The Issue Whether Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (the Department), properly issued a Stop-Work Order and Penalty Assessment against Respondent, Ogles Construction and Roofing, LLC (Respondent), for failing to obtain workers' compensation insurance that meets the requirements of chapter 440, Florida Statutes.1/
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and documentary evidence presented at hearing, the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: On September 30, 2013, the parties filed a Joint Pre- hearing Stipulation, by which the parties stipulated to the facts set forth in the following paragraphs 2 through 12. Those facts are accepted and adopted by the undersigned. The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure the payment of workers’ compensation for the benefit of their employees and corporate officers. Respondent, a Florida corporation,2/ was engaged in business operations as a roofing company in the State of Florida from June 13, 2010, through June 12, 2013. Respondent received a Stop-Work Order for Specific Worksite Only and Order of Penalty Assessment from the Department on June 12, 2013. Respondent received a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation from the Department on June 12, 2013. The penalty period in this case is from June 13, 2010, through June 12, 2013. Respondent employed Robert Ogles, II, Matthew Ogles, and Stephen Ogles during the period from June 13, 2010, through June 12, 2013. Robert Ogles had no exemption from June 13, 2010, through November 14, 2010, and from November 15, 2012, through January 9, 2013. Respondent was an “employer,” as defined in chapter 440, Florida Statutes, throughout the penalty period. Respondent did not secure workers' compensation insurance coverage for its employees during the period from June 13, 2010, through June 12, 2013. The appropriate class code from the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc. (NCCI), Scopes Manual for Respondent's employees is 5551, corresponding to “Roofing - All Kinds and Drivers.” The NCCI manual rates attached to the Prehearing Stipulation as Exhibit “C” are the correct manual rates for NCCI Class Code 5551 during the penalty period. Given the above stipulations, Respondent was in violation of the workers’ compensation coverage requirements of chapter 440 because Respondent employed uninsured employees working as roofers throughout the penalty period. Andre Canellas, penalty auditor for the Department, was assigned to assess the appropriate penalty owed by Respondent. Penalties for workers' compensation insurance violations are based on the amount of evaded insurance premiums over the three-year period preceding the Stop-Work Order, multiplied by 1.5. § 440.107(7)(d)1., Fla. Stat. At the time of his assignment, Mr. Canellas was provided with personal bank statements from Matthew, Stephen, and Robert Ogles, II, some checks that were written to Stephen and Robert Ogles, II, and an excel spreadsheet typed up for Respondent's payroll to Matthew Ogles. The records from Robert Ogles, II, consisted of statements from his personal bank account, which he jointly held with his wife, covering the course of the penalty period; and checks paid from Respondent to Robert Ogles, II, during the years of 2012 and 2013. The bank statements reference the amounts of all transactions in Robert Ogles, II, and his wife's joint personal bank account and do not distinguish the amounts for payroll from Respondent. From the periods of time in which Robert Ogles, II, produced checks from Respondent, Mr. Canellas was able to determine that Robert Ogles, II, did not deposit the entire amount from Respondent into his joint personal bank account. Thus, Robert Ogles, II's, personal joint bank statements covering the course of the penalty period were insufficient to enable the Department to determine his compensation from Respondent for those time periods. With respect to Stephen Ogles, the Department received statements from a joint personal bank account for the period of December 2012 through June 2013; checks paid from Respondent from December 2012 through June 7, 2013; and an IRS Form 1099 for payroll to Stephen Ogles, LLC from Respondent. The Department received personal bank statements from Matthew Ogles for the entire penalty period and an excel spreadsheet setting forth the payroll to Matthew Ogles from Respondent for all but one month of the penalty period. Petitioner did not receive any records at all for the payroll to Robert Ogles or to any of Respondent's subcontractors. Although Robert Ogles testified in deposition that he probably has the records requested by the Department, he stated that he “just chose not to” produce them. Employers in Florida are required to maintain the records that were requested by the Department and produce them upon the Department's request. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L- 6.015(1) and 6.032(1). For the time periods of January 1, 2012, through November 14, 2012, and from January 10, 2013, through June 12, 2013, Mr. Canellas could have potentially ascertained Respondent's payroll to Matthew, Stephen, and Robert Ogles, II- assuming that those individuals had identified all of the payroll they had received from Respondent during those periods. However, Mr. Canellas could not determine Respondent's overall payroll because the Department did not receive any records concerning Respondent's payroll to the subcontractors that Respondent regularly hires. Having not received business records sufficient to determine Respondent's actual payroll for the period of June 13, 2010, through June 12, 2013, Penalty Auditor Canellas calculated an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment of $158,423.82 by imputing the statewide average weekly wage, multiplied by 1.5, to Respondent's payroll for each identified employee during the penalty period. This methodology is required by section 440.107(7)(e), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L- 6.028(3). The Statewide Average Weekly Wage is determined by the Agency for Workforce Innovation (now the Department of Economic Opportunity). When the Average Weekly Wage changes, the Department updates its Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) to reflect the new amounts. The Average Weekly Wage that corresponds to various periods of non- compliance are populated automatically in the penalty worksheet when a penalty auditor selects an imputed penalty in CCAS. The Department has adopted a penalty calculation worksheet to aid in calculating penalties against employers pursuant to section 440.107. See Fla. Admin Code R. 69L-6.027. Mr. Canellas utilized this worksheet in assessing Respondent's penalty. In the penalty assessment calculation, the Department's Penalty Auditor consulted the classification codes listed in the Scopes Manual, which has been adopted by the Department through Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L- 6.021(3). As stipulated by the parties, the appropriate class code from the NCCI Scopes Manual for Respondent's employees is 5551, corresponding to “Roofing - All Kinds and Drivers.” Penalty Auditor Canellas applied the correct manual rates corresponding to class code 5551 for the periods of non- compliance in calculating the penalty. Mr. Canellas utilized the manual rates to satisfy his statutory obligation to determine the evaded workers' compensation insurance premium amounts for the period of June 13, 2010, through June 12, 2013, pursuant to section 440.107(7)(d)l. Respondent did not provide records sufficient to enable the Department to determine his actual total payroll for the period at issue. Accordingly, the Department was required to impute Respondent’s payroll in calculating the penalty assessment set forth in the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is calculated correctly, if the manual rates were properly adopted by rule.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation enter a final order assessing a penalty of $158,423.82 against Respondent, Ogles Construction and Roofing, LLC, for its failure to secure and maintain required workers’ compensation insurance for its employees. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of May, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. David Watkins 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 23rd day of May, 2014.
