in Georgia, testified in deposition that the certificate of insurance is not correct because it conflicts with Respondent’s workers’ compensation policy, 01-WC-975384-20, which does not have a Florida endorsement. Subsequent to the site visit, Investigator Johnson continued the investigation of Respondent utilizing the Department’s Coverage and Compliance Automated System (“CCAS”) database that contains information to show proof of coverage. She determined that Respondent did not have a Florida workers' compensation insurance policy. Johnson also checked the National Council for Compensation Insurance (“NCCI”) database and further confirmed that Respondent did not have a workers’ compensation insurance policy for the State of Florida. Petitioner also maintains a database of all workers’ compensation exemptions in the State of Florida. In consulting that database, Johnson did not find any current, valid exemptions for Respondent. Florida law requires that an employer who has employees engaged in work in Florida must obtain a Florida workers’ compensation policy or endorsement for such employees utilizing Florida class codes, rates, rules, and manuals to be in compliance. Further, any policy or endorsement used by an employer to prove the fact of workers' compensation coverage for employees engaged in Florida work must be issued by an insurer that holds a valid certificate of authority in the State of Florida. The insurance policy held by Respondent did not satisfy these standards. First, Respondent's policy was written by Cowart Insurance Agency, a Georgia agency which was not authorized to write insurance in Florida. Second, the premium was based on a rate that was less than the Florida premium rate; the policy schedule of operations page shows that Safeco Business Insurance insured Respondent for operations under class codes utilizing Georgia premium rates. On July 6, 2004, Investigator Johnson received a copy of another insurance policy declaration page from the Cowart Insurance Agency for Respondent that still did not have Florida listed as a covered state under Section 3A. In fact, none of Respondent’s workers’ compensation policies had a Florida endorsement with Florida listed in Section 3A. On July 7, 2004, after consulting with her supervisor, Investigator Johnson issued and served on Respondent a stop-work order and order of penalty assessment for failure to comply with the requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, specifically for failure to secure the payment of workers’ compensation based on Florida class codes, rates, rules and manuals. After the issuance of the stop-work order, Respondent produced a certificate of insurance with a Florida endorsement that would allegedly confer workers’ compensation coverage retroactively for Respondent. Such retroactive coverage does not satisfy Respondent’s obligation. Employers on job sites in Florida are required to maintain business records that enable Petitioner to determine whether the employer is in compliance with the workers' compensation law. Investigator Johnson issued to Respondent a request for the production of business records on July 7, 2004. The request asked the employer to produce, for the preceding three years, documents that reflected payroll and proof of insurance. Respondent produced payroll records for a number of employees. On August 2, 2004, Investigator Johnson issued a second business records request to Respondent because she noticed that the names of the workers that she interviewed during her site visit were not the same as the list of employees submitted by Respondent. Respondent failed to produce the requested records. When an employer fails to provide requested business records which the statute requires it to maintain and to make available to the Department, effective October 1, 2003, the Department is authorized by Section 440.107(7)(e), Florida Statutes, to impute that employer's payroll using the statewide average weekly wage multiplied by l.5. Petitioner therefore imputed Respondent's payroll for the entire period for which the requested business records were not produced. From the payroll records provided by Respondent, and through imputation of payroll from October 1, 2003, the Department calculated a penalty for the time period of July 7, 2001, through July 7, 2004, by assigning a class code to the type of work utilizing the SCOPES Manual. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment which assessed a penalty of $115,456.14 was served on Respondent through its attorney on September 27, 2004. The Department issued and served on Respondent a second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on November 10, 2004, with the penalty imputed back three years to July 7, 2001. The Department assessed a penalty of $100 per day for each day prior to October 1, 2003, for a total of $216,794.50. On April 28, 2005, the Department issued to Respondent a third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment with an assessed penalty of $63,871.02. The reduction in the amount of penalty was due to the Department’s determination that it did not have the authority at the time to impute the $100 per day penalty prior to October 1, 2003. On July 7, 2005, Respondent entered into a Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty and was issued an Order of Conditional Release from Stop-Work Order by the Department. Respondent made a down payment of ten percent of the assessed penalty; provided proof of compliance with Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by obtaining a Florida endorsement on its workers’ compensation insurance policy; and agreed to pay the remaining penalty in sixty equal monthly payment installments. Respondent has since defaulted on those payments. Section 440.107(7)(c), Florida Statutes, requires the Department to assess a penalty of $1,000 per day for each day that the employer conducts business operations in violation of a stop-work order. Several months after issuing the stop-work order, Investigator Johnson was informed that Respondent was conducting business operations in Miami in violation thereof. She obtained documentation that showed Respondent was performing electrical work as part of a contract it entered into with KVC Constructors, Inc., on August 4, 2004. Investigator Johnson obtained the daily sign-in sheets of KVC Constructors, Inc., that indicated the names of each entity that performed work on the job site for each particular day. She determined from the records that Respondent had worked 187 days in violation of the stop-work order prior to entering into the Payment Agreement Schedule and obtaining the Order of Conditional Release from the Department. On October 7, 2005, the Department issued to Respondent a fourth Amended Order of Penalty Assessment which assessed a penalty of $250,871.02. That amount was comprised of the $63,871.02 from the third Amended Order plus $187,000 for the 187 days of violation of the stop-work order.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order imposing a penalty against Respondent in the amount of $250,871.02 minus the amount of payments previously made by Respondent to the Department. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of June, 2006, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of June, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Colin M. Roopnarine, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 H.R. Electric, Inc. c/o Mr. Jeremy Hershberger 5512 Main Street Flowery Branch, Georgia 30542 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Carlos Muñiz, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether Respondent, Forgue General Contracting, Inc., violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by failing to secure the payment of workers’ compensation coverage; and, if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with enforcing workers’ compensation coverage requirements in Florida, including the requirement that employers secure the payment of workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. See § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Respondent operates a construction company in Florida, and Respondent has been in business since 2004. On October 31, 2018, Margaret Cavazos, a compliance investigator with the Department, conducted a random workers’ compensation check at a worksite located at 1172 East State Road 434 in Winter Springs, Florida. The worksite is a two-story commercial building with five individual storefronts. Investigator Cavazos arrived at the worksite at 8:30 a.m. There, she observed four individuals who she believed were preparing the exterior of the building for painting. One person was covering a window with tape and brown construction paper. Two more individuals were standing in the bucket of a boom lift approximately 