The Issue The issues are whether the Respondent, Cielo Residential Design and Construction, Inc. (Cielo), failed to secure workers’ compensation insurance as required by chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2014); and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with enforcing the requirement in chapter 440, 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. At all times relevant to the instant case, Cielo was a Florida-based corporation with its principal office located at 10090 Deerwood Club Road, Jacksonville, Florida 32256. Jose Bird is a Department investigator who visits construction sites and verifies whether workers’ compensation coverage has been secured. On April 24, 2015, Mr. Bird visited a construction site at 1844 Packard Avenue in Jacksonville, Florida and observed John Hockenberry, Jesse Brown, Robert Singleton, and Coty Moore doing carpentry work there. After speaking with those four individuals and learning that they were employed by Cielo, Mr. Bird returned to his car and accessed the Department’s Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) to ascertain whether Cielo had obtained workers’ compensation coverage for the aforementioned individuals. CCAS indicated that Cielo had no coverage. After relaying this information to his supervisor, Mr. Bird received authorization to serve Mr. Hockenberry with a Stop-Work Order, and he did so on April 24, 2015. That Stop-Work Order required Cielo to “cease all business operations for all worksites in the State” based on the Department’s determination that Cielo had failed to obtain workers’ compensation coverage. In addition, the Department notified Cielo that it would be penalized an amount, “equal to 2 times the amount [Cielo] 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. Bird also served a “Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation” (the BRR). In order to ascertain Cielo’s payroll disbursements during the relevant time period and the resulting penalty for Cielo’s failure to obtain workers’ compensation coverage, the BRR requested Cielo to remit several different types of business records covering the period from July 15, 2013 through April 24, 2015 (i.e., the audit period). The business records sought by the Department included items such as time sheets, payroll summaries, check journals, certificates of exemption, and evidence that any Cielo subcontractors had obtained workers’ compensation coverage. Section 440.107(7)(e) provides that if an employer failed to provide business records sufficient to enable the Department to ascertain the employer’s actual payroll for the time period in question, then the Department would impute the employer’s payroll based on the statewide average weekly wage, multiplied by two. After Cielo responded to the BRR, the Department reviewed the provided records and served an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on June 1, 2015, stating that the Department was seeking to impose a penalty of $162,106.06. Cielo then provided additional records which led to the Department issuing a 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, stating that the proposed penalty had been reduced to $91,023.60. Cielo continued to provide records that led to the preparation and issuance of a Fourth Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on the day prior to the final hearing in this matter. Through that Order, the Department notified Cielo that it was seeking to impose a penalty of $23,447.60. Lawrence Pickle, a penalty auditor for the Department, calculated the penalties set forth in the aforementioned Orders of Penalty Assessment. With regard to the Fourth Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, Mr. Pickle testified that he utilized a penalty calculation worksheet which the Department has incorporated by reference through Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.027. Mr. Pickle was able to use the business records provided by Cielo to identify the people employed by Cielo during the audit period and listed those employees in the penalty calculation worksheet. Through review of the business records provided by Cielo, Mr. Pickle was also able to ascertain the nature of those employees’ work and assigned each employee a classification code from the Scopes® Manual, which has been adopted by the Department through rule 69L-6.021. Classification codes pertain to various occupations or types of work, and each one has an approved manual rate used by insurance companies to assist in the calculation of workers’ compensation insurance premiums. An approved manual rate corresponds to the risk associated with a particular occupation or type of work. For example, class code 8810 pertains to clerical work and has a lower manual rate than class code 5645 for carpentry. Using the approved manual rates and the wages paid during the audit period, Mr. Pickle determined the individual insurance premiums Cielo would have paid for the employees identified by Mr. Pickle if Cielo had procured workers’ compensation coverage during the audit period. Then, and as required by section 440.107(d)(1), Mr. Pickle multiplied each individual premium by two in order to calculate the penalty associated with each employee for whom records were available. With the exception of April 24, 2015, Mr. Pickle was able to use the records provided by Cielo to ascertain the payroll amounts. As for the penalty associated with April 24, 2015, Mr. Pickle followed the same process set forth above. However, and as required by section 440.107(7)(e), Mr. Pickle calculated the wages from April 24, 2015, by using the statewide average weekly wage for the time period in question and then multiplying that number by two. Kathleen Larriviere, the president and managing partner of Cielo, appeared on Cielo’s behalf at the final hearing. While testifying, Ms. Larriviere described the nature of Cielo’s business as renovations and additions to homes. In addition, she acknowledged that Cielo is in the construction industry. Ms. Larriviere asserted during the final hearing and in her Proposed Recommended Order that she had decided against procuring workers’ compensation coverage at Cielo’s inception based on the advice of her accountant and on her own interpretation of section 440.02(15)(d). Specifically, Ms. Larriviere concluded that Cielo’s employees were independent contractors and exempt from the workers’ compensation requirement because they satisfied many of the criteria enumerated under section 440.02(15)(d). However, and as discussed in the Conclusions of Law below, Ms. Larriviere clearly misread the statute. Even if Cielo’s employees are independent contractors within the meaning of section 440.02(15)(d), the statute clearly specifies that an independent contractor engaged in the construction industry is an “employee” for purposes of chapter 440. The Department has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Cielo was required to have workers’ compensation coverage during the time period in question and violated chapter 440 by failing to do so. As for the $23,447.60 penalty sought by the Department, Ms. Larriviere stated during the final hearing that if Cielo had been required to have workers’ compensation insurance during the time period in question, then Mr. Pickle’s calculations were accurate.