The Issue Whether Respondent has failed to maintain the qualifications of a law enforcement officer to have good moral character, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on March 21, 1988, as a law enforcement officer, Certification Number 50-87-002-01, and at all time relevant, certification was active. In March of 1988, the Respondent became employed as a police officer with the Winter Haven Police Department. On two separate occasions in 1990, Lois May engaged in sexual intercourse with Officer Edgar S. Searcy. On both occasions, Officer Searcy paid May $10.00 for her services. Officer Searcy was on duty and in uniform during both of these occurrences. Colleen McCoy performed oral sex on Officer Searcy in exchange for $5.00 on one occasion in 1990. While on duty, Respondent picked up McCoy at her residence, and took her to a secluded location where she performed oral sex on him. He paid her $5.00, and drove her to a location where she could walk to nearby "crack house" and obtain drugs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of failure to maintain good moral character, as required by Subsection 943.13(7), Florida Statutes (1989), and that Respondent's certification be REVOKED. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of January, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 6th day of January, 1994. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1,2,3,4,5,9 Rejected as hearsay: paragraphs 6,7,8 Respondent's proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance: none Rejected as argument or comments on the evidence: paragraphs 1, 2, 3,4 COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Ramage General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Leon Lowry, II, Director Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Steve Brady Regional Legal Advisor Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James T. Moore Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Doris Hundley Qualified Representative Edgar S. Searcy 490 East Plum Avenue Chipley, Florida 32428
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner violated Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by not having workers' compensation insurance coverage, and if so, whether the Agency's calculation was proper and accurate based on the methods used to establish the payroll for Petitioner and the resulting penalty.
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, Florida Statutes. All Florida is a corporation operating as a land clearing and tree trimming or tree debris removal business in Florida. Alan McPherson is the sole owner and president of All Florida. On August 30, 2007, as a result of an anonymous tip, Denise McNeal, a workers' compensation investigator for the Division went to a land clearing site at 4441 Club Estates Drive in Naples, Florida, where an All Florida crew of workers was clearing the land using heavy equipment, to determine whether the workers had workers' compensation coverage. She interviewed approximately 11 employees who were working at the site. Ms. McNeal made inquiry into the employment relationships of these workers and attempted to determine whether the workers on the site were covered by appropriate workers' compensation insurance. After Ms. McNeal had been at the site for approximately an hour, Mr. McPherson arrived. Mr. McPherson indicated that All Florida had workers' compensation insurance through AMS Leasing. Ms. McNeal conducted a search in the Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS), a database that reliably reveals whether or not there is coverage by a workers' compensation policy of insurance. The search revealed that All Florida did not have its own workers' compensation insurance and AMS was not covering the workers either. All Florida had failed to fax the employee information to AMS to start the coverage for the employees. Based on the information Ms. McNeal had at the time, and after consulting with her supervisor, Ms. McNeal issued SWO number 07-269-D7 to All Florida and a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation ("Request for Business Records"). The Division's request asked All Florida to produce business records for the period of August 30, 2004, through August 30, 2007, including payroll records, tax returns, proof of insurance, and certificates of exemption. The Request for Business Records listed specific records that All Florida should provide the Division so that the Division could determine the workers paid by All Florida during the preceding three years. The Request for Business Records notes that the requested records must be produced within five business days of receipt. All Florida did not respond to the Division's Request for Business Records on time. On or about September 25, 2007, All Florida produced its first set of documents. At that time, Ms. McNeal did not calculate the penalty amount and deemed the records insufficient to calculate penalty. On October 1, 2007, All Florida produced a second set of business records. Ms. McNeal reviewed the records produced by All Florida and calculated a penalty of $466,262.62 for failure to obtain workers' compensation coverage. The next day, Mr. McPherson provided additional business records and Ms. McNeal recalculated the penalty again. The new penalty amount was $324,080.01 and Ms. McNeal personally served All Florida with the penalty assessment. On October 2, 2007, All Florida entered into an agreement with the Division, which consisted of putting ten percent of the penalty amount down, demonstrating proof of coverage, and agreeing upon a conditional payment plan. After reaching the agreement, All Florida was conditionally released from the SWO and permitted to resume operations because it had cured all its violations. Subsequently, All Florida provided the Division additional business records. The Division calculated a third amended penalty assessment on October 17, 2007, in the amount of $300,450.24. On November 28, 2007, Ms. McNeal had to recalculate the third amended penalty amount because she discovered an error in her use of class code 5606. She recalculated the penalty amount with the proper class code 6217, changed Alan McPherson's earnings to "payroll/premium cap" and added remuneration for Dana McPherson. The other proper class codes Ms. McNeil used in her calculations were 8742 and 8810. In Ms. McNeal's calculations, she used the business records submitted by All Florida and figured the gross payroll for the period she found to be the period of noncompliance, in the case of each assumed employee, and divided that amount by She multiplied that figure by the approved manual rate (risk of injury) for each