The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent was an employer in the State of Florida, required to secure the payment of workers' compensation insurance coverage pursuant to the appropriate provisions of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2007); whether the Respondent secured such coverage, if required; and whether the proposed penalty, if any, is warranted.
Findings Of Fact The Department is an agency of the State of Florida charged with enforcing the various requirements of Chapter 440 Florida Statutes. This includes the requirement, in Section 440.107(3) Florida Statutes, that employers in the State of Florida, as defined by statute, secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage for all employees, as provided in Sections 440.10(1)(a), 440.38(1), and 440.107(2), Florida Statutes (2007). The Respondent is a closely held Florida corporation with a principal business address of record at 1815 West Detroit Boulevard, Pensacola, Florida 32534. The president of the Respondent Corporation is Richard Longoria. On October 29, 2008, an investigator for the Department, Michelle Newcomer, observed construction work being conducted at a site at 4111 Baisden Road in Pensacola, Florida. Ms. Newcomer stopped at that address and encountered Richard Longoria, the Respondent's president. In the course of their conversation, Mr. Longoria told Investigator Newcomer that he was sanding and caulking window frames in preparation for painting them. He also was engaged in painting shutters at that address. The so-called "Scopes Manual" is a manual published by the National Counsel on Compensation Insurance, Inc. (NCCI). In that manual are certain codes, related to the construction industry and trades considered to be within that industry. Painting is considered to be "construction" under the relevant codes in this manual. The manual, with its codes and classifications is relied upon in the insurance industry and has been adopted by the State of Florida, and the Department, in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.021. The preparation of surfaces for painting is contemplated as being included in the construction trade or industry in that manual, under the painting classification code. Mr. Longoria performs a significant amount of painting, but also does general construction, wallpapering, general maintenance and carpentry work. He has three different occupational licenses: maintenance, carpentry and painting/wallpapering. The trades or types of work Mr. Longoria had disclosed in the course of obtaining his construction industry exemption, which was effective April 13, 2006, through April 12, 2008, included paperhanging, wallpapering and carpentry. During his conversation with Investigator Newcomer, Mr. Longoria disclosed that he did not have workers' compensation coverage because he had an exemption from such coverage. He provided her with a workers' compensation Exemption card for the construction industry. Ms. Newcomer observed that the workers' compensation exemption held by Mr. Longoria, as an officer of the Respondent, had actually expired some months previously, on April 12, 2008. Ms. Newcomer consulted the Department's automated database, called the Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS). That system is routinely used and lists workers' compensation insurance policy information for each corporation, which insurance companies are required to provide to the Department, as well as the workers' compensation exemptions for corporate officers, if any. The database confirmed that Mr. Longoria's most recent exemption had expired on April 12, 2008. He thus did not have a current workers' compensation exemption on October 29, 2008, when he encountered Investigator Newcomer. That database also revealed that there was no record of a workers' compensation insurance policy in effect for the Respondent, and this was confirmed by Mr. Longoria's testimony during his deposition (in evidence). Corporate officers who qualify for a workers' compensation coverage exemption are not automatically exempt, but must submit a Notice of Election to Be Exempt. They submit a form, along with a $50 fee, to apply for an exemption. Upon receipt of a Notice of Election to Be Exempt, the Department makes a determination as to whether the applicant for the exemption meets the relevant eligibility requirements. The exemption request is then processed by the Department and a Notice of Granting the Exemption, or denial, or a Notice of Incompletion, and the necessity for more information, is sent to the applicant. A workers' compensation exemption has a duration of two years from its effective date. Its effective date is the date that is entered into the CCAS system. The only Notice of Election to Be Exempt the Department received from Mr. Longoria, as of the October 29, 2008, inspection date, was the application received on April 10, 2006. It became effective on April 13, 2006, and thus was effective until April 13, 2008. Before October 29, 2008, Mr. Longoria had three construction industry exemptions which were renewed. One exemption was as a sole proprietor and was effective from July 4, 1993, through July 4, 1995. He had another exemption extending from April 13, 2004, through April 13, 2006, and then an exemption from April 13, 2006, through April 12, 2008. Mr. Longoria stated to Ms. Newcomer, in their conversation on October 29, 2008, that he had not received notice of his April 13, 2006 exemption's expiration prior to the expiration date of April 13, 2008. Ms. Newcomer thereupon consulted the CCAS system to determine when the notification of expiration of the exemption had been sent to Mr. Longoria or the Respondent. That database revealed that a letter notifying him of the expiration of his exemption had been sent on January 29, 2008. The CCAS entry shows that the expiration notice had been mailed out to Mr. Longoria to his address of record, 1815 West Detroit Boulevard, Pensacola, Florida 32354. That is the same address which had been shown on Mr. Longoria's exemption certificate, effective on April 13, 2006. Mr. Longoria's wife was stricken with cancer. She is a veteran and sought treatment and therapy for her cancer at a Veteran's Administration facility in Tennessee. Consequently, Mr. and Mrs. Longoria moved to Tennessee in May 2006, soon after the effective date of his exemption. Mr. Longoria filed a mail-forwarding form with the United States Postal Service in Pensacola so that his mail would be forwarded to his residence and address in Tennessee. Mail was forwarded for approximately one year, but no mail originally sent to his Pensacola address was forwarded to his address in Tennessee after sometime in August 2007. Mr. Longoria did not notice this fact until April 2008. None of the later mail addressed to the Pensacola address was forwarded to Tennessee, even after he renewed his forwarding application with the postal service in April of 2008. In fact, he testified that "99 percent of whatever mail was sent to the Florida address between 2007 and April 2008 was never forwarded to [Mr. Longoria] in Tennessee." Mr. Longoria, however, did not file a change of address notification with the Department prior to submitting his new Notice of Election to be Exempt, which he filed on October 31, 2008. The Respondent did not change his mailing address with the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations until April 9, 2008. On October 29, 2008, after the discussion between Mr. Longoria and Investigator Newcomer, concerning the matter of workers' compensation coverage, Ms. Newcomer issued a Stop Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment, and served it on Mr. Longoria and the Respondent. These were issued because of the Respondent's failure to secure payment of workers' compensation in purported violation of Sections 440.10(1), 440.38(1) and 440.107(2), Florida Statutes. Upon issuance of the Stop Work Order, Mr. Longoria promptly complied. Investigator Newcomer also requested production of certain business records in order to perform the relevant penalty assessment calculations. Mr. Longoria promptly provided the necessary business records to the Department. The parties stipulated that work was being performed by the Respondent between the dates of April 12, 2008, and October 29, 2008. This was the period of time when the exemption was in an expired state. Based upon the Respondent's records, Investigator Newcomer calculated an amended penalty, for the period of noncompliance with the workers' compensation law (the period of expiration of the exemption) using the penalty calculation worksheet adopted in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.027. The total penalty based upon that formula resulted in an assessment of less than $1,000. The penalty assessed was therefore $1,000, pursuant to Section 440.107(7)(d), Florida Statutes, which provides that the penalty to be assessed will be based on the formula provided in the referenced provision of Section 440.107, Florida Statutes, and the above-cited rule, or a minimum of $1,000, whichever is greater. The parties stipulated that the penalty assessed is accurate, if it is ultimately determined that the penalty was properly and lawfully assessed. After being served with the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on October 31, 2008, Mr. Longoria promptly paid the penalty in full, in the form of a cashier's check. He submitted a new Notice of Election to Be Exempt for himself, as a corporate officer of the Respondent, which exemption became effective on that same date. The Respondent was subsequently issued an Order of Release from the Stop Work Order and an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, which allowed the Respondent to resume working. The expiration of the exemption, for the number of months referenced above, occurred because the Respondent, through Mr. Longoria, inadvertently failed to renew the exemption. Mr. Longoria had not been reminded of his expiration because he had not received the Notice of Impending Expiration from the Department. There is no dispute that Mr. Longoria and the Respondent corporation qualified for the exemption and were thus not required to secure the payment of workers' compensation, if the exemption had been effective at times pertinent hereto. This is because of the corporate business entity under which the Respondent and Mr. Longoria operated, with Mr. Longoria as the sole employee and sole corporate officer and owner.
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, finding that the Respondent failed to properly secure workers' compensation insurance coverage for its employee in violation of Sections 440.10(1)(a) and 440.38(1), Florida Statutes, and that a penalty in the amount of $1,000 be assessed, as mandated by Section 440.107(7), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of May, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 28th day of May, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Tracey Beal, Agency Clerk Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 Benjamin Diamond, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307 Honorable Alex Sink Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Justin H. Faulkner, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Samuel W. Bearman, Esquire Law Office of Samuel W. Bearman, L.C. 820 North 12th Avenue Pensacola, Florida 32501
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 issue to be determined is whether Respondent complied with coverage requirements of the workers' compensation law, Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. A determination of whether Respondent functioned as an employer is a preliminary issue to be resolved.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency of state government currently responsible for enforcing the requirement of Section 440.107, Florida Statutes, that employers secure the payment of compensation for their employees. Respondent works in the fence construction industry and employs four people. Petitioner's investigator identified three people preparing a worksite for the erection of a privacy fence at 3000 Majestic Oaks Lane South in Jacksonville, Florida. The investigator then contacted Respondent and confirmed that the three identified individuals in addition to Respondent, were employed by Respondent for a total of four employees. The investigator determined none of the employees had workers’ compensation exemptions nor had Respondent secured the payment of workers’ compensation to his employees. On April 27, 2005, the investigator served a SWO on Respondent. The SWO required Respondent to cease all business operations in Florida. At the same time, the investigator served a Request for Business Records for Penalty Calculation on Respondent, requesting payroll records from Respondent for the period April 27, 2002, through April 27, 2005 (the audit period for penalty calculation). Respondent provided no records to the investigator. On May 23, 2005, the investigator determined 520 days had passed between the beginning of the audit period and September 30, 2003, and the penalty for noncompliance during this period was $52,000.00. The investigator also determined that during the period October 1, 2003, through the end of the audit period, the statewide average weekly wage paid by employers was $651.38; Respondent had four (4) employees; the imputed weekly payroll for Respondent’s employees was $320,848.00; using approved manual rates Respondent should have paid $97,969.40 in workers’ compensation premium; and the penalty for noncompliance during this period was calculated to be $146,954.12. On May 26, 2005, Investigator Bowman served the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on Respondent. The Amended Order assessed Respondent with a penalty for the entire audit period in the amount of $198,954.12. The investigator obtained records created by Respondent demonstrating Respondent placed a bid on a job on June 1, 2005, and Respondent completed the job on July 1, 2005. On July 19, 2005, the investigator served a Corrected Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on Respondent, which assessed a penalty in the amount of $3,000.00 for violating the terms of the SWO. Respondent violated the SWO on two separate days, the day of the bid and the day the work was completed. No competent substantial evidence was presented regarding intervening business operations.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order affirming the Stop Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment, Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and Corrected Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, requiring Respondent to pay a penalty in the amount of $200,594.12 to Petitioner, and requiring Respondent to cease all business operations in Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of September, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of September, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: John M. Iriye, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Workers Compensation 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-422 Martin D. Snyder 10367 Allene Road Jacksonville, Florida 32219 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Carols G. Muniz, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Myra McKinney, is a black female. The Respondent is an insurance company which conducts operations in Florida, as pertinent hereto, consisting of the receipt of insurance policy applications with attendant premium payments, the recording of such policy applications, and other administrative procedures and operations necessary to act on the applications and receipt of premium monies by underwriting the risks involved by insurance policies issued by the company. The Respondent is an employer in the State of Florida for the purposes of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner was employed by Respondent at times pertinent hereto and from 1981 through June 2, 1992. When she was terminated she held the position of "processing manager." This position involved presiding over the department as supervisor, with the responsibility and function of receiving insurance policy applications and related binder and/or premium monies and properly accounting for them in the process leading up to the Respondent company issuing insurance policy contracts. The Petitioner was the supervisor of personnel charged with the receipt of and proper accounting for such applications and premium monies. On or about June 11, 1992, after being terminated by the Respondent on June 2, 1992, the Petitioner filed a charge of racial discrimination related to her termination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (Commission). An investigation was conducted by the Commission which ultimately resulted in the determination of "no cause." The Petitioner had been placed on work probation on May 11, 1992, because of poor work performance. The terms of her probation status specified that her work performance would have to be reviewed in 30 days and that if objectives were not met she would be terminated. The Petitioner had been asked by her manager or supervisor to provide him with reports on missing work (lost or misplaced applications), as well as a plan to correct the processing deficiencies leading to this problem and to eliminate the backlog of unprocessed applications. The Petitioner failed to provide the requested response and report until the supervisor had to make a second request of her. Witness John Burkhalter, the Petitioner's most recent supervisor, as well as