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 Cielo Residential Design & Construction, Inc., failed to secure the payment of workers’ compensation insurance coverage at certain times between July 15, 2013 through April 24, 2015, in violation of section 440.107, and imposing a penalty of $23,447.60. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of November, 2015, 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 24th day of November, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: Trevor S. Suter, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 (eServed) Kathleen A. Larriviere, President Cielo Residential Design & Construction, Inc. 10090 Deerwood Club Road Jacksonville, Florida 32256 (eServed) Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 (eServed)
The Issue The issue in these consolidated cases is whether the Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA") properly disallowed Petitioners' expense for liability insurance and accrued contingent liability costs contained in AHCA's audit of Petitioners' Medicaid cost reports.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioners operate licensed nursing homes that participate in the Florida Medicaid program as institutional providers. The 14 Palm Gardens facilities are limited liability companies operating as subsidiaries of New Rochelle Administrators, LLC, which also provides the facilities with management services under a management contract. AHCA is the single state agency responsible for administering the Florida Medicaid program. One of AHCA's duties is to audit Medicaid cost reports submitted by providers participating in the Medicaid program. During the audit period, Petitioners provided services to Medicaid beneficiaries pursuant to Institutional Medicaid Provider Agreements that they entered into with AHCA. The Provider Agreements contained the following relevant provision: (3) Compliance. The provider agrees to comply with local, state, and federal laws, as well as rules, regulations, and statements of policy applicable to the Medicaid program, including Medicaid Provider Handbooks issued by AHCA. Section 409.908, Florida Statutes (2002)1, provided in relevant part: Reimbursement of Medicaid providers.-- Subject to specific appropriations, the agency shall reimburse Medicaid providers, in accordance with state and federal law, according to methodologies set forth in the rules of the agency and in policy manuals and handbooks incorporated by reference therein. These methodologies may include fee schedules, reimbursement methods based on cost reporting, negotiated fees, competitive bidding pursuant to s. 287.057, and other mechanisms the agency considers efficient and effective for purchasing services or goods on behalf of recipients. . . . * * * (2)(a)1. Reimbursement to nursing homes licensed under part II of chapter 400 . . . must be made prospectively. . . . * * * (b) Subject to any limitations or directions provided for in the General Appropriations Act, the agency shall establish and implement a Florida Title XIX Long-Term Care Reimbursement Plan (Medicaid) for nursing home care in order to provide care and services in conformance with the applicable state and federal laws, rules, regulations, and quality and safety standards and to ensure that individuals eligible for medical assistance have reasonable geographic access to such care. . . . AHCA has adopted the Title XIX Long-Term Care Reimbursement Plan (the "Plan") by reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G-6.010. The Plan incorporates the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS") Publication 15-1, also called the Provider Reimbursement Manual (the "Manual" or "PRM"), which provides "guidelines and policies to implement Medicare regulations which set forth principles for determining the reasonable cost of provider services furnished under the Health Insurance for the Aged Act of l965, as amended." CMS Pub. 15-1, Foreword, p. I. The audit period in these cases spans two versions of the Plan: version XXIII, effective July 1, 2002, and version XXIV, effective January 1, 2003. It is unnecessary to distinguish between the two versions of the Plan because their language is identical as to the provisions relevant to these cases. Section I of the Plan, "Cost Finding and Cost Reporting," provides as follows, in relevant part: The cost report shall be prepared by a Certified Public Accountant in accordance with chapter 409.908, Florida Statutes, on the form prescribed in section I.A. [AHCA form 5100-000, Rev. 7-1-90], and on the accrual basis of accounting in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles as established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) as incorporated by reference in Rule 61H1-20.007, F.A.C., the methods of reimbursement in accordance with Medicare (Title XVIII) Principles of Reimbursement, the Provider Reimbursement Manual (CMS-PUB. 15-1)(1993) incorporated herein by reference except as modified by the Florida Title XIX Long Term Care Reimbursement Plan and State of Florida Administrative Rules. . . . Section III of the Plan, "Allowable Costs," provides as follows, in relevant part: Implicit in any definition of allowable costs is that those costs shall not exceed what a prudent and cost-conscious buyer pays for a given service or item. If costs are determined by AHCA, utilizing the Title XVIII Principles of Reimbursement, CMS-PUB. 15-1 (1993) and this plan, to exceed the level that a prudent buyer would incur, then the excess costs shall not be reimbursable under the plan. The Plan is a cost based prospective reimbursement plan. The Plan uses historical data from cost reports to establish provider reimbursement rates. The "prospective" feature is an upward adjustment to historical costs to establish reimbursement rates for subsequent rate semesters.2 The Plan establishes limits on reimbursement of costs, including reimbursement ceilings and targets. AHCA establishes reimbursement ceilings for nursing homes based on the size and location of the facilities. The ceilings are determined prospectively, on a semiannual basis. "Targets" limit the inflationary increase in reimbursement rates from one semester to the next and limit a provider's allowable costs for reimbursement purposes. If a provider's costs exceed the target, then those costs are not factored into the reimbursement rate and must be absorbed by the provider. A nursing home is required to file cost reports. The costs identified in the cost reports are converted into per diem rates in four components: the operating component; the direct care component; the indirect care component; and the property component. GL/PL insurance costs fall under the operating component. Once the per diem rate is established for each component, the nursing home's reimbursement rate is set at the lowest of four limitations: the facility's costs; the facility's target; the statewide cost ceiling based on the size of the facility and its region; or the statewide target, also based on the size and location of the facility. The facility's target is based on the initial cost report submitted by that facility. The initial per diem established pursuant to the initial cost report becomes the "base rate." Once the base rate is established, AHCA sets the target by inflating the base rate forward to subsequent six- month rate