claimed employee. This figure was multiplied by 1.5 in order to obtain the penalty for failure to obtain workers' compensation coverage for each employee. The figures for each employee used in the calculation were added and resulted in the total penalty assessment of $281.903.32, which was the ultimate sum reported in the 4th Amended Order of Penalty Assessment at issue in this case. Ms. McNeal used the correct calculation methods to determine the assessed penalty. Ms. McNeal's calculations for the 4th Amended Penalty amount were accomplished in accordance with the requirements of Subsection 440.107(7), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.035. All Florida submitted Account QuickReport business records detailing the checks cut from the business to individuals, the amounts, dates, and a brief description. Ms. McNeal used the records to calculate payroll for the 4th Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. She correctly excluded the check if the memo description listed the payment was for something other than payroll, if the check was written to a company name, or if the check was written to a subcontractor that had an exemption. Ms. McNeal included the payment by All Florida to each individual whose name was highlighted in blue as set forth in Petitioner's exhibit 8 (hereinafter referred to as "highlighted subcontractors") as payroll in her calculation of penalty.2 Dana McPherson’s $540,000.00 was also included in the gross payroll calculations. Mr. McPherson conducted All Florida business by contracting with municipalities to get jobs. Then, All Florida would give the work from the contract to individuals and companies with their own equipment and employees to perform and complete the job for the contract. All Florida hired the highlighted subcontractors by oral contracts and did not have time to check the highlighted subcontractors' statuses because the company was inundated with contract work, on a tight schedule, and wanted to get the jobs started as soon as possible. There was a great demand for debris clearing due to the consecutive hurricanes and their devastation, which provided All Florida numerous land clearing contract opportunities. Prior to Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.035 becoming effective, the Division determined payroll by reviewing the actual business records that were provided by the employer. If the actual cost of the payroll and materials or equipment rental were separated, the Division would only utilize the amount identified as payroll for payroll. If the payroll was not separated out, the whole amount was used as payroll in the calculation of penalty.
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 All Florida violated Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by failing to secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage for its employees; Finding that a penalty be imposed for the violation; and Calculating the penalty amount using the law that was in effect at the time the violation took place. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of June, 2008, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of June, 2008.
The Issue Whether there are sufficient grounds for the imposition of disciplinary sanctions against Respondent?s teaching certificate, and if so, the nature of the sanctions.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Education Practices Commission is the state agency charged with the duty and responsibility to revoke or suspend, or take other appropriate action with regard to teaching certificates as provided in sections 1012.795 and 1012.796. § 1012.79(7), Fla. Stat. Petitioner, as Commissioner of Education, is charged with the duty to file and prosecute administrative complaints against individuals who hold Florida teaching certificates and who are alleged to have violated standards of teacher conduct. § 1012.796(6), Fla. Stat. Respondent holds a teaching certificate issued by the Florida Department of Education, No. 608837, covering the areas of pre-kindergarten and primary education. Respondent?s current teaching certificate was issued as a result of the entry of a September 18, 2007, Settlement Agreement that resolved an initial denial of the teaching certificate for a series of pleas or convictions for financial crimes, including Public Assistance Fraud. The Settlement Agreement authorized the issuance of Respondent?s teaching certificate subject to a letter of reprimand and a two-year period of probation. The Settlement Agreement was adopted by the Education Practices Commission by Final Order entered on January 25, 2008. Respondent was employed by the Gadsden County School Board in various positions since 2005, most of them being as a teacher at the elementary school and kindergarten level. Respondent received instructional employee evaluation ratings of “very effective” for the 2006-2007 school year, and of “effective” for the 2007-2008, 2008-2009, and 2009-2010 school years. Respondent was suspended from teaching by the Gadsden County School Board on January 3, 2011 for issues relating to her December 21, 2010, arrest for drug-related offenses. The suspension was upheld at a meeting of the Gadsden County School Board on January 25, 2011. Respondent was rehired as a Gadsden County substitute teacher in February, 2011, and worked in that capacity at two schools until December 2012. The decision to rehire was made to accommodate Respondent with lawful employment so as to meet the terms of her probation. Administrative Complaint On November 30, 2012, Petitioner issued the Administrative Complaint that forms the basis for this proceeding. The Administrative Complaint identified the offenses that underlie the five specified counts. Resisting an Officer - September 29, 2007 On September 29, 2007, Officer Clark was in the process of effectuating an arrest of Respondent?s son at a convenience store located near Respondent?s home. According to Officer Clark, Respondent?s son was resisting efforts to place him in handcuffs. While Officer Clark was attempting to take Respondent?s son into custody, Respondent appeared on the scene and attempted to intervene in the incident. The nature of the intervention is disputed. When a back-up officer arrived, Officer Clark instructed him to take Respondent into custody. The only evidence of the disposition of the charge of resisting an officer was a printout of the case docket from the website of the Leon County, Florida Clerk of Court. The printout is hearsay, and comes within no exception to the hearsay rule set forth in section 90.803, Florida Statutes. Disposition of the charge of resisting an officer was not supported by