witnesses Maria Diaz and Connie Bonner, established that a corporate audit revealed severe deficiencies and discrepancies in the processing department's function, which the Petitioner supervised. Under the Petitioner's management the processing department had fallen into severe disarray with a serious backlog of unprocessed work, a loss of control by Ms. McKinney over the processing of the work, particularly the problem of lost or misplaced insurance policy applications and related premium or binder checks. There were organizational and work-flow management problems, and very poor morale throughout the processing department. Ms. Diaz established that the poor morale was directly attributable to the Petitioner's performance because she had poor organizational skills. Numerous meetings were held with no apparent purpose for the meetings and little was accomplished. Meeting agendas between the Petitioner and her subordinates were lacking or rudimentary. The Petitioner had the habit of intimidating employees, being critical of them, and causing the employees to feel reluctant to express ideas and opinions clearly, particularly criticisms of the manner in which the office was operated. Once the Petitioner left employment, the backlog of unprocessed work and the problem of missing or misplaced applications was immediately alleviated, with the office functioning in much better fashion ever since. Additional missing applications and a box of "backlogged", unprocesed applications were found concealed in the office on the day of the Petitioner's termination, June 2, 1992, during the course of her work probationary period. Mr. Burkhalter established, as the immediate supervisor of the Petitioner and the regional operations officer of the Respondent company, that the Respondent had a progressive discipline policy and termination policy. The corporate policy was followed with regard to the termination of the Petitioner. The Respondent employed progressive discipline when it learned of the severity of the problems in the processing department, imposing a probationary period first, and giving the Petitioner an opportunity to correct the problems, followed by termination for work performance deficiencies when the opportunity to correct those deficiencies was not taken advantage of by the Petitioner. Ms. McKinney's actual performance in May of 1992 was not consistent with her previous performance evaluations. Her former manager, Mr. McFall, had inflated her performance ratings and given her satisfactory ratings when actually her performance did not justify such. Mr. McFall himself was terminated near the same time as the Petitioner and testified on behalf as concerning purported satisfactory performance but, given the totality of the circumstances surrounding his termination and testimony in support of the Petitioner, is deemed a biased witness against the Respondent. His testimony was colored by his own dispute and history of litigation with the Respondent concerning his employment and termination. Mr. Burkhalter reviewed the Petitioner's entire personnel file, the deficiencies in her work performance and her lack of any improvement during the work probationary period when the Respondent gave her an opportunity to improve and make corrections. He determined termination was, therefore, the only option. He reviewed such considerations as transferring the Petitioner or demoting her to another position. However, because of the exceedingly poor morale generated in the department largely by the Petitioner's management and supervisory practices, Mr. Burkhalter determined that neither option was in the best interest of the Respondent or Ms. McKinney. He, therefore, terminated Ms. McKinney in compliance with the provisions of the work probation policy of the Respondent. He did not terminate her or otherwise discipline her for any reasons motivated by consideration of her race. In establishing this as fact, his testimony is corroborated by that of Ms. Lynn Jones, a black female employee, who testified that she had never been personally discriminated against by Mr. Burkhalter or Colonial nor had she observed any other black person employed by the Respondent treated in what appeared to her to be a disparate fashion, including the Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and 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 Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the subject petition of Myra McKinney in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of January, 1994 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of January, 1994. APPENDIX Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted but not in itself materially dispositive of the relevant issues. Rejected as not in accordance with the preponderant weight of credible evidence and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact on this subject matter. Rejected as not in accordance with the preponderant weight of credible evidence and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact on this subject matter. Rejected as not in accordance with the preponderant weight of credible evidence and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact on this subject matter. Rejected as not in accordance with the preponderant weight of credible evidence and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact on this subject matter. Rejected as immaterial. Rejected as not in accordance with the totality of the preponderant, credible evidence. 8-9. Accepted, but not dispositive of the material issues presented. Rejected as not in accordance with the preponderant, credible evidence of record. Rejected as not clearly established by the preponderant evidence of record. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact on this subject matter. Accepted. Rejected as immaterial and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact on this subject matter. Rejected as not entirely in accord with the preponderant weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the preponderant weight of the credible evidence. Rejected as contrary to the preponderant weight of the credible evidence. Accepted. Rejected as immaterial. Rejected as immaterial. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact on this subject matter. Rejected as immaterial. Rejected as immaterial given the issues in this proceeding. Rejected as immaterial and not in accord with the preponderant weight of the evidence and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact on this subject matter. Rejected as not in accordance with the preponderant weight of the credible evidence. Rejected as immaterial. Rejected as not in accord with the preponderant weight of the credible evidence and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact on this subject matter. Rejected as immaterial under the circumstances presented by the issues in this case. Rejected as immaterial under the circumstances presented by the issues in this case. Rejected as immaterial under the circumstances presented by the issues in this case. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-14. All accepted, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact on the same subject matter to the extent that they differ. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Myra McKinney 1823 Mayfair Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Lucinda A. Reynolds, Esquire McCutchan, Druen, Maynard, Rath & Dietrich One Nationwide Plaza Columbus, Ohio 43216 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the stipulations of fact, the deposition of Luis Martinez, a senior appeals referee, taken on May 18, 1979, with exhibits and the stipulated documentary evidence adduced in this proceeding, the following relevant facts are found: At the time of the filing of the instant petition challenging Rule 8B- 5.13(1), both petitioner Cotilla and petitioner Prieto were parties in proceedings before the respondent to obtain unemployment compensation benefits. Their applications for benefits had originally been denied for lack of sufficient wage credits. Both petitioners had been continuously employed by Florida East Coast Deliveries, Inc. from 1974 through December of 1978. The finding of lack of credits was based on the employer's switch from the Florida Unemployment Compensation System to coverage under the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act. By letters dated March 29, 1979, the attorney for the petitioners made a request to Manuel M. Garcia, the appeals referee, for subpoenas to produce certain documents and a witness at the hearing scheduled for April 12, 1979. The letter requesting subpoenas stated that the records and witnesses are expected to provide evidence to show that the claimants had in fact been paid sufficient wages for insured work under Fla. Stat. 443.05(1)(e), during