15 feet above the ground next to the building. They appeared to be placing blue tape over a sign of one of the businesses in the building. A fourth person was positioned by a truck supervising the activity. Investigator Cavazos further noticed that several of the business names had already been covered with construction paper and tape. Investigator Cavazos approached the person standing by the truck and introduced herself. He identified himself as Jose Luis Chachel. Mr. Chachel informed Investigator Cavazos that he and the other three individuals at the worksite were working for a company called RC Painting Services, Inc. (“RC Painting”). Mr. Chachel further stated that they were preparing the building to be painted. The other three individuals at the worksite identified themselves to Investigator Cavazos as Juan Carlos Vasquez Garcia, Artemia Vasquez, and Jenny Araque. Investigator Cavazos watched the four individuals work at the jobsite for about an hour, then they departed. Investigator Cavazos, however, did not obtain any information from Mr. Chachel or the other individuals concerning how long they had worked for RC Painting, when they had arrived at the jobsite, their rate of pay, or whether RC Painting had actually paid them for their work. At the final hearing, Investigator Cavazos testified that her duties for the Department include inspecting businesses and worksites to determine whether a business has obtained the required workers’ compensation insurance coverage. Investigator Cavazos explained that a business that performs construction- related work must have workers’ compensation coverage. Therefore, Investigator Cavazos believed that, prior to beginning the painting activities, RC Painting should have secured sufficient workers’ compensation coverage for all four individuals identified at the worksite. After learning the name of the business that arranged for the presence of the four individuals at the jobsite, Investigator Cavazos consulted the Department’s Coverage and Compliance Automated System (“CCAS”) database for information on RC Painting. CCAS is a Department database that tracks workers’ compensation insurance coverage. CCAS contains coverage data from insurance carriers, as well as any workers’ compensation exemptions on file with the Department. Insurance providers are required to report coverage and cancellation information, which the Department uses to update CCAS. CCAS had no record that RC Painting carried any workers’ compensation coverage for the four individuals Investigator Cavazos observed at the worksite. While reviewing CCAS, Inspector Cavazos also noted that the Department did not have on file any request from RC Painting for an “exemption” from workers’ compensation coverage. An exemption is a method by which a business’s corporate officer may exempt him or herself from the requirements of chapter 440. See § 440.05, Fla. Stat. CCAS also revealed to Investigator Cavazos that on the date of her inspection, RC Painting had an active employee leasing agreement with SouthEast Personnel Leasing (“SouthEast Leasing”), an employee staffing company. At the final hearing, Inspector Cavazos explained that a business is not required to obtain workers’ compensation insurance for its employees if coverage is properly provided by or through an employee leasing company’s workers’ compensation policy. However, in order for an employee leasing company to become responsible for the workers’ compensation coverage of a particular employee, the business seeking coverage for that employee must ensure that the employee submits an application to the leasing company. Thereafter, if (and only if) the leasing company accepts the application, the leasing company becomes accountable for the workers’ compensation insurance coverage for that employee. Investigator Cavazos contacted SouthEast Leasing. SouthEast Leasing provided Investigator Cavazos an active roster of employees it leased to RC Painting. However, neither Mr. Chachel, Juan Carlos Vasquez Garcia, Artemia Vasquez, nor Jenny Araque were listed on this roster. Therefore, Investigator Cavazos concluded that none of the four individuals she identified at the worksite were covered by workers’ compensation insurance under RC Painting’s leasing arrangement with SouthEast Leasing on October 31, 2018. After determining that neither CCAS nor SouthEast Leasing recorded any workers’ compensation coverage for the persons at the worksite, Investigator Cavazos contacted RC Painting’s owner, Roberto Chavez. (Mr. Chachel provided Investigator Cavazos with his phone number during her inspection.) Investigator Cavazos testified that, during their phone call, Mr. Chavez confirmed that the four individuals worked for him. Mr. Chavez further informed Investigator Cavazos that RC Painting had been hired by Respondent to paint the building. At that point, Investigator Cavazos called Respondent to inquire about workers’ compensation coverage for Jose Luis Chachel, Juan Carlos Vasquez Garcia, Artemia Vasquez, and Jenny Araque. Investigator Cavazos spoke with one of Respondent’s employees, Anthony Gonzalez. Mr. Gonzalez confirmed that Respondent engaged RC Painting to paint the building. Continuing to search for active workers’ compensation coverage, Investigator Cavazos discovered that Respondent also had an employee leasing agreement with SouthEast Leasing. Investigator Cavazos reviewed SouthEast Leasing’s roster which recorded only two covered employees for Respondent, Anthony Gonzalez and Edward Forgue (Respondent’s president). As with RC Painting’s leasing agreement, Respondent’s leasing agreement with SouthEast Leasing did not cover Jose Luis Chachel, Juan Carlos Vasquez Garcia, Artemia Vasquez, or Jenny Araque on October 31, 2018. As detailed below, under section 440.10(1), a contractor is liable for, and is required to secure, workers’ compensation coverage for all employees of a subcontractor to whom the contractor sublets work. (Section 440.10(1)(c) also directs the contractor to require a subcontractor to provide evidence of workers’ compensation insurance.) Therefore, as a contractor hiring a subcontractor for construction work, Respondent was required to exercise due diligence to ensure that all RC Painting’s employees who were painting the building were covered by workers’ compensation insurance. On October 31, 2018, based on her findings, Investigator Cavazos issued a Stop-Work Order to RC painting. Later that day, Mr. Chavez ventured to the Department’s local office to determine how his business could be released from the Stop-Work Order. There, he met with district supervisor, Salma Qureshi. Ms. Qureshi informed Mr. Chavez that, in order for his company to return to work, he needed to pay a $1,000 fine and complete an Affirmation. She explained to Mr. Chavez that on the Affirmation, he was to describe how RC Painting intended to come into full compliance with workers’ compensation coverage requirements. Mr. Chavez had, in fact, brought with him a cashier’s check for $1,000. (The amount was included on the Stop-Work Order.) Mr. Chavez then completed an Affirmation before Ms. Qureshi. On the Affirmation, Mr. Chavez wrote the names of the four individuals Investigator Cavazos identified at the jobsite. Next to each name, Mr. Chavez wrote “$20.” Below the names, he wrote “I am terminating.” Mr. Chavez then signed and dated the Affirmation. At the final hearing, Ms. Qureshi expressed that Mr. Chavez told her that he was going to pay each of the four individuals $20 for the day’s work they performed on October 31, 2018, and then he was terminating them. In addition to issuing the Stop-Work Order to RC Painting, on October 31, 2018, Investigator Cavazos issued a Stop-Work Order for Specific Worksite Only to Respondent, which was served on November 2, 2018. Investigator Cavazos also served Respondent with a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation. Through this document, the Department requested several categories of business records from Respondent for the period of November 1, 2016, through October 31, 2018. The requested documents pertained to: employer identification, payroll documents, account documents, disbursements, workers’ compensation coverage, professional employer organization records, temporary labor service, exemptions, subcontractor records, and subcontractors’ workers’ compensation coverage. Based on Investigator Cavazos’s investigation, the Department determined that Respondent failed to secure adequate workers’ compensation coverage for its employees. Therefore, the Department proceeded to calculate a penalty based on Respondent’s lack of compliance with chapter 440. The Penalty Calculation: Nathaniel Hatten, the penalty auditor who determined the penalty the Department seeks to impose on Respondent, testified regarding his computation. Mr. Hatten