competent, substantial, and non-hearsay evidence. Thus, no finding can be made to substantiate that charge. Driving Without a Valid License - January 2, 2010 On January 2, 2010, Respondent was driving her vehicle in Tallahassee. She was stopped by Officer Hurlbut for a traffic infraction. Respondent presented Officer Hurlbut with a Florida driver?s license. When Officer Hurlbut ran the driver?s license through his onboard computer, he discovered that the driver?s license produced by Respondent was not current, and that Respondent?s driver?s license had been suspended. Officer Hurlbut issued a citation and notice to appear to Respondent, and seized her expired driver?s license and her automobile tag. On April 14, 2010, Respondent entered a plea of no contest to a charge of operating a motor vehicle without a valid driver?s license, a second-degree misdemeanor, was adjudged guilty, and was placed on probation for a period of six months. Driving Without a Valid License/Violation of Probation - September 26, 2010 On September 26, 2010, Respondent was stopped by Highway Patrol Sergeant Teslo for driving without a seatbelt. Respondent had no identification. Sergeant Teslo asked Respondent to write her name and date of birth on a sheet of paper so that he could run it through his onboard computer. The name and birthdate provided by Respondent were not those of Respondent. When Sergeant Teslo determined that the name and birthdate were not those of Respondent, he returned to her car, whereupon Respondent provided him with her real name and birthdate. When Sergeant Teslo ran Respondent?s name and birthdate, he discovered that Respondent was operating her vehicle while her driver?s license was suspended. He issued a traffic citation, and waited for a licensed driver to come and pick up Respondent. As a matter of discretion, Sergeant Teslo did not charge Respondent with providing false information. On September 30, 2010, an affidavit of probation violation was executed which alleged that Respondent violated her April 14, 2010, sentence of probation by driving with a suspended license. A warrant was issued, and Respondent was taken into custody. Respondent entered a plea of no contest to a reduced charge of operating a motor vehicle without a valid driver?s license. Adjudication was withheld. Drug Offenses - December 9, 2010 On December 9, 2010, after a period of investigation and surveillance of Respondent?s home, the Tallahassee Police Department executed a search warrant for the home. Respondent was not at the home when the search was conducted. Respondent arrived at her home while the search warrant was being executed. There were numerous police cars around the house. Respondent asked a neighbor to watch the house and retrieve the keys when the search was done while she took her pit bulldog, which had been Tasered during the execution of the warrant, to the veterinarian. The neighbor later called Respondent to advise her that drugs were found during the search. Thus, the search and its results were openly known in the area. During the execution of the search warrant, two of Respondent?s sons were taken into custody. The search of the home uncovered a significant quantity of powdered and crack cocaine, cannabis, and various articles of paraphernalia located in rooms throughout the home, including the kitchen and Respondent?s bedroom. On December 21, 2010, Respondent was arrested for a number of drug-related offenses. On February 11, 2011, an Information was filed charging Respondent with trafficking in controlled substances, a felony of the first degree; sale or possession of controlled substances with intent to sell within 1000 feet of a convenience store, a felony of the first degree; sale or possession of controlled substances with intent to sell within 1000 feet of a convenience store, a felony of the second degree; and possession of paraphernalia, a misdemeanor of the first degree. On November 15, 2011, Respondent entered into a deferred prosecution agreement for the charged offenses subject to Respondent?s compliance with various terms of the agreement. Public Assistance Fraud - July 25, 2012 On July 6, 2012, an affidavit was executed by Department of Economic Opportunity Investigator Marshall, in which it was alleged that Respondent made false statements that she was unemployed and not receiving wages or benefits from June 19, 2010 through February 26, 2011, so as to qualify for reemployment assistance benefits for which she was otherwise not eligible. Respondent asserted that she was, in fact, unemployed during the summer of 2010, since her annual contract expired at the conclusion of the 2009-2010 school year, and was not renewed until the commencement of the 2010-2011 school year. She further asserted that she was suspended without pay commencing on January 26, 2011. However, the evidence is undisputed that Respondent was employed and receiving wages for, at a minimum, the start of the 2010-2011 school year1/ until January 26, 2011. On July 25, 2012, an Information was filed charging Respondent with Unemployment Compensation Fraud, a felony of the third degree, for making false statements to obtain or increase benefits under Florida unemployment compensation laws. On November 2, 2012, Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to the felony charge of unemployment compensation fraud, was adjudicated guilty, was placed on probation for a period of five years, and was ordered to pay restitution to the Florida Reemployment Compensation Trust Fund in the amount of $7,972.00 and to pay an additional $750 in court costs.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the findings of fact and conclusions of law reached herein, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order permanently revoking Respondent?s teaching certificate, No. 608837. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of December, 2013, 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 16th day of December, 2013.
The Issue Does correspondence dated August 18, 1997, from John M. Awad, Ph.D., District Administrator for District II, State of Florida, Department of Children and Family Services, directed to Theodore R. Buri, Jr., Regional Director, American Federation of State, County, and Municipal employees, AFL-CIO, identify Respondent’s agency policy? If yes, is that policy a “Rule” as defined in Section 120.52(15), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996)? If a “Rule," has Respondent promulgated the policy in accordance with Section 120.54, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996)? If the policy is a “Rule” that has not been promulgated, does a statutory basis exist for its promulgation?