their base periods to qualify for Florida Unemployment Compensation benefits, which they have earned." By letter dated March 30, 1979, Appeals Referee Garcia denied the request for subpoenas "at this point in time," stating that "I will take into consideration your request, and if necessary, subpoenas will be issued later. However, sufficient cause has not been shown at this point to warrant subpoenas. There is no indication in your letter that the employer has refused to comply with any request for documents and/or witnesses. In addition, is questionable whether subpoenas can be issued and served prior to the April 12, hearing. Finally, the documents and information you are requesting are so general in nature, and its relevancy is at best questionable." Petitioners' attorney requested a reconsideration of her subpoena request by letter dated April 2, 1979. This letter stated in great detail why the attorney for the claimants (petitioners herein) felt that the information and documents requested were relevant to the issue in dispute. On April 9, 1979, Referee Garcia again denied the request for subpoenas by a letter stating: Most of the information that you provided as to why these documents should be subpoenaed refer to the instant employer's liability under the Florida Unemployment Compensation Law. In addition, your clients' position, earnings, and weeks of employment with the instant employer are not being disputed, as far as I can tell. My previous denial of your request for subpoenas at this point in time still stands. I will consider a second Hearing near the employer's vicinity, subpoena or a field investigation after the hearing, if such are necessary to comply, with due process. To clarify one point the subpoenas you are requesting are not being denied because of the time involved in issuing and serving subpoenas. The matter was mentioned because it is impractical to request documents of unproven relevancy, which in all probability will not be available for the April 12, 1979, Hearing, even if the subpoenas are issued." A hearing was held in petitioner Cotilla's appeal on April 12, 1979. The employer, Florida East Coast Deliveries, Inc., refused to voluntarily supply the requested information. The petitioners did not have knowledge of or access to the requested information except by the subpoenas which were refused. Thomas J. Edwards appeared at the April 12th hearing as agent of the employer, but he did not have the information requested in the subpoena request. Other agents of the employer did have the requested information. Petitioner Prieto's hearing was postponed until May 7, 1979. By letter dated April 23rd, his attorney renewed her requests for subpoenas and the request was again denied. Since the basis for the denial of petitioners' unemployment benefits was the question of the employer's liability under the Florida Unemployment Compensation Act, the information requested was relevant to the proof of their case. In addition, in petitioner Prieto's case, it was relevant to the issue concerning the timeliness of his appeal, in that the testimony and evidence sought were relevant to the wrongfulness of the respondent's actions in denying him benefits which petitioner Prieto contends was a cause of his failure to file his appeal within ten (10) days. At their unemployment hearing, the petitioners were unable to prove the circumstances under which their former employer switched coverage from the Florida Unemployment Compensation Act to the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act. Petitioner Cotilla has not received any unemployment compensation benefits, and no decision has been rendered in the case of petitioner Prieto. The basis for all of the denials of the subpoena requests which have occurred in the unemployment compensation proceedings of the petitioners is the challenged Rule 8B-5.13(1). This Rule, which is set forth in full below, provides in pertinent part that subpoenas "may" be issued by the appeals referee upon timely written application and that the application must state the "reason for appearance to include what testimony or evidence the witness is expected to provide." Pursuant to Rule 8B-5.13(1), it is the current practice of respondent's appeals referees to deny requests for subpoenas which do not contain a written explanation of the reason the subpoena is needed prior to the hearing. The explanation must state, to the satisfaction of the appeals referee, the materiality, relevance and competence of the testimony or evidence sought. Absent such a showing which is deemed satisfactory by the referee, the request for subpoenas will be denied. Even when the request provides an explanation which illustrates that the evidence or testimony sought is material, relevant and competent, it is typical practice for the appeals referee to attempt to use other means of obtaining the facts sought. For example, someone from the referee's office will telephone the person to whom the subpoena request is directed and ask them to voluntarily appear at the hearing. Also, the referees may request a field auditor or field examiner to examine employer records and file a report at the hearing. If it becomes apparent to the referee at the hearing that a witness or document is needed, the hearing will be continued and a subpoena will be issued.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent had a sufficient amount of workers’ compensation coverage during the time period in question; and, if not, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Division is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement in chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2015),1/ that employers in Florida secure workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. While an exemption can be obtained for up to three corporate officers, any employer in the construction industry with at least one employee must have workers’ compensation coverage. § 440.02(15), Fla. Stat. Kent Howe works for the Division as a compliance investigator based in Orlando, Florida. As part of his job responsibilities, Mr. Howe visits construction sites in order to verify that employers in the construction industry have obtained workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. Mr. Kehr was the owner and sole corporate officer of JNK. Mr. Howe visited a construction site in Port Orange, Florida, on the morning of December 10, 2015, and saw Mr. Kehr and two other men building the interior walls/frames of a house. Mr. Howe talked to the two men (James Hicks and James Garthwait) working with Mr. Kehr, and they reported that Mr. Kehr was paying them approximately $8.00 an hour. Mr. Kehr told Mr. Howe that Messrs. Hicks and Garthwait had been working for him for approximately two hours that morning. Mr. Kehr also stated that he had not obtained workers’ compensation coverage for Messrs. Hicks and Garthwait. Following those conversations, Mr. Howe returned to his car and accessed the Division’s Coverage and Compliance Automated System (“CCAS”) and learned that JNK had no workers’ compensation coverage. Mr. Howe also determined from CCAS that Mr. Kehr had obtained an exemption from workers’ compensation coverage that had been in effect from November 18, 2014, through November of 2016.2/ After relaying that information to his supervisor, Mr. Howe received authorization to serve Mr. Kehr with a Stop- Work Order, and he did so on December 10, 2015. That Stop-Work Order required JNK to “cease all business operations for all worksites in the State” based on the Division’s determination that JNK had failed to obtain workers’ compensation coverage. In addition, the Stop-Work Order stated that JNK would be penalized an amount “[e]qual to 2 times the amount [JNK] would have paid in premium when applying approved manual rates to the employer’s payroll during periods for which it [had] failed to secure the payment of compensation within the preceding 2-year period.” Along with the Stop-Work Order, Mr. Howe also served a “Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation” (“the BRR”) on Mr. Kehr. In order to ascertain JNK’s payroll disbursements during the relevant time period and the resulting penalty for JNK’s failure to obtain workers’ compensation coverage, the BRR requested that JNK remit several different types of business records covering the period from November 10, 2014, through December 10, 2015. Mr. Howe explained during the final hearing that the Division usually reviews business records pertaining to the two years preceding the Stop Work Order.3/ Because JNK came into existence on November 10, 2014, the Division’s review was limited to examining the period between November 10, 2014, and December 10, 2015. The business records sought by the Division included items such as time sheets, payroll summaries, check