explained that the penalty essentially consists of the “avoided” premium amount, or the actual premium the employer would have paid in workers’ compensation insurance for the uncovered employees, multiplied by two. To calculate the appropriate penalty for Respondent’s failure to secure workers’ compensation coverage, the Department first ascertained Respondent’s period of non-compliance. To determine this time frame, the Department referred to Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.028(2), which directs that: The employer’s time period or periods of non-compliance means the time period(s) within the two years preceding the date the stop-work order was issued to the employer within which the employer failed to secure the payment of compensation pursuant to chapter 440, F.S., and must be either the same time period as set forth in the business records request for the calculation of penalty or an alternative time period or period(s) as determined by the Department, whichever is less. The employer may provide the Department with records from other sources, including, but not limited to, the Department of State, Division of Corporations, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, licensing offices, and building permitting offices to show an alternative time period or period(s) of non- compliance. Based on these instructions, the Department deduced that Respondent’s period of non-compliance ran from November 1, 2016, through October 31, 2018, which was the two-year period preceding the date of the Stop-Work Order. (This two-year period was also the time for which the Department requested business records from Respondent.) After determining Respondent’s period of non- compliance, the Department then calculated the monetary penalty it should impose upon Respondent. In accordance with section 440.107(7)(d)1., the Department must assess against an employer: a penalty equal to 2 times the amount the employer would have paid in premium when applying approved manual rates to the employer’s payroll during periods for which it failed to secure the payment of workers’ compensation required by this chapter within the preceding 2-year period or $1,000, whichever is greater. Therefore, the Department reviewed the business records Respondent provided to ascertain the amount of Respondent’s payroll during the two-year period of non-compliance. In response to the Department’s request for documents, Respondent produced its client leasing agreement with SouthEast Leasing. This leasing agreement, however, only covered Mr. Forgue and Mr. Gonzalez. Further, the leasing agreement was only in effect from February 7, 2018, through October 30, 2018, for Mr. Forgue and February 21, 2018, through October 30, 2018 for Mr. Gonzalez. No evidence establishes that Respondent made any other payments for workers’ compensation insurance coverage outside of the SouthEast Leasing agreement. Consequently, the evidence in the record establishes that Respondent had no workers’ compensation coverage for any of its employees, officers, or subcontractor employees from November 1, 2016, through February 6, 2018. And, only Mr. Forgue and Mr. Gonzalez were covered from February 2018 through October 30, 2018. Further, Respondent did not provide any payroll information to the Department per its request for business records. Consequently, the documentation was not comprehensive enough for the Department to determine all the wages Respondent paid to its employees, or the work they performed for the period of November 1, 2016, through October 31, 2018. Therefore, the Department determined that Respondent did not provide business records sufficient for it to calculate Respondent’s complete payroll or the actual employee wages it paid over the two-year period of non-compliance. Accordingly, the Department exercised its option to “impute” Respondent’s weekly payroll from November 1, 2016, through October 31, 2018. To calculate Respondent’s imputed weekly payroll, section 440.107(7)(e) directs that the gross payroll for an employer who provides insufficient business records is imputed at the statewide average weekly wage, multiplied by 1.5, for each employee who worked during the period requested for the penalty calculation. Therefore, the Department obtained the statewide average weekly wage effective at the time of the Stop- Work Order ($917.00)2/ for each identified employee, corporate officer, and subcontractor, then multiplied that number by 1.5. See § 440.107(7)(e), Fla. Stat.; and Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L- 6.028(3)(a). The Department imputed the payroll for all four individuals Investigator Cavazos observed at the worksite on October 31, 2018 (Jose Luis Chachel, Juan Carlos Vasquez Garcia, Artemia Vasquez, and Jenny Araque), for all periods of non- compliance (November 1, 2016 through October 31, 2018). No evidence established that these individuals were covered under a workers’ compensation policy either through Respondent, RC Painting, or SouthEast Leasing. The Department also included Mr. Forgue for a period of non-compliance from January 22, 2018, through February 8, 2018. The Department imputed his payroll during this period of time explaining that Respondent did not have an active workers’ compensation exemption on file for Mr. Forgue. Neither was he covered by SouthEast Leasing’s policy during this brief timeframe. Therefore, Respondent was required to carry workers’ compensation for Mr. Forgue from January 22, 2018, through February 8, 2018. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.028(3)(b). To calculate a penalty based on the imputed payroll, the Department assigned Respondent’s employees the highest rated workers’ compensation classification code. The classification code is based on either the business records submitted or the investigator’s observation of the employees’ activities. In this case, the business records Respondent provided to the Department were not sufficient to categorize the exact type of work that the identified workers performed for Respondent over the two-year period of non-compliance. However, during her investigation of the jobsite on October 31, 2018, Investigator Cavazos observed the four employees engaging in activities associated with “painting.” According to the Scopes Manual issued by the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc. (“NCCI”), class code 5475 is applied to “painting contractors engaged in painting.”3/ Consequently, the Department used class code 5474 for all Respondent’s employees and corporate officer for the penalty period. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.028(3)(b) and 69L- 6.021(2)(jj)(painting is classified as “construction activity”). Therefore, to calculate the premium amount for the workers’ compensation insurance Respondent should have paid for its “employees” (Jose Luis Chachel, Juan Carlos Vasquez Garcia, Artemia Vasquez, and Jenny Araque) and officer (Mr. Forgue), the Department applied the manual rates corresponding to class code 5474. Thereafter, based on: 1) the total periods of non- compliance, 2) Respondent’s calculated payroll for the periods of non-compliance, and 3) the estimated premium for workers’ compensation insurance, the Department issued the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment (“Penalty Assessment”) on November 30, 2018, which was served on Respondent on February 28, 2019. The Penalty Assessment seeks to impose a penalty of $129,089.60 against Respondent. At the final hearing, Respondent argued that the individuals Investigator Cavazos identified at the worksite on October 31, 2018, were never hired by Respondent’s subcontractor, RC Painting. Therefore, they are not “employees” under chapter 440, and Respondent is not an “employer” for purposes of securing workers’ compensation coverage. Consequently, Respondent argues that the penalty the Department seeks to assess against Respondent is not warranted. Mr. Chavez testified at the final hearing for Respondent describing his employment relationship with Jose Luis Chachel, Juan Carlos Vasquez Garcia, Artemia Vasquez, and Jenny Araque. Initially, Mr. Chavez confirmed that Respondent hired RC Painting to paint the exterior of the shopping plaza. Regarding the four individuals Investigator Cavazos identified at the jobsite, however, Mr. Chavez denied that they were “employees” of RC Painting on October 31, 2018. Mr. Chavez explained that he used SouthEast Leasing to “hire” his employees. Mr. Chavez asserted that before he puts someone to work, he requires them to complete an employment application with SouthEast Leasing. Only after SouthEast Leasing approved the employee would he allow the individual to work on a job. In this matter, Mr. Chavez denied that he had ever worked with Mr. Chachel before, or ever met the other three