Findings Of Fact The individual Petitioners are employed at the Florida State Hospital. This is a mental health facility operated by the Respondent. The individual Petitioners have contact with the clients who reside in the hospital. Because those individual Petitioners have client contact in performing their employment at the hospital, Respondent, as their employer, is responsible for screening the employees to ascertain whether those individual Petitioners have been convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to certain offenses set forth in Sections 435.03 and 435.04, Florida Statutes (1995). Such a finding would disqualify the employees from working directly with the clients. The requirement for screening is in accordance with Section 110.1127(3), and Section 394.4572, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996). Florida Public Employees Council 79, American Federation of State, County, and Municipal employees, AFL-CIO (AFSCME), represents the individual Petitioners in collective bargaining between those Petitioners and the State of Florida. Each of the individual Petitioners received notification from Robert B. Williams, Hospital Administrator, Florida State Hospital, that each person had been declared ineligible to hold a position of “special trust” based upon certain offenses attributable to the Petitioners. The basis for the disqualifications was Chapter 435, Florida Statutes (1995). This meant that the individuals could not have client contact. As a consequence, Petitioners were told, through the correspondence notifying them of their disqualifications, that they could seek exemption from disqualification and/or contest the accuracy of the records declaring their disqualifications. All Petitioners sought relief from Respondent in accordance with Section 435.07(3), Florida Statutes (1995), by requesting exemption from disqualification before the Respondent. Bobby Jones, Clarence Cornell Simmons, Freddie Lee, and Frank Lawrence Dickens were denied exemption. Whether those Petitioners have contested the preliminary decision by Respondent denying their exemption through hearing procedures set forth in Chapter 120, Florida Statutes is not known. The other Petitioners were granted exemption from disqualification by action of the Respondent. Before Respondent made its preliminary determination on eligibility, on August 13, 1997, Theodore R. Buri, Jr., Regional Director of AFSCME Florida Council 79, wrote to Dr. John Awad, District Administrator, District II, Department of Children and Family Services. The purpose of the letter concerned the disqualification of the individual Petitioners to continue work in positions of “special trust” by having contact with clients at Florida State Hospital. That correspondence stated: The above referenced employees have been previously notified of disqualification, allegedly under the provisions of Chapter 435, Florida Statutes. These employees have notified Council 79, through their local union, that they are scheduled for a hearing on a possible exemption from the provisions of Chapter 435 on August 27, 1997. I have reviewed the documents of these individuals and I have found, without exception, that the charges which served as the basis of potential disqualification all occurred prior to October 1, 1995. As I am sure you are aware the provisions of Chapter 435, Florida Statutes, did not become effective until October 1, 1995. Further, the notations are consistent throughout Chapter 435, indicating that the provisions of Chapter 435 shall apply only to offenses committed subsequent to October 1, 1995. It appears that these, and other, employees are being improperly required by the Department to defend themselves against provisions of Florida Statutes which do not apply to them. I wish you would immediately review this concern with your legal department and direct Florida State Hospital to immediately make the affected employees whole and to terminate the pending actions against these employees. Your prompt attention in this matter is very much appreciated. On August 18, 1997, Dr. Awad responded to Mr. Buri’s inquiry through correspondence, in which Dr. Awad stated: The concerns expressed in your letter dated August 13, 1997, concerning background screenings were reviewed approximately a year and a half ago by an agency statewide workgroup, which included several background screening coordinators, District Legal Counsels, and attorneys from the General Counsel’s office. The legal research from that group resulted in the issuance of Agency policy addressing this and other statewide issues. In response to a question similar to that raised in your letter, Agency policy is that although Section 64 of Chapter 95-228, Laws of Florida, states that “this act shall take effect October 1, 1995, and shall apply to offenses committed on or after that date,” it applies only to the new criminal offense of “Luring or enticing a child” created by Section 1 of the law and does not apply to screening provisions. Therefore, in accordance with established principals [sic] of statutory construction, a person being rescreened after 10-1-95, must meet the requirements of the law in effect as of the date of the rescreening, which includes the broadened offenses, just as a new job applicant must meet such requirements. If you have any further questions concerning this matter, you may wish to have your attorney discuss this with the Agency’s General Counsel. The exemption hearings before Respondent were held on August 27, 1997, leading to the grant of exemptions for some Petitioners, and denial for others. Through their Petition to determine the invalidity of a “Rule," Petitioners allege and request the following relief: Although Chapter 435 of the Laws of Florida concerning employment screening specifically states that it applies to offenses committed on or after October 1, 1995, the Respondent applies employment screening to all employees and to all offenses regardless of the date of the offense. The Respondent articulated this policy of application in correspondence addressed to Theodore R. Buri from John Awad dated August 18, 1997,. . . The Respondent’s policy, as more fully described above, is a 'Rule' within the meaning of Section 120.52(16), Florida Statutes, because it is an 'agency statement of general applicability that implements, interprets, or prescribes law or policy or describes the organization, procedure, or practice requirements of the agency.' Id. This rule should be declared an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority for the following reasons: The above described rule has not been adopted in substantial compliance with Section 