journals, certificates of exemption, and evidence that any JNK subcontractors had obtained workers’ compensation coverage. Section 440.107(7)(e) provides that if an employer fails to provide business records sufficient to enable the Department to ascertain the employer’s actual payroll for the time period in question, then the Division will estimate the employer’s actual payroll for that time period by imputing the employer’s payroll based on the statewide average weekly wage. The Division then multiplies that amount by two. JNK did not provide business records typically sought by the Division. Instead, JNK responded to the BRR by producing a written statement from Mr. Kehr indicating that he founded JNK in November of 2014, but did no work until July of 2015. That initial job involved fixing a set of stairs for $200. Afterwards, Mr. Kehr performed three separate small jobs between July and November of 2015, earning approximately $550. Because the Division could not ascertain JNK’s actual payroll from the documentation provided by JNK, the Division imputed JNK’s payroll for the time period in question and issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on January 19, 2016, seeking to impose a penalty of $61,424.04. Phillip Sley calculated the aforementioned penalty amount by filling out a worksheet that has been adopted by the Division through Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.027. The first step in completing the worksheet required Mr. Sley to assign a classification code to the type of work that Mr. Howe witnessed Messrs. Kehr, Hicks and Garthwait performing at the Port Orange worksite on December 10, 2015. Classification codes come from the Scopes® Manual, which has been adopted by the Department through rule 69L-6.021. Each code within the Scopes® Manual pertains to an occupation or type of work, and each code has an approved manual rate used by insurance companies to assist in the calculation of workers’ compensation insurance premiums. The imputed weekly payroll for each employee and corporate officer “shall be assigned to the highest rated workers’ compensation classification code for an employee based upon records or the investigator’s physical observation of that employee’s activities.” See Fla. Admin. Code. R. 69L-6.028(3)(d). In the instant case, Mr. Sley determined “5645” was the appropriate classification code. According to the Scopes Manual, [w]hen all of the carpentry work in connection with the construction of residential dwellings not exceeding three stories in height is performed by employees of the same carpentry contractor or general contractor responsible for the entire dwelling construction project, the work is assigned to Code 5645. This includes the construction of the sill, rough framework, rough floor, wood or light-gauge steel studs, wood or lighted-gauge steel joists, rafters, roof deck, all types of roofing materials, sidewall sheathing, siding, doors, wallboard installation, lathing, windows, stairs, finished flooring, cabinet installation, fencing, detached structures, and all interior wood trim. Mr. Sley’s next step in calculating the penalty amount was to determine the period of non-compliance. With regard to Mr. Kehr, the Department asserted that JNK failed to have workers’ compensation coverage between the date of JNK’s inception (November 10, 2014) and the date that Mr. Kehr received an exemption from the workers’ compensation coverage requirement (November 18, 2014). Despite having no evidence that Messrs. Hicks and Garthwait worked for JNK on any day other than December 10, 2015, the Division’s penalty calculation was based on an assumption that Messrs. Hicks and Garthwait worked for JNK from November 10, 2014, through December 10, 2015. Mr. Sley’s next step was to calculate JNK’s gross payroll for the time period in question. Because JNK did not provide the Division with business records that would have enabled the Division to calculate JNK’s actual payroll, Mr. Sley based JNK’s payroll on the statewide average weekly wage determined by the Department of Economic Opportunity for the time period in question.4/ Mr. Sley then multiplied that amount by two.5/ After converting the payroll numbers into a percentage, Mr. Sley multiplied the payroll amounts by the approved manual rate. As noted above, every classification code is associated with a particular manual rate determined by the Office of Insurance Regulation, and a manual rate corresponds to the risk associated with a particular occupation or type of work. Manual rates associated with potentially dangerous activities will have higher manual rates than activities with little or no potential danger. Mr. Sley’s next step was to calculate a premium for obtaining workers compensation coverage for Messrs. Kehr, Hicks, and Garthwait. Mr. Sley then multiplied that premium by two in order to calculate the individual penalties resulting from JNK not having workers’ compensation coverage for Messrs. Kehr, Hicks, and Garthwait. The sum of those amounts was $61,424.04. The evidence produced at the final hearing established that Mr. Sley utilized the correct class code, average weekly wage, and manual rates in his calculation of the penalty set forth in the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. The Division has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that JNK was in violation of the workers’ compensation coverage requirements of chapter 440. In particular, the Division proved by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Kehr had no workers’ compensation coverage for himself and no exemption from November 10, 2014, through November 17, 2014. However, the Division did not demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that Messrs. Hicks and Garthwait were employees of JNK on any day other than December 10, 2015. Mr. Kehr testified during the final hearing that Messrs. Hicks and Garthwait were working for him on December 10, 2015. He also testified that he was paying them at a rate of $8.00 an hour. However, Mr. Kehr persuasively testified that Messrs. Hicks and Garthwait had not worked for him at any other time between November 10, 2014, and December 10, 2015. The undersigned finds Mr. Kehr’s testimony on this point to be credible. Messrs. Hicks and Garthwait did not testify during the final hearing in this matter. There is no evidence that Messrs. Hicks and Garthwait worked for JNK at any time other than December 10, 2015. Because there is no evidence indicating that Messrs. Hicks and Garthwait were employees of JNK at any time other than December 10, 2015, during the time period in question, the undersigned finds that the Department failed to carry its burden of proving that $61,424.04 is the appropriate penalty. Based on the above findings, the undersigned finds that the correct penalty resulting from Mr. Kehr’s lack of coverage is $627.48. The worksheet completed by Mr. Sley indicates that is the amount of the $61,424.04 penalty associated with Mr. Kehr’s lack of coverage. As for the penalties associated with the lack of coverage for Messrs. Hicks and Garthwait on December 10, 2015, the undersigned multiplied the average weekly wage utilized by the Division ($841.57) by two. That results in a weekly gross payroll amount of $1,683.14. Dividing $1,683.14 by five results in a daily gross payroll amount of $336.63. Dividing $336.63 by 100 and then multiplying the result by 15.91 (the approved manual rate utilized by the Division for the period from January 1, 2015, through December 10, 2015) yields a daily premium of $53.62. Multiplying $53.62 by two results in a penalty of $107.23. Multiplying $107.23 by two yields $214.46, JNK’s penalty for not having workers’ compensation coverage for Messrs. Hicks and Garthwait on December 10, 2015. JNK’s total penalty is $841.94. Because section 440.107(7)(d)1. mandates a minimum penalty of $1,000, the undersigned finds that $1,000 is the correct penalty for the instant case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation enter a final order imposing impose a $1,000 penalty on Donald Kehr, d/b/a JNK Framing Inc., a Dissolved Florida Corporation. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of August, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S G. W. CHISENHALL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of August, 2016.