individuals that Mr. Chachel brought with him to the jobsite. Mr. Chavez maintained that he called Mr. Chachel on the evening of October 30, 2018, about the prospective painting job. He then asked Mr. Chachel to bring two other workers and meet him at the jobsite the following morning. Mr. Chavez testified that he instructed Mr. Chachel that he would need to send information to SouthEast Leasing before anyone actually started working on the project. Mr. Chavez further contended that he did not have any discussion with Mr. Chachel about wages or the rate of pay for the job. He declared that he never commits to paying any prospective employee before ascertaining what type of skills they possess. Mr. Chavez explained that, “anyone can tell you, ‘I’ve been painting all of my life,’ and they show up and don’t know how to paint, or they don’t know how to do anything.” In response to Inspector Cavazos’s testimony, Mr. Chavez exclaimed that he never told her that the four individuals were his “employees.” He merely relayed that they were “with” him. Mr. Chavez also insisted that he never authorized Mr. Chachel or his crew to start preparing the building for painting prior to meeting with him. Mr. Chavez further relayed that Respondent provided the boom lift for the job. But, he never instructed Mr. Chachel to begin using it. Mr. Chavez arrived at the shopping plaza around 9:30 a.m. However, by that time Investigator Cavazos had issued the Stop- Work Order, and only Mr. Chachel remained at the scene. Regarding the Affirmation he completed at the Department’s district office, Mr. Chavez testified that, other than Mr. Chachel, he did not know the names of individuals who Investigator Cavazos identified at the jobsite. He asserted that he wrote their names on the Affirmation only after Ms. Qureshi spelled them out for him on a sticky note. Mr. Chavez further professed that he only penned “$20” by each name because Ms. Qureshi told him that the Department would not release him from the Stop-Work Order until he added the wages he paid to each individual. Mr. Chavez claimed that Ms. Qureshi specifically instructed him to insert a number by each employee. Mr. Chavez declared that he felt like he had no choice but to include “$20” on the Affirmation if he wanted to return to work. In actuality, however, Mr. Chavez insisted that he did not pay Jose Luis Chachel, Juan Carlos Vasquez Garcia, Artemia Vasquez, or Jenny Araque anything for their activities on October 31, 2018. Ms. Qureshi testified for the Department on rebuttal. She credibly voiced that she did not write out the names of the four “employees” for Mr. Chavez to list on his Affirmation. Neither did she suggest a wage amount for their work, or force Mr. Chavez to write that he “terminated” them. On the contrary, Ms. Qureshi attested, clearly and without hesitation, that Mr. Chavez independently completed his sworn Affirmation, and he did not ask for her assistance with the specific information he wrote down. Ms. Qureshi persuasively stated that Mr. Chavez knew the names of Jose Luis Chachel, Juan Carlos Vasquez Garcia, Artemia Vasquez, and Jenny Araque when he composed the Affirmation. Further, Mr. Chavez expressly told her that he was going to pay the four individuals $20 for the day, and that he was terminating them. The competent substantial evidence in the record establishes that Jose Luis Chachel, Juan Carlos Vasquez Garcia, Artemia Vasquez, and Jenny Araque were “employees” of RC Painting under section 440.02(15) on October 31, 2018. Based on this finding, the Department demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent failed to secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage or a workers’ compensation exemption for four employees for the period of November 1, 2016, through October 31, 2018, as well as its corporate officer from January 22, 2018, through February 8, 2018. Accordingly, the Department met its burden of proving that Respondent violated chapter 440 and should be penalized.
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, Forgue General Contracting, Inc., violated the requirement in chapter 440 to secure workers’ compensation coverage, and imposing a total penalty of $129,089.60. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of October, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER 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 October, 2019.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner properly issued a Stop-Work Order and 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment against Respondent for failing to obtain workers' compensation insurance that meets the requirements of chapter 440, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Division is a component of the Department of Financial Services. It is responsible for enforcing the workers' compensation coverage requirements pursuant to section 440.107. At all times relevant to this proceeding, USA was a corporation registered to do business in Florida. Respondent is a company engaged in the construction industry and was active during the two-year audit period from August 27, 2013, through August 26, 2015. On August 26, 2015, Julio Cabrera ("investigator" or Cabrera"), compliance investigator for the Division, conducted a random construction compliance check at the residential job site, 741 Harbor Drive in Key Biscayne ("residential home"). Cabrera observed two men on Respondent's scaffold plastering the exterior wall of the residential home. Cabrera interviewed the two men working on the scaffold. The workers told the investigator that they were employed by Respondent. They also identified Garcia as the Respondent's owner and provided Garcia's contact information to Cabrera. After interviewing the two workers, Cabrera checked the Department's Coverage and Compliance Automated System for proof of workers' compensation coverage and for exemptions associated with USA. Cabrera's search revealed Garcia had an active exemption, but Respondent did not have a workers' compensation insurance policy or an employee leasing policy for its employees. Cabrera also confirmed that Respondent did not have any type of workers' compensation coverage for its employees by examining the National Council on Compensation Insurance database. Next, Cabrera placed a telephone call to Garcia and interviewed him. Garcia informed Cabrera that the two workers were USA's employees and that Respondent did not have workers' compensation insurance coverage for the workers.1/ After interviewing Garcia, the investigator returned to the two USA employees and requested their identification. Silvano Antonio Delgado Reyes provided his identification and the other USA male employee fled from the job site. That same day Cabrera issued Respondent a Stop-Work Order on behalf of the Division for Respondent's failure to secure the required workers' compensation insurance coverage. Petitioner also served Respondent a Request of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation ("Request") asking for documentation to enable the Division to determine payroll for the audit period of August 27, 2013, through August 26, 2015. USA responded to the Request for records and provided the Division with verification of its business records on several different occasions. Ultimately, Respondent provided bank statements and corresponding check images for most of the two- year audit period. Christopher Richardson ("auditor" or "Richardson"), penalty auditor for the Division, was assigned to USA's investigation. Richardson reviewed the business records produced by Respondent and determined those persons employed by USA during the audit period without workers' compensation insurance. Richardson properly recalculated the penalty amount each time new records were provided by Respondent. USA did not provide sufficient records to determine payroll for February 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014, and August 1, 2015, through 25, 2015, and Richardson properly utilized the computation formula to determine the payroll for the aforementioned audit period without adequate records. Richardson concluded his audit by properly calculating the workers' compensation amount USA owed in workers' compensation insurance for the audit period using the Class Code 5022 for masonry work. Richardson applied the approved manual rates and methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d) and concluded USA owed a penalty amount of $52,489.24. On March 28, 2016, the Division served Respondent the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in the amount of $52,489.24 naming those persons employed by USA during the audit period. On June 30, 2015, Respondent challenged the Stop-Work Order and penalty assessment and requested a formal hearing.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, issue a final order affirming the Stop-Work Order and 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in the amount of $52,489.24. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of July, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. MCKINNEY 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 15th day of July, 2016.