120.54, Florida Statutes; The Respondent has no statutory or rule authority to adopt the above described rule as applied to offenses predating October 1, 1995, thus the rule violates Section 120.56, Florida Statutes. The rule imposes a civil penalty against the individually named Petitioners for which there is no specific statutory authority. The rule is arbitrary and capricious as applied to offenses predating October 1, 1995, and thus violates Section 120.56, Florida Statutes. The rule adversely affects the Petitioners' substantial interest in continued employment in a position of 'special trust.' The rule is an unconstitutional impairment of the contract of employment. It unfairly burdens the Petitioners and others similarly situated with the duty to timely request and prove by clear and convincing evidence that [sic] either an entitlement to an exemption from disqualification or that the records are inaccurate. It is an oppressive and unreasonable condition of employment. As a penalty attached to an offense committed prior to October 1, 1995, the Rule is unlawful as an ex post facto law. The immediate removal from a position of trust before an employee may be heard denies the employee due process. The rule attacks a protected property and liberty interest of the individually named Petitioners and those similarly situated. The Agency’s actions against the Petitioners based on the Rule stigmatizes the employee. Petitioners also request that they be granted costs and attorneys fees pursuant to Section 120.595(3) and (4), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996). Chapter 95-228, Laws of Florida, referred to by Dr. Awad in his August 18, 1997, correspondence to Mr. Buri, created Chapter 435, Florida Statutes.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent failed to abide by the coverage requirements of the Florida Workers' Compensation Law embodied in Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by not obtaining a workers' compensation insurance policy and whether the Petitioner properly assessed a penalty against the Respondent pursuant to Section 440.107, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Investigator Pangrass conducted a random inspection of a construction site at 9 Pecan Drive Pass, Ocala, Florida, on December 18, 2002. On that occasion he observed several people working, hanging drywall. Investigator Pangrass spoke to one of the workers, Daniel Maloney, and asked him, to identify his employer. Daniel Maloney identified the Respondent as his employer. When Maloney identified him the Respondent was only 10 feet away and the noise level at the site was such that the Respondent could hear himself being identified as the employer. The Respondent did not then deny that he was Daniel Maloney's employer. Daniel Maloney stated he had worked for the Respondent full-time for two months and was paid by the hour. The Respondent told Mr. Pangrass he was unable to complete the work at the job without additional labor. Mr. Maloney assisted the Respondent by "hanging the ceiling." The Respondent offered a hearsay statement of Mr. Maloney, wherein he stated, "I am the employee." The Respondent confirmed that he had a prior employment relationship with Daniel Maloney and that Daniel Maloney wanted to work with the Respondent. Another worker observed by Mr. Pangrass, Desmond Neil, told Investigator Pangrass that he worked for the Respondent part-time and was paid by the hour. The Respondent had used the services of Desmond Neil on prior occasions and stated "we do a job for Holiday the day before." The Respondent told Mr. Pangrass that he was trying to get workers' compensation for Desmond Neil. The Respondent made a statement against his own interest and said he "re-hired" Desmond Neil because Neil could not get a workers' compensation exemption. The Respondent's use of the word "re-hired" is significant because in a prior compliance matter the Respondent had employed Desmond Neil and agreed to terminate Desmond Neil's employment. The Respondent in testimony, changed his version of the facts and said that he re-hired Desmond Neil, but that Neil worked for Charles Brandon. Investigator Pangrass interviewed the Respondent. During this interview the Respondent stated he had labor expenses connected with his business. He testified he was paid by Holiday Builders and then in turn paid Desmond Neil and Daniel Maloney. Charles Brandon did not employ or was not the sole employer of Desmond Neil or Daniel Maloney on December 18, 2002. Investigator Pangrass contacted Mr. Brandon, who stated he knew the Respondent was going to hire helpers. Mr. Brandon was not at the job-site to direct Desmond Neil or Daniel Maloney and could only be reached by phone. The Petitioner's evidence that the Respondent was the employer of Desmond Neil and Daniel Maloney on December 18, 2002, instead of Mr. Brandon or some other person or entity, is the most persuasive and is accepted. The Respondent offered conflicting evidence regarding who provided money to Desmond Neil and Daniel Maloney. The Respondent offered a hearsay statement of Daniel Maloney that Holiday Builders was Daniel Maloney's employer. The Respondent said that when Holiday Builders pays him (the Respondent) he then pays his employees. The Respondent changed his testimony, however, and then said Charles Brandon gave him checks to give to the employees. (Implying that they were Brandon's employees in this version of his story.) The Respondent submitted a signed statement to the Petitioner indicating that he had no employees between 1999 and 2002, in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 10-B. The Respondent recognized the signature on that statement as being his own, but professed not to remember who wrote it or what it said. The Respondent, however, did admit to having at least one employee in 2001, directly contradicting his own statement. The Respondent also testified that the only times he used Desmond Neil's services were the two times Investigator Pangrass stopped by the Respondent's job sites. It is a trifle too coincidental that the only two times the investigator visited the job sites were the only times when the Respondent purportedly used the services of Desmond Neil. This is especially the case since Desmond Neil's testimony and even that of the Respondent himself tend to contradict that statement. Finally, the Respondent admitted that he did not have a workers' compensation policy for any employees. In summary, the evidence adduced by the Petitioner is deemed more consistent and credible and is accepted. It was thus demonstrated that the Respondent had one or more employees at the times pertinent hereto.