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent conducted business operations in Florida without obtaining workers’ compensation coverage that met the requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2009), for its employees, and if so, what penalty should be assessed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency that is responsible for enforcing Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, which requires employers to secure the payment of workers’ compensation for the benefit of their employees. Respondent is a Louisville, Kentucky-based corporation that is engaged in the construction, maintenance, and painting of elevated water tanks. Respondent has a second fabrication facility located in Newnan, Georgia. Respondent’s work constitutes construction. On March 4, 2010, Petitioner’s investigator, Lawrence F. Eaton, observed Respondent’s employees working on a water tower in Pace, Florida. While visiting the worksite, one of Respondent’s employees stated that he did not have any information regarding if and how the men were covered by workers’ compensation. The employee gave Mr. Eaton a telephone number for Respondent. Next, Mr. Eaton consulted the Kentucky Secretary of State website to find information concerning the corporate status of Respondent. The website indicated that Respondent was incorporated in 1892 and that it had three corporate officers. Mr. Eaton then consulted Petitioner’s Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) database. CCAS contains workers’ compensation policy information for each employer that has a Florida policy and information relative to workers’ compensation exemptions that have been applied for and issued to individuals by Petitioner. Mr. Eaton was unable to find any indication on CCAS that Respondent had secured workers’ compensation coverage by purchasing a Florida policy. CCAS also provided no evidence that Respondent had entered into an arrangement with an employee leasing company to provide workers’ compensation coverage to its employees. Additionally, CCAS did not show that Respondent had obtained exemptions for its corporate officers. Mr. Eaton subsequently spoke with one of Respondent’s representatives. Mr. Eaton was informed that Respondent was self-insured for workers’ compensation in Kentucky. Mr. Eaton also learned that Respondent had another workers’ compensation policy. Respondent’s representative indicated that she would send Mr. Eaton the policy paperwork. When he received the paperwork from Petitioner, Mr. Eaton determined that the insurance coverage did not comply with the requirements of Florida’s workers’ compensation law. The paperwork included an excess policy of workers’ compensation and a Georgia workers’ compensation policy. On March 5, 2010, Mr. Eaton issued a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment against Respondent. Specifically, the Stop-Work Order states that Respondent was not in compliance with Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, because Respondent failed to obtain workers’ compensation coverage for its employees. On March 5, 2010, Mr. Eaton issued a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation to Respondent. On March 8, 2010, Respondent provided Mr. Eaton with additional workers’ compensation policy information. The information included the declarations page for Chartis Company Policy No. WC 005-73-7942. The Chartis policy is a Workers’ Compensation and Employers Liability Policy. In Item 3A, the policy lists the states that are covered, in Part One of the policy, pursuant to each state’s workers’ compensation law. Georgia is named as a covered state in Item 3A. In Item 3C, the Chartis policy lists the states that are covered, in Part Three of the policy, as "other states insurance." Florida is listed only in Item 3C. Item 4 of the Chartis policy states that "[t]he premium of this policy will be determined by our Manuals of Rules, Classifications, Rates and Rating Plans. All information required below is subject to verification and change by audit." In response to the request for business records, Respondent provided Petitioner with payroll information for work it had performed in Florida between September 2007 and February 2010. After receiving this information, Respondent’s Penalty Calculator, Robert McAullife, calculated a penalty. Because Respondent had not provided all of the requested business records, Mr. McAullife imputed Respondent’s payroll for a portion of the relevant time period. In calculating the penalty, Mr. McAullife first sought to determine the amount of premium that Respondent would have paid had it been properly insured for the relevant three-year period. Mr. McAullife assigned a class code for each of Respondent’s employees, reflecting the work they performed. Mr. McAullife then took 1/100th of the payroll and multiplied that figure by the approved manual rate applicable to each class code. Mr. McAullife then took the previously obtained product and multiplied it by 1.5 to find a penalty in the amount of $122,242.23. This penalty is based on Respondent having $382,146.90 in Florida payroll that would have required $81,494.66 in workers’ compensation premium. There are no errors in Mr. McAullife’s penalty calculation. Mr. Eaton issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on March 23, 2010. On March 24, 2010, Respondent and Petitioner entered into a Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty that required ten percent of the penalty to be paid in advance and the remainder to be paid in 60 interest-free monthly payments. Respondent also produced a policy that provided coverage in compliance with Florida law with an effective date of March 12, 2010. As a result, Petitioner issued an Order of Conditional Release, permitting Respondent to return to work. During the hearing, Respondent presented evidence that it is a registered self-insured company in Kentucky for the first $500,000.00 of workers’ compensation. Additionally, Respondent has excess insurance for any workers’ compensation claims that exceed the $500,000.00 threshold. Because it is self-insured in Kentucky, Respondent must purchase letters of credit on an annual basis. Respondent paid the following for its recent letters of credit: (a) 2007, $26,755.54; (b) 2008, $32,438.48; (c) 2009, $33,626.38; and (d) 2010 to date, $8,931.39. The State of Kentucky assesses qualified self-insureds a six and one half percent tax based on an annual simulated premium. The amount of the simulated premium represents what a qualified self-insured would pay for a "first dollar" policy of workers’ compensation insurance. Respondent’s recent simulated premiums are as follows: (a) 2007, $453.440.00; (b) 2008, $480,637.00; (c) 2009, $623,940.00; and (d) 2010, $1,006,243.00. Respondent also maintains a "high dollar" deductible policy of insurance that provides workers’ compensation coverage for its Georgia employees. Respondent’s Georgia policy, Chartis Company Policy No. WC 005-73-7942, which includes Florida as part of "all other states" in Item 3C of the declarations page, also requires the payment of premiums. Respondent recently paid the following premiums for this insurance: (a) 2007, $124,736.78; (b) 2008, $125,950.08; and (c) 2009, $64,465.28. The premiums paid by Respondent for the Chartis Company Policy No. WC 005-73-7942 are not based on Florida rates. From 2007 to 2010, Respondent provided workers’ compensation benefits for at least four different workers that were injured while performing work for Respondent in Florida. The workers’ compensation benefits paid by Respondent on these claims totaled $147,958.25.
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, finding that Caldwell Tanks, Inc., failed to comply with Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and imposing a penalty in the amount of $122,224.22. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 8th day of December, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Claude M. Harden, III, Esquire Carr Allison 305 South Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jamila Georgette Gooden, 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 32399-0390 Benjamin Diamond, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 Honorable Alex Sink Chief Financial Officer The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390