semesters according to a pre-established inflation factor. Reimbursement for cost increases experienced in subsequent rate semesters is limited by the target drawn from the base rate. Thus, the facility's reimbursement for costs in future rate semesters is affected by the target limits established in the initial period cost report. Expenses that are disallowed during the establishment of the base rate cannot be reclaimed in later reimbursement periods. Petitioners entered the Medicaid program on June 29, 2002. They filed cost reports for the nine- month period from their entry into the program through February 28, 2003. These reports included all costs claimed by Petitioners under the accrual basis of accounting in rendering services to eligible Medicaid beneficiaries. In preparing their cost reports, Petitioners used the standard Medicaid Cost Report "Chart of Accounts and Description," which contains the account numbers to be used for each ledger entry, and explains the meaning of each account number. Under the general category of "Administration" are set forth several subcategories of account numbers, including "Insurance Expense." Insurance Expense is broken into five account numbers, including number 730810, "General and Professional Liability -- Third Party," which is described as "[c]osts of insurance purchased from a commercial carrier or a non-profit service corporation."3 Petitioners' cost report stated the following expenses under account number 730810: Facility Amount Palm Garden of Clearwater $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Gainesville $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Jacksonville $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Largo $171,188.00 Palm Garden of North Miami $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Ocala $217,712.00 Palm Garden of Orlando $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Pinellas $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Port St. Lucie $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Sun City $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Tampa $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Vero Beach $217,712.00 Palm Garden of West Palm Beach $231,151.00 Palm Garden of Winter Haven $145,042.00 AHCA requires that the cost reports of first-year providers undergo an audit. AHCA's contract auditing firm, Smiley & Smiley, conducted an examination4 of the cost reports of the 14 Palm Gardens nursing homes to determine whether the included costs were allowable. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants ("AICPA") has promulgated a series of "attestation standards" to provide guidance and establish a framework for the attestation services provided by the accounting profession in various contexts. Attestation Standards 101 and 601 set out the standard an accountant relies upon in examining for governmental compliance. Smiley & Smiley examined the Palm Gardens cost reports pursuant to these standards. During the course of the audit, Smiley & Smiley made numerous requests for documentation and other information pursuant to the Medicaid provider agreement and the Plan. Petitioners provided the auditors with their general ledger, invoices, audited financial statements, bank statements, and other documentation in support of their cost reports. The examinations were finalized during the period between September 28, 2006, and October 4, 2006. The audit report issued by AHCA contained more than 2,000 individual adjustments to Petitioners' costs, which the parties to these consolidated proceedings have negotiated and narrowed to two adjustments per Palm Gardens facility.5 As noted in the Preliminary Statement above, the first adjustment at issue is AHCA's disallowance of Palm Gardens' accrual of expenses for contingent liability under the category of GL/PL insurance, where Palm Gardens could not document that it had purchased GL/PL insurance. The second adjustment at issue is ACHA's disallowance of a portion of the premium paid by Palm Gardens for the Mature Care Policies. The total amount of the adjustment at issue for each facility is set forth in the Preliminary Statement above. Of that total for each facility, $18,849.00 constituted the disallowance for the Mature Care Policies. The remainder constituted the disallowance for the accrual of GL/PL related contingent liabilities. Janette Smiley, senior partner at Smiley & Smiley and expert in Medicaid auditing, testified that Petitioners provided no documentation other than the Mature Care Policies to support the GL/PL entry in the cost reports. Ms. Smiley testified that, during much of the examination process, she understood Petitioners to be self-insured. Ms. Smiley's understanding was based in part on statements contained in Petitioners' audited financial statements. In the audited financial statement covering the period from June 28, 2002, through December 31, 2002, Note six explains Petitioners' operating leases and states as follows, in relevant part: The lease agreement requires that the Company maintain general and professional liability in specified minimum amounts. As an alternative to maintaining these levels of insurance, the lease agreement allows the Company to fund a self-insurance reserve at a per bed minimum amount. The Company chose to self-insure, and has recorded litigation reserves of approximately $1,735,000 that are included in other accrued expenses (see Note 9). As of December 31, 2002, these reserves have not been funded by the Company. . . . The referenced Note nine, titled "Commitments and Contingencies," provides as follows in relevant part: Due to the current legal environment, providers of long-term care services are experiencing significant increases in liability insurance premiums or cancellations of liability insurance coverage. Most, if not all, insurance carriers in Florida have ceased offering liability coverage altogether. The Company's Florida facilities have minimal levels of insurance coverage and are essentially self-insured. The Company has established reserves (see Note 6) that estimate its exposure to uninsured claims. Management is not currently aware of any claims that could exceed these reserves. However, the ultimate outcome of these uninsured claims cannot be determined with certainty, and could therefore have a material adverse impact on the financial position of the Company. The relevant notes in Petitioner's audited financial statement for the year ending December 31, 2003, are identical to those quoted above, except that the recorded litigation reserves were increased to $4 million. The notes provide that, as of December 31, 2003, these reserves had not been funded by Petitioners. Ms. Smiley observed that the quoted notes, while referencing "self-insurance" and the recording of litigation reserves, stated that the litigation reserves had not been funded. By e-mail dated April 21, 2005, Ms. Smiley corresponded with Stanley Swindling, the shareholder in the accounting firm Moore Stephens Lovelace, P.A., who had primary responsibility for preparing Petitioners' cost reports. Ms. Smiley noted that Petitioners' audited financial statements stated that the company "chose to self-insure" and "recorded litigation reserves," then wrote (verbatim): By definition from PRM CMS Pub 15-1 Sections 2162.5 and 2162.7 the Company does in fact have self-insurance as there is no shifting of risk. You will have to support your positioning a letter addressing the regs for self-insurance. As clearly the financial statement auditors believe this is self- insurance and have disclosed such to the financial statement users. If you cannot support the funding as required by the regs, the provider will have to support expense as "pay as you go" in accordance with [2162.6] for PL/GL. * * * Please review 2161 and 2162 and provide support based on the required compliance. If support is not complete within the regulations, amounts for IBNR [incurred but not reported] will be disallowed and we will need to have the claims paid reports from the TPA [third party administrator] (assuming there is a TPA handling the claims processing), in order to allow any expense. Section 2160 of the Manual establishes the basic insurance requirement: A. General.