The Issue The issues to be determined in this case are whether Respondent Lockhart Builders, Inc., violated state laws applicable to workers’ compensation insurance coverage by failing to secure coverage for three employees and failing to produce records requested by Petitioner Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (Department) and, if so, what penalty should be assessed for the violations.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for the enforcement of the workers’ compensation insurance coverage requirements established in Chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2007).1 Respondent is a Florida corporation with its office in Bradenton. William Lockhart is Respondent’s president. Respondent is licensed to engage in construction activity in Florida. Respondent was engaged to construct a two-story duplex at 2315 Gulf Drive in Bradenton. Respondent began work at the job site on or about February 21, 2007. On August 22, 2007, Lockhart received a proposal from Burak Yavalar, owner of BY Construction, to do the exterior stucco work on the duplex building for a flat fee of $10,750. The proposal was accepted by Respondent on August 23, 2007. Yavalar presented Lockhart with a certificate of liability insurance which indicated that he had obtained workers’ compensation coverage for his employees. The certificate was issued by Employee Leasing Solutions, Inc. (ELS), a professional leasing company in Bradenton. ELS provides mainly payroll services and workers’ compensation insurance coverage for its clients. Lockhart did not ask for, and Yavalar did not provide Lockhart with, a list of the names of the BY Construction employees who were covered by the insurance. Lockhart made a call to ELS to verify that BY Construction had workers’ compensation insurance coverage, but he did not ask for a list of BY Construction employees covered by its insurance policy. BY Construction began work at Respondent’s job site on or about September 10 or 11, 2007. On September 12, 2007, BY Construction had eight employees at the job site. One employee, Justin Ormes, had previously worked for BY Construction, had quit for a while, and had just returned. Two other employees, Carlos Lopez and Jaime Alcatar, had been working on a nearby job site and were asked by Yavalar to come to work at Respondent’s job site. Yavalar claims that on the morning of September 12, 2007, Ormes, Lopez, and Alcatar had not yet been employed or authorized to start work for BY Construction. On September 12, 2007, Petitioner’s investigators Germaine Green and Colleen Wharton performed a random compliance check at Respondent’s job site. Without being specific about what particular work was being performed at the site by Ormes, Lopez, and Alcatar, the investigators testified that when they arrived at the job site they observed all eight men performing stucco work. The investigators spoke to Yavalar, Lockhart and the workers at the job site to determine their identities and employment status. Yavalar told the investigators his eight employees had workers’ compensation insurance coverage through ELS. However, upon checking relevant records, the investigators determined that insurance coverage for Ormes, Lopez, and Alcatar had not been secured by either BY Construction or Respondent. Wharton issued a statewide stop-work order to BY Construction for its failure to obtain workers’ compensation coverage for the three employees. After the stop work order was issued, Yavalar left the job site with Lopez and Alcatar to complete their paperwork to obtain insurance coverage through ELS. Yavalar’s wife was able to re-activate Ormes’ insurance coverage with ELS over the telephone. By the end of the day on September 12, 2007, insurance coverage was secured by BY Construction for Ormes, Lopez, and Alcatar. The business records of BY Construction produced for the Department indicated that Ormes had been paid by BY Construction in the period from March to July 2007, and then on September 12, 2007; Lopez had been paid on August 24, 2007, and then on September 12, 2007; Alcatar had been paid on September 12, 2007. All three men were paid only $28 on September 12, 2007. This evidence supports the testimony of Yavalar that these three had arrived at Respondent’s job site for the first time on September 12, 2008. BY Construction was later served with an amended order of penalty for its failure to obtain workers’ compensation coverage for the three employees. It arranged with the Department to pay the penalty through installments and was conditionally released from the stop-work order. When the Department's investigators were at the job site on September 12, 2007, they informed Lockhart about the stop-work order being issued to BY Construction and gave Lockhart a Request for Production of Business Records for the purpose of determining whether Respondent had obtained proof of workers’ compensation insurance coverage from BY Construction before BY Construction commenced work at Respondent’s job site. Respondent produced the requested records. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law, Florida law charges a contractor with the duty to secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage for any uninsured employees of its subcontractors. On this basis, the Department served Respondent with a Stop-Work Order and an Order of Penalty Assessment on September 21, 2007, for failing to secure coverage for Ormes, Lopez, and Alcatar. On September 21, 2007, the Department served a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation to Respondent. The Department’s request asked Respondent to produce records for the preceding three years, including payroll records, tax returns, and proof of insurance. Respondent produced some records in response to this second request, which the Department deemed insufficient to calculate a penalty. However, the evidence shows Respondent produced the only records that it possessed regarding its association with BY Construction. The Department’s proposed penalty does not include an assessment based solely on Respondent’s failure to produce requested records. When an employer fails to provide requested business records within 15 days of the request, the Department is authorized to assess a penalty by imputing the employer's payroll using "the statewide average weekly wage as defined in Section 440.12(2), multiplied by l.5." § 440.107(7)(e), Fla. Stat., and Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.028. Imputing the gross payroll for Ormes, Lopez and Alcatar for the years 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007, by using the average weekly wage for the type of work, the Department assessed Respondent with a penalty of $138,596.67 and issued an Order of Penalty Assessment to Respondent on October 31, 2007. Petitioner later amended the penalty to $70,272.51, based on the fact that BY Construction was not incorporated until January 1, 2006, and issued a Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on December 20, 2007.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department enter a final order that amends its penalty assessment to reflect one day of non-compliance by Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 2008.