The Issue Whether Petitioner properly issued a Stop Work Order and Penalty Assessment against Respondent for failing to obtain workers' compensation insurance that meets the requirements of chapter 440, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for enforcing the Florida Workers' Compensation Law, chapter 440, Florida Statutes, including those provisions that employers shall be liable for, and shall secure and maintain payment of compensation for their employees who suffer work-related injuries. Respondent is an active Florida for-profit corporation, having been first incorporated on November 18, 2004. Respondent has been certified as a Building Contractor by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, and holds license No. CBC1253639. On March 28, 2011, Petitioner's investigator, Allen DiMaria, conducted a random inspection of a worksite at 3434 Atlantic Boulevard, Jacksonville, Florida 32207. Mr. DiMaria noticed an individual at the site cutting wood with a circular saw. He introduced himself to the individual and produced identification. Mr. DiMaria then asked the individual what he was doing and for whom he worked. The individual identified himself as Mickey Larry Griffis, Jr., stated that he was cutting wood to replace rotted wood on a privacy fence, and indicated that he was employed by Respondent. He stated that it was his first day working for Respondent, but that he had worked for Respondent in the past. Mr. DiMaria proceeded to call Respondent, as the contractor on the project, and spoke with Robert Miranda. Mr. Miranda indicated that he hired Mr. Griffis to watch work at the site, but not to do the work. Despite Mr. Miranda?s explanation, Mr. DiMaria correctly determined that Mr. Griffis was engaged in “construction” activity for which workers? compensation insurance coverage was required. Mr. DiMaria returned to his office, and consulted the Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS), the statewide database for workers? compensation information, to determine Respondent?s status in the workers? compensation system. Using the CCAS, Mr. DiMaria determined that Respondent had no workers? compensation coverage on file for any employee of the company. Rather, Respondent had an exemption, which is issued by Petitioner to officers of companies, and which serves to exempt said officers from the requirement to obtain workers? compensation insurance for themselves. Pursuant to section 440.05(3), exemptions apply only to the officers of a company, not to employees. Mr. DiMaria conferred with his supervisor, who authorized him to issue a Stop-Work Order and Penalty Assessment. The consolidated Stop-Work Order and Penalty Assessment was issued on March 28, 2011, and posted on the construction site. The Order required Respondent to cease all business operations statewide. The Order also assessed a penalty equal to 1.5 times the amount the employer would have paid in premium when applying the approved manual rates to the employer's payroll for the preceding three-year period, pursuant to section 440.107(7)(d). On March 29, 2011, Mr. DiMaria issued a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation (hereinafter the "Request") to Respondent, requiring Respondent to produce business records for the period of March 29, 2008, through March 28, 2011. The records requested included, but were not limited to business licenses, banking and account records for payroll and disbursements, and records regarding subcontractors and other leased or temporary workers. In response to the Request, Respondent provided Petitioner with certain licenses, proposals, and contracts for work performed. Respondent also sent Certificates of Election to be Exempt from Florida Workers? Compensation Law that had been issued to Respondent by Petitioner. The certificates identified the scope of Respondent?s business as demolition, painting, framing, drywall, and “certified building contractor.” All records received by Mr. DiMaria were sent by him to Cathe Ferguson, who was responsible for performing penalty calculations. Ms. Ferguson reviewed the records in order to determine the appropriate penalty based on the information provided. The penalty worksheet prepared by Ms. Ferguson indicates that no payroll information was supplied to Petitioner by Respondent regarding Mr. Griffis, the employer on-site at the time of the inspection. Therefore, Mr. Griffis? payroll was imputed pursuant to section 440.107(7)(e). Ms. Ferguson used the “Scopes Manual” published by the National Council on Compensation Insurance, and adopted by Petitioner in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.021, to determine the appropriate level of imputed compensation to Mr. Griffis. She determined that the work being performed on the site fell within class code 6400. Class code 6400 is described in rule 69L-6.021(2)(yyy) as “Fence Installation and Repair - Metal, Vinyl, Wood or Prefabricated Concrete Panel Fence Installed By Hand.” Based on the evidence related to the inspection, which indicated that Mr. Griffis was engaged in the repair of a wooden privacy fence, the work being performed by Mr. Griffis falls within class code 6400. Mr. Griffis? salary was imputed for the full three- year period from March 30, 2008, to March 28, 2011, with a total imputed payroll of $183,327.82. The workers? compensation insurance premium was calculated by multiplying one percent of the gross payroll for that period by the approved manual rate for each quarter, which resulted in a calculated premium of $14,415.62. The penalty was determined by multiplying the calculated premium by 1.5, resulting in the final penalty of $21,623.46.1/ On April 8, 2011, Petitioner issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessing a monetary penalty amount of $21,623.46 against Respondent. Respondent subsequently provided Petitioner with additional records regarding Respondent?s employees, including a number of bank records. Ms. Ferguson revised her penalty worksheet to reflect that payroll was now based on records, rather than being imputed, included a number of additional employees for fixed periods of employment, and applied different class codes. Ms. Ferguson testified that her application of the class codes was based upon her review of employee records and check ledgers provided by Respondent. Petitioner did not appear at the hearing to offer evidence to the contrary. Ms. Ferguson?s determinations were supported by competent, substantial evidence, and it is found that her determination of the appropriate class code for each employee was accurate. Total payroll for the three-year period in question was determined to be $14,676.25. Applying the same formula as that applied to determine the penalty amount reflected in the Amended Penalty Assessment, the premium was calculated to have been $1,682.15, with a resulting penalty of $2,523.27. On August 11, 2011, Petitioner issued a 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment reducing Respondent's penalty from $21,623.46 to $2,523.27. Petitioner subsequently removed Al Baukecht, Mack Plumbing, and “No Name” from the list of Respondent?s employees. With that change, total payroll for the three-year period in question was reduced to $14,092.00. The premium was calculated to have been $1,646.57, and the penalty reduced from $2,523.27 to $2,469.90. On September 21, 2011, Petitioner issued a 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment reducing Respondent's penalty to $2,469.90.
Recommendation Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order assessing a penalty of $2,469.90 against Respondent, Robert Miranda Construction, Inc., for its failure to secure and maintain required workers? compensation insurance for its employees. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of December, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY 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 28th day of December, 2011.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner by discharging Petitioner from her employment because of her age in violation of Section 760.10(1), Florida Statutes (1997). (All chapter and section references are to Florida Statutes (1997) unless otherwise stated).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a member of a protected class. Petitioner was born on July 6, 1945, and was 40 years or older on August 19, 1995, when the alleged unlawful discrimination occurred. Respondent engaged in an adverse employment action. On August 19, 1995, Respondent discharged Petitioner from her employment as an Executive Housekeeper. Respondent engaged in the adverse employment because of Petitioner's age. Petitioner submitted direct evidence of age discrimination. On August 19, 1995, Petitioner's supervisor telephoned Respondent at her home. The supervisor told Respondent she had been laid off from her job. When Petitioner asked why, the supervisor stated that two younger employees, ages 26 and 27, could get more done than Petitioner because they were younger. Even if there were no direct evidence of age discrimination, Petitioner provided sufficient inferential evidence of age discrimination. When the supervisor telephoned Petitioner to inform her that she had been discharged, the supervisor stated that business was "slow" due to remodeling of the motel. However, there is sufficient inferential evidence to conclude that this explanation from the supervisor was a pretext for age discrimination. The Days Inn Central location on West Colonial Drive includes approximately 40 rooms. As the Executive Housekeeper, Petitioner supervised two younger housekeepers. Respondent did not discharge any employee except Petitioner and did not retain any employees who were 40 or older. Petitioner had been continuously employed by Respondent for more