-- A provider participating in the Medicare program is expected to follow sound and prudent management practices, including the maintenance of an adequate insurance program to protect itself against likely losses, particularly losses so great that the provider's financial stability would be threatened. Where a provider chooses not to maintain adequate insurance protection against such losses, through the purchase of insurance, the maintenance of a self-insurance program described in §2161B, or other alternative programs described in §2162, it cannot expect the Medicare program to indemnify it for its failure to do so. . . . . . . If a provider is unable to obtain malpractice coverage, it must select one of the self-insurance alternatives in §2162 to protect itself against such risks. If one of these alternatives is not selected and the provider incurs losses, the cost of such losses and related expenses are not allowable. Section 2161.A of the Manual sets forth the general rule as to the reimbursement of insurance costs. It provides that the reasonable costs of insurance purchased from a commercial carrier or nonprofit service corporation are allowable to the extent they are "consistent with sound management practice." Reimbursement for insurance premiums is limited to the "amount of aggregate coverage offered in the insurance policy." Section 2162 of the Manual provides as follows, in relevant part: PROVIDER COSTS FOR MALPRACTICE AND COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL LIABILITY PROTECTION, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION, WORKERS' COMPENSATION, AND EMPLOYEE HEALTH CARE INSURANCE General.-- Where provider costs incurred for protection against malpractice and comprehensive general liability . . . do not meet the requirements of §2161.A, costs incurred for that protection under other arrangements will be allowable under the conditions stated below. . . . * * * The following illustrates alternatives to full insurance coverage from commercial sources which providers, acting individually or as part of a group or a pool, can adopt to obtain malpractice, and comprehensive general liability, unemployment compensation, workers' compensation, and employee health care insurance protection: Insurance purchased from a commercial insurance company which provides coverage after a deductible or coinsurance provision has been met; Insurance purchased from a limited purpose insurance company (captive); Total self-insurance; or A combination of purchased insurance and self-insurance. . . . part: Section 2162.3 of the Manual provides: Self-Insurance.-- You may believe that it is more prudent to maintain a total self- insurance program (i.e., the assumption by you of the risk of loss) independently or as part of a group or pool rather than to obtain protection through purchased insurance coverage. If such a program meets the conditions specified in §2162.7, payments into such funds are allowable costs. Section 2162.7 of the Manual provides, in relevant Conditions Applicable to Self-Insurance.-- Definition of Self-Insurance.-- Self- insurance is a means whereby a provider(s), whether proprietary or nonproprietary, undertakes the risk to protect itself against anticipated liabilities by providing funds in an amount equivalent to liquidate those liabilities. . . . * * * Self-Insurance Fund.-- The provider or pool establishes a fund with a recognized independent fiduciary such as a bank, a trust company, or a private benefit administrator. In the case of a State or local governmental provider or pool, the State in which the provider or pool is located may act as a fiduciary. The provider or pool and fiduciary must enter into a written agreement which includes all of the following elements: General Legal Responsibility.-- The fiduciary agreement must include the appropriate legal responsibilities and obligations required by State laws. Control of Fund.-- The fiduciary must have legal title to the fund and be responsible for proper administration and control. The fiduciary cannot be related to the provider either through ownership or control as defined in Chapter 10, except where a State acts as a fiduciary for a State or local governmental provider or pool. Thus, the home office of a chain organization or a religious order of which the provider is an affiliate cannot be the fiduciary. In addition, investments which may be made by the fiduciary from the fund are limited to those approved under State law governing the use of such fund; notwithstanding this, loans by the fiduciary from the fund to the provider or persons related to the provider are not permitted. Where the State acts as fiduciary for itself or local governments, the fund cannot make loans to the State or local governments. . . . The quoted Manual provisions clarify that Ms. Smiley's message to Mr. Swindling was that Petitioners had yet to submit documentation to bring their "self-insurance" expenses within the reimbursable ambit of Sections 2161 and 2162 of the Manual. There was no indication that Petitioners had established a fund in an amount sufficient to liquidate its anticipated liabilities, or that any such funds had been placed under the control of a fiduciary. Petitioners had simply booked the reserved expenses without setting aside any cash to cover the expenses. AHCA provided extensive testimony regarding the correspondence that continued among Ms. Smiley, Mr. Swindling, and AHCA employees regarding this "self-insurance" issue. It is not necessary to set forth detailed findings as to these matters, because Petitioners ultimately conceded to Ms. Smiley that, aside from the Mutual Care policies, they did not purchase commercial insurance as described in Section 2161.A, nor did they avail themselves of the alternatives to commercial insurance described in Section 2162.A. Petitioners did not purchase commercial insurance with a deductible, did not self- insure, did not purchase insurance from a limited purpose or "captive" insurance company, or employ a combination of purchased insurance and self-insurance. Ms. Smiley eventually concluded that Petitioners had no coverage for general and professional liability losses in excess of the $25,000 value of the Mutual Care Policies. Under the cited provisions of the Manual, Petitioners' unfunded self- insurance expense was not considered allowable under the principles of reimbursement. Petitioners were uninsured, which led Ms. Smiley to further conclude that Section 2162.13 of the Manual would apply: Absence of Coverage.