The Issue Whether Thompson Enterprises of Jacksonville, 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 2nd 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 workers' compensation coverage requirements applicable to employers under Florida law. Respondent is a Florida limited-liability company organized on October 25, 2011. The managing members listed on Respondent’s State of Florida Articles of Organization are Thomas Thompson, Michael Thompson, and Vicky Thompson. In May 2016, Department Compliance Investigator Ann Johnson was assigned to conduct a job site visit on Respondent’s business because its name appeared on the Department’s Bureau of Compliance’s “lead list.” The “lead list” is one of the Department’s databases listing employers that are potentially out of compliance with Florida's workers' compensation insurance requirements. Prior to the job site visit, Investigator Johnson reviewed the Division of Corporations website, www.sunbiz.org, and confirmed Respondent's address, managing members' names, and that Respondent was a current, active Florida company. Respondent’s website advertised towing, wrecker, mechanic, and body shop services. On May 6, 2016, Investigator Johnson visited Respondent's principal address located at 7600 Bailey Body Road, Jacksonville, Florida 32216. She noted a large commercial sign near Respondent’s address that advertised towing and wrecker services. During her visit, Investigator Johnson spoke with Vicky Thompson and Michael Thompson, both of whom advised that they were owners of Respondent. The Thompsons informed Investigator Johnson that Respondent had six employees, including the three listed as managers on Respondent’s Articles of Organization. When Investigator Johnson asked for proof of workers’ compensation coverage, Michael Thompson admitted that Respondent had no such coverage. Under Florida law, employers in the non-construction industry, such as Respondent, must secure workers' compensation insurance if "four or more employees are employed by the same employer." §§ 440.02(17)(b) and 440.107, Fla. Stat. On the same day as her site visit, Investigator Johnson confirmed Respondent’s lack of insurance with a search of the Department's internal database, Coverage and Compliance Automated System. At the time, Respondent had no active exemptions from the requirements of obtaining workers’ compensation for its three managing members. Based on her investigation, Investigator Johnson served Respondent with the Stop-Work Order and a Request for Production on May 6, 2016. Upon serving the documents, Investigator Johnson explained the effect and purpose of the documents and how Respondent could come into compliance. Respondent came into compliance that same day by paying a $1,000 down payment, reducing Respondent's workforce to three employees, applying for exemptions for its three managing members, and executing an agreed Order of conditional release with the Department. Respondent subsequently complied with the Department’s Request for Production. In June 2016, the Department assigned Penalty Auditor Eunika Jackson to review records obtained from Respondent and calculate the penalty to be assessed against Respondent. In accordance with applicable law, the Department's audit spanned the preceding two-year period, starting from the date of the Stop-Work Order. See § 440.107(7)(d)1., Fla. Stat. The audit period in this case was from May 7, 2014, through May 6, 2016. Based on information obtained during the investigation, Auditor Jackson assigned classification codes 7219, 8380, and 8810 to those identified as employees working for Respondent during the audit period. Classification codes are four-digit codes assigned to various occupations by the National Council on Compensation Insurance ("NCCI") to assist in the calculation of workers' compensation insurance premiums. Classification code 8810 applies to clerical office employees, code 7219 applies to trucking and "towing companies," and code 8380 applies to automobile service or repair centers. According to Respondent, it was out of compliance with the coverage requirements of chapter 440 for only "368 days" during the two-year audit period. Respondent's records, however, do not support this contention. Respondent provided a detailed "Employee Earnings Summary" for each employee stating the employee’s name, pay rate, and pay period. Respondent's payroll records reflect that Respondent employed "four or more employees" during the audit period. Throughout the two-year audit period, Respondent employed four or more employees with the following duties: Anna Lee, mechanic/bodywork; Cedric Blake, mechanic/bodywork; David Raynor, mechanic/bodywork; James Budner, mechanic/bodywork; Jason Leighty, mechanic; Kevin Croker, Jr., porter/detailer; Nicholas Conway, bodywork; Ralph Tenity, bodywork; Rebecca Thompson, secretary/office help; Stephen Collins, shop helper/porter; Todd Gatshore, tow truck driver/shop helper; and Williams Reeves, tow truck driver/shop helper. Evidence further demonstrated that, during the audit period, managing member Michael Thompson worked as a wrecker truckdriver, and worked with the Sheriff's Office to clear traffic accidents. He was assigned class code 7219 — tow truck driver. Managing member Vicky Thompson was given the clerical class code 8810 because she was observed working in the office during Investigator Johnson's site visit. Managing member Thomas Thompson was assigned the clerical class code 8810 based upon the fact that he occasionally does office work for the business. The corresponding approved manual rates for classification codes 8810, 7219, and 8380 were correctly applied to each employee for the related periods of non-compliance to determine the final penalty. In accordance with the Request for Production, Respondent provided the Department payroll summary reports, tax reports, and unemployment tax reports. The payroll summary reports and records provided by Respondent listed the payroll and duties for each employee. The gross payroll amounts for each employee reflected in the penalty in this case were derived from those documents. Upon receiving those reports and records, the Department correctly determined the gross payroll for Respondent's employees. On June 13, 2016, the Department served the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on Respondent, assessing a penalty of $33,788.90. A portion of the first penalty was based on imputed payroll for Respondent’s three managing members. After service of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, Respondent provided additional records showing the payroll of its three managing members, and the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was calculated after removing the imputed payroll. On August 22, 2016, the Department served the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on Respondent, assessing a penalty of $33,112.44, which was correctly calculated in accordance with section 440.107(7)(d)1. and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.027(1). In sum, the clear and convincing evidence demonstrated that Respondent was a tow truck company engaged in the wrecker/tow truck and body shop mechanic industries in Florida during the periods of noncompliance; that Respondent failed to secure the payment of workers' compensation for its employees in violation of Florida's Workers' Compensation Law; and that the Department correctly utilized the methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)1. and rule 69L-6.027(1) to determine the appropriate penalty of $33,112.44.
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 Thompson Enterprises of Jacksonville, LLC. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of April, 2017, 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 27th day of April, 2017.
The Issue The issues in this proceeding are whether Respondent, Mark Dunlap, d/b/a Mark Dunlap Masonry of Central Florida, Inc., a dissolved Florida corporation, and Mark Dunlap Masonry of Central Florida, Inc. ("Respondent") failed to abide by the coverage requirements of the Workers' Compensation Law, chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by not obtaining workers' compensation insurance for its employees; and whether the Petitioner properly assessed a penalty against the Respondent pursuant to section 440.107, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement of the workers' compensation law that employers secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage for their employees and corporate officers. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Respondent operates a masonry business located in Paisley, and is therefore engaged in the construction industry. On January 8, 2010, Hector Beauchamp, the Department's investigator, received a referral alleging that Respondent was working at 1601 Tillery Drive in Deltona, in violation of the Workers' Compensation Law. Mr. Beauchamp visited the plans examiner for the City of Deltona, who confirmed that a building permit had been issued for the cited address. Mr. Beauchamp drove to 1601 Tillery Drive in Deltona, where he found four people behind the house building a block wall as part of an addition to the single-family house at that address. Mark Dunlap was on the site, and told Mr. Beauchamp that the four men worked for his business, Mark Dunlap Masonry of Central Florida, Inc. Mr. Dunlap subsequently identified the four persons working on the site as Wayne Sochocki, Kevin Copeland, Annie Blackburn, and David Allen Baxley. Mr. Beauchamp researched the database maintained by the Department of State, Division of Corporations (accessible at www.sunbiz.org) and learned that Mark Dunlap Masonry of Central Florida, Inc. had been administratively dissolved for failure to file an annual report on September 25, 2009. Mr. Beauchamp also learned that Mr. Dunlap had owned another Florida corporation, Mark Dunlap Masonry, Inc., that had been administratively dissolved for failure to file an annual report on September 16, 2005. According to the Division of