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 directing that the Respondent stop work and cease his operations until such time as he secures workers' compensation coverage for employees and directing that the Respondent pay a penalty in the amount of $1,100.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of December, 2003, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of December, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: John M. Iriye, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Workers' Compensation 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 Berisford Champagnie 15508 Southwest 34th Avenue Ocala, Florida 34473 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondents violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by failing to secure the payment of workers? compensation as alleged in the Stop-Work Order and Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation (the Department), is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement that employers in the State of Florida secure the payment of workers' compensation for their employees. Mr. Alfred Strange was a managing member of Respondent Al?s Painting Service, LLC (the LLC), which had been created at least as early as 2004. The LLC was administratively dissolved on September 24, 2010, for failure to file an Annual Report. After this date, no further Annual Reports were filed. As a managing member of the LLC, Mr. Strange had initially obtained an exemption from workers? compensation coverage beginning on October 21, 2004, which was renewed once for a two-year period and finally expired on October 20, 2008. Mr. Frederick Crutchfield, another managing member of the LLC, had an exemption which expired on November 20, 2008. After this date, no further Requests for Exemption were filed by the company or its officers. Mr. Strange and Mr. Crutchfield did not have exemptions in effect from January 8, 2010, until September 24, 2010, when the LLC was dissolved. Mr. Carl Woodall is a senior investigator with the Division of Workers? Compensation. Mr. Woodall was appointed as an investigator on July 2, 2007, and was appointed as a senior investigator, Position Number 43003044, on September 1, 2012. He has been involved with over 400 enforcement cases under chapter 440. The position description for Position Number 43003044, effective September 1, 2012, provides in relevant part: The incumbent in this position is responsible for conducting investigations for the purpose of ensuring employer compliance with the workers? compensation requirements; entering and inspecting any place of business at any reasonable time for purpose of investigating employer compliance; examining and copying business records; and issuing, serving, and enforcing stop-work orders, penalty assessment orders, and any other orders required under s. 440.107 F.S. On January 7, 2013, Investigator Woodall conducted a site visit to a commercial building at 20721 Central Avenue East, Blountstown, Florida. Outside this address, there was a van with advertising on its side showing a man painting with a paint roller, the words “Al?s Painting,” and a phone number. Inside, he encountered Mr. Strange painting the east wall of the building. Investigator Woodall was wearing a shirt displaying a seal with the words “State of Florida Workers? Compensation Investigator” emblazoned on it. Investigator Woodall showed Mr. Strange his identification, which contained his name and identification number 03044, and indicated that he was a senior compliance investigator with the Division of Workers? Compensation. In response to questions from Investigator Woodall, Mr. Strange provided identification in the form of his driver?s license and stated that he had been working at the Central Avenue address for a few days and was painting only part of the building. Mr. Strange stated that he was being paid $15.00 per hour and that he had been paid once by check. Mr. Strange provided a business card to Investigator Woodall. Investigator Woodall testified that Mr. Strange may have told him that he had an old card in the van and Investigator Woodall remembered that Mr. Strange did go to the van and look for something. The business card that was provided to Investigator Woodall was printed with “Al?s Painting Service, LLC.” It is not clear that Mr. Strange ever held himself out as doing business under the name “Al?s Painting Service, LLC” in obtaining the work at Central Avenue or at any time after the LLC was dissolved. Investigator Woodall checked workers? compensation information for Al?s Painting Service, LLC, by accessing the Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) maintained by the Department. The database indicated no workers? compensation coverage was in effect for the LLC. It indicated that Mr. Strange and Mr. Crutchfield were managing members of the LLC but that their exemptions had expired in 2008. Information in the CCAS is submitted by insurance companies and the National Council of Compensation Insurance (NCCI). Investigator Woodall also accessed the Department of State, Division of Corporations? website. That database indicated that Al?s Painting Service, LLC, had been dissolved on September 24, 2010. On January 7, 2013, at approximately 12:40 p.m., Investigator Woodall personally served a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment on Mr. Strange and the LLC, along with a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation. Mr. Strange was actively involved in business operations in Florida during the period of January 8, 2010, through January 7, 2013, inclusively. Mr. Strange operated within the construction industry during the period of January 8, 2010, through January 7, 2013, inclusively. Mr. Strange was an "employer" during the time period of January 8, 2010, through January 7, 2013, inclusively, as that term is defined in section 440.02(16). Mr. Strange neither obtained workers' compensation insurance coverage under chapter 440 for any of the individuals listed on the Penalty Worksheet, nor verified that any of those individuals or corporations had workers' compensation coverage before contracting with them for construction services at any point in time during the period of January 8, 2010, through January 7, 2013, inclusively. Class Code 5474, used on the penalty worksheet attached to the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and as defined by the NCCI SCOPES Manual, is the correct occupational classification for Alfred Strange, d/b/a Al's Painting Service, LLC, a Dissolved Florida Limited Liability Company. None of the employees listed on the Penalty Worksheet of Exhibit C were covered by workers' compensation insurance obtained through an employee leasing company for the period of January 8, 2010, through January 7, 2013. Alfred Strange and Frederick Crutchfield were "employees" of Alfred Strange, d/b/a Al's Painting Service, LLC, a Dissolved Florida Limited Liability Company, as that term is defined in section 440.02(15), during the period of January 8, 2010, through January 7, 2013, whether continuously or not. Neither Alfred Strange nor Frederick Crutchfield was an independent contractor of Alfred Strange, d/b/a Al's Painting Service, LLC, a Dissolved Florida Limited Liability Company, as that term is defined in section 440.02(15), during the period of January 8, 2010, through January 7, 2013. Remuneration was paid to Alfred Strange and Frederick Crutchfield during January 8, 2010, through January 7, 2013. The Request for Admission that the approved manual rates applied on the Penalty Worksheet attached to the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment were correct was deemed admitted pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.370.1/ The penalty shown in column „g? of the Penalty Worksheet attached to the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is the correct penalty for the employees listed there. Mr. Strange did not provide the Department any of the records requested in the Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation. The imputed salary amounts for each employee listed on the penalty worksheet of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment equal the statewide average weekly wage multiplied by 1.5.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the above 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 Mr. Alfred T. Strange violated the requirement in chapter 440, Florida Statutes, to secure workers' compensation coverage, and imposing upon him a total penalty assessment of $28,175.64. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD 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 August, 2013.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Respondent was an employee of the School Board of Sarasota County having started work there on August 6, 1986. He was a custodian and number one keyholder for the Board's 20 plus building administrative complex. At approximately 5:30 AM on June 20, 1989, Respondent arrived at the complex and started to walk toward building R-21 to unlock it. While he was on his way, he claims, Mr. Basil Mays, the regional assistant director of maintenance came up to him, grabbed him by the arm, and told him to "keep his mouth shut" about a purported alteration of a report of property loss he, Respondent had submitted. In response, Respondent told Mays not to "fuck" with him and walked away to his board-owned vehicle. At this point, Respondent noticed that neither Thomas Crown nor Calvin Albritton, other workers and friends of Mays who usually congregate in the parking lot in the morning, were present. However, they soon arrived and went up to Mays' van to talk. At this point, Respondent walked up, shoved his time card through Crown and Albritton and gave it to Mays. He advised Albritton, with whom he was to work that day, he would meet him at Sarasota High School. He then left to go purchase the ceiling tiles he was to bring to the school for Albritton to install. Respondent completed his tasks that day though his arm bothered him on and off the whole time. Before initially leaving the board grounds, he put cold water on the arm where he had been grabbed and was observed by Mr. Kaze, to whom he reluctantly told the story. Kaze recommended he see a doctor and report the incident to the police. He did not mention the incident to Albritton because they were not close, and though he did try to speak with Mr. Desormier about it at the pizza party held that day, every time he did, Mays would come up. He didn't mention the incident to anyone else at the Board offices. When he finally got to speak with Desormier the next day, he was advised to get the arm checked and if it did not get better, to see Mr. Palmer, head of risk management, about it. During the day of the incident and the next, Respondent tried to do his normal tasks, but was unable to fully do so. He did what he could but was unable to use the arm for any heavy work. He subsequently reported the incident to the police. Mr. Mays was not arrested at that time. On June 22, 1989, Donald W. Donovan, a physician's assistant, treated the Respondent for a large bruise on his right arm with numbness and pain radiating down the arm. His examination showed a 5 centimeter hematoma with nerve involvement in the 4th and 5th fingers which usually is an indication of lateral nerve involvement. Respondent claimed he had been grabbed by his supervisor whose thumb had caused the bruise. In Mr. Donovan's opinion, the injury was consistent with the Respondent's story. Admittedly, though difficult to do, this injury could have been self-inflicted. At the time he saw Otten, he appeared very apprehensive and fearful of repercussions about the incident. As a result, he suggested Respondent see a psychiatrist. He treated Respondent for about a month and prescribed physical therapy. Mr. Mays denies injuring Respondent. He admits, that he asked Otten to increase the value of the theft on his report form because he couldn't account for all missing tools and did not think Otten could account for them, either. He claims, however, that on the day in question he got to work about 5:20 AM and met Crown and Albritton there. When Respondent came up, Mays laid out the work schedule for the day and Otten walked off with one of the men. He had his regional meeting later in the day at which Respondent was present, but indicates they had no conversation. On June 21, 1989 Mays left for New York, remaining there until June 25, 1989. When he got back to work on June 26, 1989, he received a call from city detectives warning him to stay away from Otten. When he asked what this was all about, he was told that Otten had alleged he had grabbed him and was fearful that Mays would retaliate. Mays was not arrested at that time and though he subsequently was apprehended, the matter was dropped because the prosecutor determined the evidence was insufficient to warrant prosecution. Both Mr. Crown and Mr. Albritton saw Respondent on the morning of the alleged assault, after it supposedly happened, and he made no mention of it to them. Albritton claims that though he worked with Respondent all that day, Otten said nothing to him. He saw Otten the next day at Sarasota High School favoring his arm. When he asked what happened, Otten said somebody had grabbed him. This is consistent with Otten's story. Neither Crown nor Albritton are friends of the Respondent. In fact, Crown did not care to work with Otten and admits he may have said he would not be surprised if Otten broke into his own van. After Mays was contacted by the police, he reported the matter to his supervisor, Dr. Francis who asked that Mays write out a statement. Thereafter, Otten filed a notice of injury which required other paperwork and an investigation by the Deputy Superintendent for Human Resources. Dr. Francis then prepared a memo to that officer recommending that Respondent be terminated for filing a false claim of injury and a false report against a supervisor. There is no report of any additional investigation made by Dr. Francis into the incident before making that recommendation. However, before any action was taken, an investigation was conducted by Dr. Price, the Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources, (not made available at the hearing), and after the Respondent's worker's compensation claim was rejected, the Board took its action to terminate him from employment. Respondent claims to never have been in trouble with his employers before this incident. When his van was broken into, he immediately prepared a report of the theft, listing, to the best of his ability, the tools stolen from him. It was this report which Mays asked him to falsify and which was the basis for the incident here. His reputation as a school board employee, at least with Mr. Desormier, formerly a regional custodian manager and now manager of the Board's Custodian Academy is that of a very good and cooperative employee. Desormier never knew Otten not to tell the truth over the approximately 3 1/2 years they worked together. Worker's Compensation benefits were denied Mr. Otten because the Judge of Compensation Claims found that his version of the facts was not credible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, recommended that Respondent, Stephen J. Otten, be reinstated as a classified employee. RECOMMENDED this 13th day of December, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 13th day of December, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-0865 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: 1.-2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3.-5. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. 8.-12. Accepted and incorporated herein. 13. Accepted as a restatement of the testimony, but not as dispositive of the issue. 14.-17. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. 20.-22. Accepted and incorporated herein. 23. Accepted. 24.-25. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. FOR THE RESPONDENT: Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a proper Finding of Fact. 4.-10. Accepted. 11.-12. Accepted and incorporated herein. 13.-14. Not proper Findings of Fact. 15. Not a Finding of Fact but a restatement of and comment on the evidence. 16.-17. Accepted and incorporated herein. 18.-19. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted but irrelevant. Accepted and incorporated herein. 22.-24. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Maria D. Korn, Esquire Kunkle & Miller 290 Cocoanut Avenue Sarasota, Florida 34236 Frederick P. Mercurio, Esquire Mercurio & Hogreve 1800 Second Street, Suite 290 Sarasota, Florida 34236 Dr. Charles W. Fowler Superintendent of Schools Sarasota County 2418 Hatton Street Sarasota, Florida 34237 Hon. Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400