-- Where a provider, other than a governmental (Federal, State, or local) provider, has no insurance protection against malpractice or comprehensive general liability in conjunction with malpractice, either in the form of a limited purpose or commercial insurance policy or a self-insurance fund as described in §2162.7, any losses and related expenses incurred are not allowable. In response to this disallowance pursuant to the strict terms of the Manual, Petitioners contend that AHCA should not have limited its examination of the claimed costs to the availability of documentation that would support those costs as allowable under the Manual. Under the unique circumstances presented by their situation, Petitioners assert that AHCA should have examined the state of the nursing home industry in Florida, particularly the market for GL/PL liability insurance during the audit period, and further examined whether Petitioners had the ability to meet the insurance requirements set forth in the Manual. Petitioners assert that, in light of such an examination, AHCA should have concluded that generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP") may properly be invoked to render the accrued contingent liabilities an allowable expense. Keith Parnell is an expert in insurance for the long- term care industry. He is a licensed insurance broker working for Hamilton Insurance Agency, which provides insurance and risk management services to about 40 percent of the Florida nursing home market. Mr. Parnell testified that during the audit period, it was impossible for nursing homes to obtain insurance in Florida. In his opinion, Petitioners could not have purchased commercial insurance during the audit period. To support this testimony, Petitioners offered a study conducted by the Florida Department of Insurance ("DOI") in 2000 that attempted to determine the status of the Florida long-term care liability insurance market for nursing homes, assisted living facilities, and continuing care retirement communities. Of the 79 companies that responded to DOI's data call, 23 reported that they had provided GL/PL coverage during the previous three years but were no longer writing policies, and only 17 reported that they were currently writing GL/PL policies. Six of the 17 reported writing no policies in 2000, and five of the 17 reported writing only one policy. The responding insurers reported writing a total of 43 policies for the year 2000, though there were approximately 677 skilled nursing facilities in Florida. On March 1, 2004, the Florida Legislature's Joint Select Committee on Nursing Homes issued a report on its study of "issues regarding the continuing liability insurance and lawsuit crisis facing Florida's long-term care facilities and to assess the impact of the reforms contained in CS/CS/CS/SB 1202 (2001)."6 The study employed data compiled from 1999 through 2003. Among the Joint Select Committee's findings was the following: In order to find out about current availability of long-term care liability insurance in Florida, the Committee solicited information from [the Office of Insurance Regulation, or] OIR within the Department of Financial Services, which is responsible for regulating insurance in Florida. At the Committee's request, OIR re-evaluated the liability insurance market and reported that there has been no appreciable change in the availability of private liability insurance over the past year. Twenty-one admitted insurance entities that once offered, or now offer, professional liability coverage for nursing homes were surveyed by OIR. Six of those entities currently offer coverage. Nine surplus lines carriers have provided 54 professional liability policies in the past year. Representatives of insurance carriers that stopped providing coverage in Florida told OIR that they are waiting until there are more reliable indicators of risk nationwide to re-enter the market. Among the Joint Select Committee's conclusions was the following: In the testimony the Committee received, there was general agreement that the quality of care in Florida nursing homes is improving, in large part due to the minimum staffing standards the Legislature adopted in SB 1202 during the 2001 Session. There was not, however, general agreement about whether or not lawsuits are abating due to the tort system changes contained in SB 1202. There was general agreement that the long-term care liability insurance market has not yet improved. After hearing the testimony, there is general agreement among the members of the Joint Select Committee that: * * * General and professional liability insurance, with actual transfer-of-risk, is virtually unavailable in Florida. "Bare- bones" policies designed to provide minimal compliance with the statutory insurance requirement are available; however, the cost often exceeds the face value of the coverage offered in the policy. This situation is a crisis which threatens the continued existence of long-term care facilities in Florida. To further support Mr. Parnell's testimony, Petitioners offered actuarial analyses of general and professional liability in long-term care performed by AON Risk Consultants, Inc. (AON) on behalf of the American Health Care Association. The AON studies analyzed nationwide trends in GL/PL for long-term care, and also examined state-specific issues for eight states identified as leading the trends in claim activity, including Florida. They provided an historical perspective of GL/PL claims in Florida during the audit period. The 2002 AON study for Florida was based on participation by entities representing 52 percent of all Florida nursing home beds. The study provided a "Loss Cost per Occupied Bed" showing GL/PL liability claims losses on a per bed basis. The 2002 study placed the loss cost for nursing homes in Florida at $10,800 per bed for the year 2001. The 2003 AON study, based on participation by entities representing 54 percent of Florida nursing home beds, placed the loss cost for nursing homes in Florida at $11,810 per bed for the year 2002. The studies showed that the cost per bed of GL/PL losses is materially higher in Florida than the rest of the United States. The nationwide loss per bed was $2,360 for the year 2001 and $2,880 for the year 2002. The GL/PL loss costs for Texas were the second-highest in the country, yet were far lower than the per bed loss for Florida ($5,460 for the year 2001 and $6,310 for the year 2002). Finally, Petitioners point to the Mature Care Policies as evidence of the crisis in GL/PL insurance availability. The aforementioned SB 1202 instituted a requirement that nursing homes maintain liability insurance coverage as a condition of licensure. See Section 22, Chapter 2001-45, Laws of Florida, codified at Subsection 400.141(20), Florida Statutes. To satisfy this requirement, Petitioners entered the commercial insurance market and purchased insurance policies for each of the 14 Palm Gardens facilities from a carrier named Mature Care Insurance Company. The policies carried a $25,000 policy limit, with a policy premium of $34,000. These were the kind of "bare bones" policies referenced by the Joint Select Committee's 2004 report. The fact that the policies cost more than they could ever pay out led Mr. Swindling, Petitioners' health