Corporations' information, both Mark Dunlap Masonry of Central Florida, Inc., and Mark Dunlap Masonry, Inc., had the same Federal Employer Identification Number ("FEIN") of 030531755. Mr. Dunlap claimed to Mr. Beauchamp that he was himself exempted from carrying workers' compensation coverage, but admitted that he had not secured coverage for the four employees building the block wall at 1601 Tillery Drive. Mr. Beauchamp consulted the Department's Coverage and Compliance Automated System ("CCAS") database, which lists the workers' compensation insurance policy information for each business as provided by the insurance companies, as well as any workers' compensation exemptions for corporate officers. CCAS indicated that in previous years Respondent had secured workers' compensation insurance through a leasing arrangement with Employee Leasing Solutions ("ELS"). In an employee leasing arrangement, the leasing company hires an employer's workers and leases them back to the employer. The leasing company provides payroll services and workers' compensation insurance coverage to the leased employees in exchange for a fee paid by the employer. However, only those employees specifically placed in the leasing arrangement by the employer and accepted as employees by the leasing company are covered by the leasing company's workers' compensation insurance. Mr. Beauchamp's investigation confirmed that Respondent's workers' compensation coverage obtained through the leasing agreement with ELS had been terminated as of July 8, 2008. The CCAS database confirmed that Mr. Dunlap had an active exemption from the requirement to obtain workers' compensation coverage. It also confirmed that none of the four employees whom Mr. Beauchamp found building the block wall at 1601 Tillery Drive were exempt. Mr. Beauchamp concluded that Respondent had failed to secure workers' compensation insurance coverage that met the requirements of chapter 440. Mr. Beauchamp therefore issued an SWO to Respondent on January 8, 2010, and personally served the SWO on Mr. Dunlap on the same date. Also on January 8, 2010, Mr. Beauchamp served Respondent with the Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation. The purpose of this request was to obtain the business records necessary to determine the appropriate penalty to be assessed against Respondent for violating the coverage requirements of chapter 440. Because section 440.107(7)(d)1. provides that the Department's assessment of a penalty covers the preceding three-year period, the request for production asked for Respondent's business records from January 9, 2007, through January 8, 2010. If an employer fails to produce business records sufficient to allow for the calculation of the appropriate penalty, the Department must calculate the applicable penalty by imputing the employer's payroll using the statewide average weekly wage for the type of work performed by the employee and multiplying that payroll by 1.5. The statewide average wage is derived by use of the occupation classification codes established by the proprietary Scopes Manual developed by the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc. ("NCCI"). The Scopes Manual has been adopted by reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.031(6). For Respondent's employees, Mr. Beauchamp applied the occupation classification code 5022, for masonry. Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L- 6.031(6)(b)9. The Department's Amended Order, assessing an imputed penalty in the amount of $121,001.30 against Respondent, was issued on February 12, 2010, and served on Mr. Dunlap by process server on March 5, 2010. Following service of the Amended Order, Respondent supplied the Department with additional business records, including Respondent's payroll runs from ELS and W-2's for the year 2007. However, even these records were not sufficient to permit the Department to calculate a penalty based on Respondent's actual payroll. The additional business records produced by Respondent did show that Mark Dunlap Masonry, Inc., had a policy of workers' compensation insurance in place with Business First Insurance Company from September 9, 2004, through February 22, 2008. Mr. Beauchamp had not previously found this coverage because the FEIN number listed by the Division of Corporations for Mark Dunlap Masonry, Inc., was incorrect. The Department issued the Second Amended Order on August 18, 2010, lowering the penalty assessment to $64,315.28. Although the Business First Insurance Company policy had been issued to Mark Dunlap Masonry, Inc., and not to Respondent, the Department nonetheless concluded that the policy brought Respondent into compliance with chapter 440 until February 22, 2008, and adjusted the penalty assessment accordingly. Respondent's workers' compensation coverage through the leasing agreement with ELS became effective on March 20, 2008, and was terminated on July 7, 2008. Of the four workers whom Mr. Beauchamp found at the work site on January 8, 2010, only Wayne Sochocki was listed on the ELS employee roster. Thus, Respondent was in compliance with respect to Mr. Sochocki for the period from March 20, 2008, through July 7, 2008. However, the records indicate that Respondent was not in compliance through the ELS leasing agreement with respect to its employees Kevin Copeland, Annie Blackburn, or David Allen Baxley because they had never been tendered to ELS as leased employees. The Department correctly imputed the penalty against Respondent for the four employees found at the work site on January 8, 2010, for all periods of noncompliance. The Department correctly determined the period of noncompliance for Mr. Sochocki to run from July 8, 2008 to January 8, 2010, and for Mr. Copeland, Ms. Blackburn and Mr. Baxley to run from February 22, 2008, to January 8, 2010. The Department utilized the correct occupation classification code for the four employees. The Department correctly utilized the procedure set forth by section 440.107(7)(d) and (e), and the penalty calculation worksheet incorporated by reference into Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.027(1), to calculate the penalty assessed against Respondent by the Second Amended Order.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, assessing a penalty of $64,315.28 against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of March, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of March, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Dunlap Mark Dunlap Masonry, Inc. 45806 Lake Street Paisley, Florida 32767 Justin H. Faulkner, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Julie Jones, Agency Clerk Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 P. K. Jameson, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Honorable Jeff Atwater Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Whether Respondent failed to secure the payment of workers’ compensation in violation of Sections 440.10(1), 440.38(1) and 440.107(2), Florida Statutes, by materially misrepresenting and concealing employee duties as to avoid proper classification for premium calculation, 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. Respondent is a commercial welding corporation based in Putnam County, Florida. It has been in business as an active Florida corporation since the early 1950s. Its principal office is located at 1301 Madison Street, Palatka, Florida 32177. Petitioner is an “employer” for purposes of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. Respondent is in the business of welding, fabrication and erection of structural steel, fabrication and installation of metal handrails and fire escapes to existing buildings, and various other metal fabrication and welding operations. Respondent is engaged in the construction industry. At all material times, Respondent maintained a policy of workers’ compensation insurance for all of its employees. Respondent’s workers’ compensation insurance at issue in this case was obtained through the Florida Retail Federation Insurance Fund, and was in place since February 1, 2002. Pursuant to the Department's statutory authority, after receiving a referral based on a fatal accident at a site where Respondent was providing work, Investigator Daniel Pfaff of the Department's Division of Workers' Compensation, Bureau of Compliance, conducted an investigation into Respondent’s workers’ compensation coverage. The investigator reviewed payroll records as well as certificates of insurance. Respondent cooperated with the Department’s investigation, providing all requested documents and responding to the questions of Petitioner’s investigation. Investigator Pfaff determined that Respondent had not secured workers’ compensation coverage consistent with the job descriptions of its employees. At the final hearing it was shown that, indeed, the