than 10 years. During that time, Petitioner was progressively promoted from housekeeper to executive housekeeper, had consistently received positive employment evaluations, and had consistently received progressive pay raises. Petitioner received treatment disparate from that of other similarly situated individuals in a non-protected class. There is sufficient evidence of bias to infer a causal connection between her age and the disparate treatment. Respondent failed to submit any evidence to rebut the inference. Soon after 1983, Petitioner began working for Respondent at the Days Inn on Lee Road as an assistant housekeeper. She started as an assistant housekeeper earning minimum wage. By 1986, Petitioner had been promoted to head housekeeper at the Midtown location and was earning $7.50 an hour for approximately 50 hours a week. Thereafter, Petitioner was promoted to Executive Housekeeper at the Central location and paid an annual salary of $18,500. Petitioner was unemployed from August 19, 1995, until July 1, 1996, or approximately 317 days. The per diem rate of compensation based on an annual salary of $18,500 is approximately $50.68. Total back pay for 317 days of unemployment at $50.68 per day is approximately $16,065.56. Respondent re-hired Petitioner on July 2, 1996, as a housekeeper at the Lake Buena Vista location. Respondent paid Petitioner $6.50 an hour for an average of 5.5 hours a day, or approximately $35.75 a day. Respondent continued that rate of compensation until July 12, 1999, or approximately 375 days. The difference in per diem compensation before and after her discharge is approximately $14.93 for 375 days, or $5,598.75. From July 12, 1999, to the date of hearing on September 1, 1999, approximately 50 days, Petitioner worked at the Days Inn on Sand Lake Road as a housekeeper. Respondent paid Petitioner $5.75 an hour for 7.5 hours a day seven days a week. The per diem rate of compensation was $43.13. The difference in per diem compensation before and after Petitioner's discharge is approximately $7.55 for 50 days, or $377.50. The total back pay is $22,041.81 plus any sum due Petitioner from the date of the hearing to the date that Respondent pays Petitioner all back pay and reinstates Petitioner to her former level of compensation. The total back pay of $22,041.81 is comprised of $16,065.56 for the 317 days from August 19, 1995, through July 1, 1996; plus $5,598.75 for the 375 days from July 2, 1996, through July 12, 1999; plus $377.50 for the 50 days from July 13, 1999, through September 1, 1999. Section 760.11(9) provides that no liability for back pay may accrue from a date more than two years "prior" to the filing of a complaint with the Commission. However, Section 760.11(9) does not limit Respondent's liability for back pay after a complaint is filed with the Commission. Respondent discharged Petitioner on August 19, 1995. Petitioner filed a complaint with the Commission on August 23, 1995. The amount of back pay determined herein does not accrue from a date more than two years prior to the filing of the complaint with the Commission. The amount of back pay accrues from a date after the filing of the complaint with the Commission. Section 760.11(7), in relevant part, authorizes the presiding Administrative Law Judge to recommend affirmative relief from the effects of an unlawful employment practice. Affirmative relief includes, but is not limited to back pay. In addition to a loss of income, Petitioner's discharge from her employment resulted in the loss of her residence, the repossession of her automobile, and a loss of good credit. However, Petitioner failed to submit evidence sufficient to establish a monetary value for those losses.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether David Bumgarner (Respondent) should be assessed a penalty for an alleged failure to obtain workers' compensation coverage for his employees.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency designated to enforce the provisions of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2008),1 which requires that employers in Florida obtain workers' compensation coverage for their employees. The Respondent is a sole proprietor based in North Carolina and doing business as "Builders and Assemblers." On February 25, 2009, Ira Bender, an investigator employed by the Petitioner, observed ten men assembling the iron-and-steel frame for a single story storage building being constructed at 7253 Gasparilla Road, Port Charlotte, Florida. The Respondent was present at the time Mr. Bender observed the workers, and Mr. Bender asked the Respondent about the project. The Respondent advised Mr. Bender that he was the owner of the company constructing the building, that the ten men erecting the building frame were his employees, and that they were being paid $10.00 per hour. Mr. Bender, accompanied by the Respondent, then spoke to each of the ten men at the work site and obtained their names and other relevant information. The Respondent provided to Mr. Bender a copy of a certificate of insurance from "Acord" bearing policy number BNUWC0108275. Mr. Bender reviewed the Petitioner's "Coverage and Compliance Automated System" (CCAS) database and information contained on the National Council on Compensation Insurance ("NCCI") website. Both sources are routinely used to monitor and review workers' compensation coverage. Neither the CCAS database nor the NCCI website indicated that the Respondent had workers' compensation coverage valid within Florida for any of the ten employees at the work site or that the Respondent had a valid exemption from coverage for any employee. After discussing the collected information with his supervisor, Mr. Bender issued a Stop Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment dated February 25, 2009. The Respondent subsequently provided a copy of his workers' compensation policy to the Petitioner. The policy information page attached to the policy is an NCCI-issued form identified as "WC 00 00 01 A." The Respondent's policy's information page provides, in relevant part, as follows: 3.A. Workers Compensation Insurance: Part One of the policy applied to the Workers Compensation Law of the states listed here: NC * * * C. Other States Insurance: Part Three of the policy applies to the states, if any listed here: All states and U.S. territories except North Dakota, Ohio, Washington, Wyoming, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin islands, and states designated in Item 3.A. of the Information Page. Administrative rules adopted by the Petitioner and referenced elsewhere herein explicitly state that the coverage identified in the Respondent's policy information page is not valid within the State of Florida. Mr. Bender also issued a Request for Production of Business Records on February 25, 2009. Other than the previously referenced insurance certificate and policy, no further business records were provided to the Petitioner by the Respondent. Mr. Bender subsequently forwarded the case to Lynn Murcia, the Petitioner's penalty calculator. Because the Respondent failed to provide business records sufficient to enable computation of a penalty, Ms. Murcia computed the penalty based on an imputed payroll as provided by Florida law. The NCCI publishes the "SCOPES Manual," which contains a commonly-used system of occupational classifications used to determine workers' compensation requirements. In Florida, the SCOPES Manual has been adopted by incorporation into the Florida Administrative Code. The SCOPES Manual identifies the erection of steel or iron frames for buildings not in excess of two stories under classification code 5059. The Respondent's employees were engaged in such activities, and Ms. Murcia therefore properly classified the Respondent's employees under code 5059. Ms. Murcia utilized the SCOPES classification in determining the imputed payroll applicable to this case and, thereafter, computed the penalty according to a worksheet that has been adopted as an administrative rule by the Petitioner. The worksheet is routinely used to calculate penalties applicable to employers who fail to obtain workers' compensation coverage for employees. Based on Ms. Murcia's calculations, the penalty was identified as $1,764,643.98, as was set forth in an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on March 31, 2009. Ms. Murcia's calculation of the applicable penalty, including her reliance on the applicable SCOPES classification codes and the imputation of the Respondent's payroll, was not disputed at the hearing. Her testimony has been fully credited.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order assessing a penalty of $1,764,643.98 against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of September, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 September, 2009.