care accounting and Medicaid reimbursement expert, to opine that a prudent nursing home operator in Florida at that time would not have purchased insurance, but for the statutory requirement.7 The Mature Care Policies were "bare bones" policies designed to provide minimal compliance with the statutory liability insurance coverage requirement. The policies cost Petitioners more than $37,000 in premium payments, taxes, and fees, in exchange for policy limits of $25,000. In its examination, AHCA disallowed the difference between the cost of the policy and the policy limits, then prorated the allowable costs because the audit period was nine months long and the premium paid for the Mature Care Policies was for 12 months. AHCA based its disallowance on Section 2161.A of the Manual, particularly the language which states: "Insurance premiums reimbursement is limited to the amount of aggregate coverage offered in the insurance policy." Petitioners responded that they did not enter the market and voluntarily pay a premium in excess of the policy limits. They were statutorily required to purchase this minimal amount of insurance; they were required to purchase a 12-month policy; they paid the market price8; and they should not be penalized for complying with the statute. Petitioners contend they should be reimbursed the full amount of the premiums for the Mature Care Policies, as their cost of statutory compliance. Returning to the issue of the contingent liabilities, Petitioners contend that, in light of the state of the market for GL/PL liability insurance during the audit period, AHCA should have gone beyond the strictures of the Manual to conclude that GAAP principles render the accrued contingent liabilities an allowable expense. Under GAAP, a contingent loss is a loss that is probable and can be reasonably estimated. An estimated loss from a loss contingency may be accrued by a charge to income. Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 5 ("FAS No. 5"), Accounting for Contingencies, provides several examples of loss contingencies, including "pending or threatened litigation" and "actual or possible claims and assessments." Petitioners assert that the contingent losses reported in their cost reports were actual costs incurred by Petitioners. The AICPA Audit and Accounting Guide for Health Care Organizations, Section 8.05, provides: The ultimate costs of malpractice claims, which include costs associated with litigating or settling claims, are accrued when the incidents that give rise to the claims occur. Estimated losses from asserted and unasserted claims are accrued either individually or on a group basis, based on the best estimates of the ultimate costs of the claims and the relationship of past reported incidents to eventual claims payments. All relevant information, including industry experience, the entity's own historical experience, the entity's existing asserted claims, and reported incidents, is used in estimating the expected amount of claims. The accrual includes an estimate of the losses that will result from unreported incidents, which are probable of having occurred before the end of the reporting period. Section 8.10 of AICPA Guide provides: Accrued unpaid claims and expenses that are expected to be paid during the normal operating cycle (generally within one year of the date of the financial statements) are classified as current liabilities. All other accrued unpaid claims and expenses are classified as non-current liabilities. As noted above, Petitioners' audited financial statements for the fiscal years ending December 31, 2002, and December 31, 2003, showed that the accrual was incurred and recorded by Petitioners during the audit period. Mr. Swindling prepared Petitioners' cost reports, based on information provided by Petitioners, including trial balances reflecting their costs, statistics on patient days, cost data related to square footage, and revenue information. Mr. Swindling advised Petitioners to include the accrued losses. He believed that the loss contingency was probable and could be reasonably estimated. The losses were probable because it was "a given in the state of Florida at that time period that nursing homes are going to get sued." Mr. Swindling testified that the accrual reflected a per bed loss amount of $1,750, which he believed to be a reasonable estimate of the contingent liabilities faced by Petitioners during the audit period. This amount was much less than the per bed loss indicated by the AON studies for Florida. Mr. Swindling used the criteria set forth in Section 8.05 of the AICPA Guide to establish the estimate. He determined that the lesser amount was adequate based on his discussions with Petitioners' management, who indicated that they had a substantial risk management program. Management also disclosed to Mr. Swindling that Petitioners' leases required $1,750 per bed in liability coverage. See Finding of Fact 22, supra. Mr. Swindling believed that the estimated loss per bed was reasonable based on the AON studies and his knowledge and experience of the state of the industry in Florida during the audit period, as further reflected in the DOI and Joint Committee on Nursing Homes materials discussed above. Mr. Swindling's opinion was that the provisions of the Manual relating to GL/PL insurance costs do not apply under these circumstances. The costs at issue in this proceeding are not general and professional liability insurance costs subject to CMS Pub. 15-1; rather, they are loss contingencies related to general and professional liability, including defense costs, litigation costs, and settlement costs. Mr. Swindling placed the loss contingency under number 730810, "General and Professional Liability -- Third Party" because, in the finite chart of accounts provided by Medicaid, that was the most appropriate place to record the cost.9 Despite the initial confusion it caused the agency's auditors, the placement of the loss contingency under number 730810 was not intended to deceive the auditors. Mr. Swindling opined that, under these circumstances, Sections 2160 through 2162 are in conflict with other provisions in the Manual relating to the "prudent buyer" concept, and further conflict with the Plan to the extent that the cited regulations "relate to a retrospective system as opposed to prospective target rate-based system." Mr. Swindling agreed that the application of Sections 2160 through 2162 to the situation presented by Petitioners would result in the disallowance of the loss contingencies. Mr. Swindling observed, however, that Sections 2160 through 2162 are Medicare regulations. Mr. Swindling testified that Medicare reimbursements are made on a retrospective basis.10 Were this situation to occur in Medicare -- in which the provider did not obtain commercial insurance, self-insurance, or establish a captive insurer -- the provider would be deemed to be operating on a pay-as-you-go basis. Though its costs might be disallowed in the current period, the provider would receive reimbursements in subsequent periods when it could prove actual payment for its losses. Mr. Swindling found a conflict in attempting to apply these Medicare rules to the prospective payment system employed by Florida Medicaid, at least under the circumstances presented by Petitioners' case. Under the prospective