job classification code2/ listed on Respondent's workers' compensation policy for Respondent's non-clerical work used to determine premiums paid by Respondent was not appropriate for much of the work Respondent was performing. The job classification code on Respondent’s workers’ compensation policy for the non-clerical work performed by Respondent was 3822. Classification code 3822 encompasses manufacturing or assembling automobile, bus, truck, or trailer bodies made of die pressed steel. Classification code 3822 does not encompass fabrication of iron or steel outside of a welding shop, erection of iron or steel structures, fabrication and installation of metal handrails and fire escapes to existing buildings, or operation of machinery to lift materials used to erect buildings (collectively "off-site erection work"). Based upon contracts provided by Respondent to the Department, the Department determined that the proper classification codes for the off-site erection work performed by Respondent’s employees were 5040 and 5057. Classification code 5040 encompasses the erection of iron or steel frame structures, the assembly and fabrication of iron or steel frame structures at the erection site, welding operations incidental to steel erection work, and the installation of iron or steel balconies, fire escapes, and staircases to existing buildings. Classification code 5057 encompasses iron or steel erection not otherwise classified in the Scopes® Manual. After it was determined that Respondent did not have the proper workers’ compensation insurance, Investigator Pfaff issued a Stop Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment against Respondent on behalf of the Department on February 12, 2010. The Stop-Work Order is on a form with supporting allegations that may be selected by checking the box next to the allegation. The boxes checked on the Stop-Work Order comprise the following allegation: “Failure to secure the payment of workers’ compensation in violation of sections 440.10(1), 440.38(1) and 440.107(2) Florida Statutes by: materially misrepresenting and concealing employee duties as to avoid proper classification for premium calculation.” The allegation selected in the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment refines the allegation of the Stop-Work Order by alleging “Failure to secure the payment of workers’ compensation within the meaning of section 440.107(2), F.S., by: materially misrepresenting or concealing employee duties so as to avoid proper classification for premium calculations.” The Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment contains no separate allegation, but rather references the original Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment and the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. No other charging documents were provided by Petitioner in support of the proposed penalty. At the final hearing, Petitioner presented evidence demonstrating that the appropriate job classification code for the majority of Respondent’s work was 5040. It also provided evidence that $60,873.60 was the amount of penalty that would be due if a violation had occurred. The penalty amount was calculated by using payroll amounts provided by Respondent and the approved rates for the proper job classification codes to determine the amount of premium that should have been paid and then, after giving Respondent credit for previous premiums paid, multiplying the result by 1.5 in accordance with applicable rules. Petitioner, however, did not provide sufficient evidence that Respondent failed “to secure the payment of workers’ compensation in violation of sections 440.10(1), 440.38(1) and 440.107(2) Florida Statutes by materially misrepresenting and concealing employee duties as to avoid proper classification for premium calculation” as alleged in the Stop-Work Order. Rather than showing that Respondent misrepresented or concealed employee duties to avoid proper classification, the evidence indicated that Respondent believed that its company was compliant with Florida workers’ compensation coverage requirements. While the Scopes® Manual explains the various job classification codes, there was no evidence that the Scopes® Manual has ever been provided to Respondent or that Respondent was the one who selected the job classification codes that were on its workers’ compensation policy. The job classification description for classification code 3822 provided on premium summaries and statements from the insurance agent and carrier to Respondent were different at different times. One description was “auto, bus, truck body, MFG/steel” and another was “auto, bus, truck, trailer manufacturing, die press.” The self-audit reports abbreviate job classification 3822 as “Auto bus truck body mfg/steel.” These abbreviations do not give notice that Respondent’s job classification was wrong. In addition, the evidence showed that Respondent’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier conducted regular audits of Respondent's operations. Respondent cooperated with the audits. During the course of the audits, the insurance auditor would go to Respondent’s premises where the auditor was able to observe the types of machinery, equipment, and operations used by Respondent. Despite evidence on the premises indicating that Respondent was engaged in work beyond the scope of job classification code 3822 established at the final hearing, there is no evidence that the auditors, carriers, or agents ever questioned the workers’ compensation insurance job classification codes that were on Respondent’s policy, summaries, and audit forms that they transmitted to Respondent. Aside from cooperating with regular audits and allowing inspection of its premises, Respondent also provided additional information to its agent and carrier regarding its operations through Respondent’s requests for certificates of insurance for various off-site jobs. Investigator Pfaff has substantial experience in the insurance industry as an adjustor, special investigator and supervisor in property and casualty for over 30 years. As part of the investigation, investigator Pfaff obtained a number of Respondent’s certificates of insurance. The certificates of insurance were introduced as Petitioner’s Exhibit 21. Investigator Pfaff provided credible testimony that there was no real reason to send out a certificate of insurance unless a company was planning to perform work for another company. The certificates of insurance were issued by Respondent’s insurance agent at Respondent’s request for off- site erection work for a variety of different companies located in a variety of counties, and contain information showing that Respondent was performing work outside its premises. Respondent’s representative testified that Respondent informed its insurance agent of the location of the work each time a certificate of insurance was issued. The Department demonstrated that the off-site erection work being performed by Respondent was not consistent with the workers’ compensation classification code in place for Respondent. The certificates of insurance, however, were approved by the insurance agent or carrier, and neither expressed any concern that the workers’ compensation insurance coverage was insufficient in any respect. In addition, the carrier was made aware of the type of work performed by Respondent by prior claims. Respondent had previously reported two other workers’ compensation incidents which arose from work performed off of the premises. One previous off-site erection work incident involved an injury resulting from an employee falling from a crane, and the other involved an employee’s fall through a roof skylight. The insurance carrier was made aware that off-site erection and construction work was being performed by Respondent in each of these incidents. Even though it was established at the final hearing that job classification code 3822 utilized for Respondent’s workers’ compensations insurance for those incidents should not have covered the off-the-premises incidents, Respondent’s insurance carrier and insurance agent never suggested that Respondent’s workers’ compensation coverage was deficient or erroneous. In sum, Petitioner did not show that Respondent materially misrepresented or concealed employee duties in order to avoid proper classification for premium calculation of its workers’ compensation policy.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing the Stop-Work Order, Order of Penalty Assessment, Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued against Respondent, and ordering the return of any penalty paid by Respondent under the Periodic Payment Agreement. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of November, 2010, 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 24th day of November, 2010.