system, once the contingent loss is disallowed for the base period, there is no way for Petitioners ever to recover that loss in a subsequent period, even when the contingency is liquidated. During his cross-examination, Mr. Swindling explained his position as follows: . . . Medicare allows for that payment in a subsequent period. Medicaid rules would not allow that payment in the subsequent period; therefore you have conflict in the rules. When you have conflict in the rules, you revert to generally accepted accounting principles. Generally accepted accounting principles are what we did. Q. Where did you find that if there's a conflict in the rules, which I disagree with, but if there is a conflict in the rules, that you follow GAAP? Where did you get that from? I mean, we've talked about it and it's clear on the record that if there is no provision that GAAP applies, but where did you get that if there's a conflict? Just point it out, that would be the easiest way to do it. A. The hierarchy, if you will, requires providers to file costs on the accrual basis of accounting in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. If there's no rules, in absence of rules -- and I forget what the other terms were, we read it into the record before, against public policy, those kind of things -- or in my professional opinion, if there is a conflict within the rules where the provider can't follow two separate rules at the same time, they're in conflict, then [GAAP] rules what should be recorded and what should be reimbursed. * * * Q. [T]he company accrued a liability of $2 million for the cost reporting period of 2002-2003, is that correct? A. Yes. * * * Q. Do you have any documentation supporting claims paid, actually paid, in 2002-2003 beyond the mature care policy for which that $2 million reserve was set up? A. No. Q. So what did Medicaid pay for? A. Medicaid paid the cost of contingent liabilities that were incurred by the providers and were estimated at $1,750 per bed. Generally accepted accounting principles will adjust that going forward every cost reporting period. If that liability in total goes up or down, the differential under [GAAP] goes through the income statement, and expenses either go up or they go down. It's self-correcting, which is similar to what Medicare is doing, only they're doing it on a cash basis. Mr. Swindling explained the "hierarchy" by which allowable costs are determined. The highest governing law is the Federal statutory law, Title XIX of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. Subsection. 1396-1396v. Below the statute come the federal regulations for implementing Title XIX, 42 C.F.R. parts 400-426. Then follow in order Florida statutory law, the relevant Florida Administrative Code provisions, the Plan, the Manual, and, at the bottom of the hierarchy, GAAP. Mr. Swindling testified that in reality, a cost report is not prepared from the top of the hierarchy down; rather, GAAP is the starting point for the preparation of any cost report. The statutes, rules, the Plan and the Manual are then consulted to exclude specific cost items otherwise allowable under GAAP. In the absence of an applicable rule, or in a situation in which there is a conflict between rules in the hierarchy such that the provider is unable to comply with both rules, the provider should fall back on GAAP principles as to recording of costs and reimbursement. John A. Owens, currently a consultant in health care finance specializing in Medicaid, worked for AHCA for several years up to 2002, in positions including administrator of the audit services section and bureau chief of the Office of Medicaid Program Analysis. Mr. Owens is a CPA and expert in health care accounting and Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement. Mr. Owens agreed with Mr. Swindling that AHCA's disallowance of the accrued costs for GL/PL liability was improper. Mr. Owens noted that Section 2160 of the Manual requires providers to purchase commercial insurance. If commercial insurance is unavailable, then the Manual gives the provider two choices: self-insure, or establish a captive program. Mr. Owens testified that insurers were fleeing the state during the period in question, and providers were operating without insurance coverage. Based on the state of the market, Petitioners' only options would have been to self-insure or establish a captive. As to self-insurance, Petitioners' problem was that they had taken over the leases on their facilities from a bankrupt predecessor, Integrated Health Services ("IHS"). Petitioners were not in privity with their predecessor. Petitioners had no access to the facilities' loss histories, without which they could not perform an actuarial study or engage a fiduciary to set up a self-insurance plan.11 Similarly, setting up a captive would require finding an administrator and understanding the risk exposure. Mr. Owens testified that a provider would not be allowed to set up a captive without determining actuarial soundness, which was not possible at the time Petitioners took over the 14 IHS facilities. Thus, Petitioners were simply unable to meet the standards established by the Manual. The options provided by the Manual did not contemplate the unique market situation existing in Florida during the audit period, and certainly did not contemplate that situation compounded by the problems faced by a new provider taking over 14 nursing homes from a bankrupt predecessor. Mr. Owens agreed with Mr. Swindling that, under these circumstances, where the requirements of the Manual could not be met, Petitioners were entitled to seek relief under GAAP, FAS No. 5 in particular. In situations where a loss is probable and can be measured, then an accounting entry may be performed to accrue and report that cost. Mr. Owens concluded that Petitioners' accrual was an allowable cost for Medicaid purposes, and explained his rationale as follows: My opinion is, in essence, that since they could not meet -- technically, they just could not meet those requirements laid out by [the Manual], they had to look somewhere to determine some rational basis for developing a cost to put into the cost report, because if they had chosen to do nothing and just moved forward, those rates would be set and there would be nothing in their base year which then establishes their target moving forward. So by at least looking at a rational methodology to accrue the cost, they were able to build something into their base year and have it worked into their target system as they move forward. Steve Diaczyk, an audit evaluation and review analyst for AHCA, testified for the agency as an expert in accounting, auditing, and Medicaid policy. Mr. Diaczyk was the AHCA auditor who reviewed the work of Smiley & Smiley for compliance with Medicaid rules and regulations, and to verify the accuracy of the independent CPA's determinations. Mr. Diaczyk agreed with Mr. Swindling's description of the "hierarchy" by which allowable costs are determined. Mr. Diaczyk affirmed that Petitioners employed GAAP rather than Medicaid regulations in preparing their cost reports. Mr. Diaczyk testified regarding the Notes to Petitioners' audited financial statements, set forth at Findings of Fact 22-24, supra, which left AHCA's auditors with the understanding that Petitioners were self-insuring. Mr. Diaczyk pointed out that Section 2162.7 of the Manual requires a self- insurer to contract with an independent fiduciary to maintain a self-insurance fund, and that the fund must contain monies sufficient to cover anticipated losses. The fiduciary takes title to the funds, the amount of which is determined actuarially. Mr. Diaczyk explained that, in reimbursing a provider for self-insurance, Medicaid wants to make sure that the provider has actually put money into the fund, and has not just set up a fund on its books and called it "self-insurance" for reimbursement purposes. AHCA's position is that it would be a windfall for a provider to obtain reimbursement for an accrued liability when it has not actually set the money aside and funded the risk. Medicaid wants the risk transferred off of the provider's books and on to the self-insurance fund. Mr. Diaczyk testified as to the differing objectives of Medicaid and GAAP. Medicaid is concerned with reimbursing costs, and is therefore especially sensitive regarding the overstatement of costs. Medicaid wants to reimburse a provider for only those costs that have actually been paid. GAAP, on the other hand, is about report presentation for a business entity and is concerned chiefly with avoiding the understatement of expenses and overstatement of revenue. Under GAAP, an entity may accrue a cost and not pay it for years. In the case of a contingent liability, the entity may book the cost and never actually pay it. Mr. Diaczyk described the self-insurance and liquidation provisions of 42 C.F.R. Section 413.100, "Special treatment of certain accrued costs." The federal rule essentially allows accrued costs to be claimed for reimbursement, but only if they are "liquidated timely." Subsection (c)(2)(viii) of the rule provides that accrued liability related to contributions to a self-insurance program must be liquidated within 75 days after the close of the cost reporting period. To obtain reimbursement, Petitioners would have had to liquidate their accrued liability for GL/PL insurance within 75 days of the end of the audit period. Mr. Diaczyk also noted that, even if the 75-day requirement were not applicable, the general requirement of Section 2305.2 of the Manual would apply. Section 2305.2 requires that all short-term liabilities must be liquidated within one year after the end of the cost reporting period in which the liability is incurred, with some exceptions not applicable in this case. Petitioners' accrued liability for general and professional liability insurance was not funded or liquidated for more than one year after the cost reporting period. It was a contingent liability that might never be paid. Therefore, Mr. Diaczyk stated, reimbursement was not in keeping with Medicaid's goal to reimburse providers for actual paid costs, not for potential costs that may never be paid. Petitioners responded that their accrued liabilities constituted non-current liabilities, items that under normal circumstances will not be liquidated within one year. Mr. Parnell testified that there is great variation in how long it takes for a general and professional liability claim against a nursing home to mature to the point of payment to the claimant. He testified that a "short" timeline would be from two to four years, and that some claims may take from eight to eleven years to mature. From these facts, Petitioners urge that 42 C.F.R. Section 413.100 and Section 2305.2 of the Manual are inapplicable to their situation. As to Section 2305.2 in particular, Petitioners point to Section 2305.A, the general liquidation of liabilities provision to which Section 2305.2 provides the exceptions discussed above. The last sentence of Section 2305.A provides that, where the liability is not liquidated within one year, or does not qualify under the exceptions set forth in Sections 2305.1 and 2305.2, then "the cost incurred for the related goods and services is not allowable in the cost reporting period when the liability is incurred, but is allowable in the cost reporting period when the liquidation of the liability occurs." (Emphasis added.) Petitioners argue that the underscored language supports the Medicare/Medicaid distinction urged by Mr. Swindling. In its usual Medicare retroactive reimbursement context, Section 2305.2 would operate merely to postpone reimbursement until the cost period in which the liability is liquidated. Applied to this Medicaid prospective reimbursement situation, Section 2305.2 would unfairly deny Petitioners any reimbursement at all by excluding the liability from the base rate. Mr. Diaczyk explained that, where the Medicaid rules address a category of costs, the allowable costs in a provider's cost report are limited to those defined as allowable by the applicable rules. He stated that if there is a policy in the Manual that addresses an item of cost, the provider must use the Manual provision; the provider cannot use GAAP to determine that cost item. In this case, Mr. Diaczyk agreed with Ms. Smiley as to the applicable rules and the disallowance of Petitioners' contingent liability costs. According to Mr. Diaczyk, GAAP may be used only if no provisions farther up the chain of the "hierarchy" are applicable. In this case, the Medicaid rules specifically addressed the categories of cost in question, meaning that GAAP did not apply. Under cross-examination, Mr. Diaczyk testified that the accrual made by Petitioners in their cost reports would be considered actual costs under GAAP, "[a]ssuming that they had an actuarial study done to come up with the $1.7 million that they accrued." Mr. Diaczyk acknowledged that AICPA Audit and Accounting Guide for Health Care Organizations, Section 8.05, does not limit the provider to an actuarial study in estimating losses from asserted and unasserted claims. See Finding of Fact 49, supra, for text of Section 8.05. Mr. Diaczyk pointed out that the problem in this case was that Petitioners gave AHCA no documentation to support their estimate of the accrual, despite the auditor's request that Petitioners provide documentation to support their costs. Mr. Diaczyk's testimony raised a parallel issue to Mr. Swindling's concern that Medicaid's prospective targeting system permanently excludes any item of cost not included in the base rate. Mr. Swindling solved the apparent contradiction in employing Medicare rules in the Medicaid scenario by applying GAAP principles. Responding to the criticism that GAAP could provide a windfall to Petitioners by reimbursing them for accrued costs that might never actually result in payment, Mr. Swindling responded that GAAP principles would adjust the cost for contingent liabilities going forward, "truing up" the financial statements in subsequent reporting periods. This truing up process would have the added advantage of obviating the agency's requirement for firm documentation of the initial accrual. Mr. Swindling's "truing up" scenario under GAAP would undoubtedly correct Petitioners' financial statements. However, Mr. Swindling did not explain how the truing up of the financial statements would translate into a correction of Petitioners' reimbursement rate.12 If costs excluded from the base rate cannot be added to future rate adjustments, then costs incorrectly included in the base rate would also presumably remain in the facility's rate going forward.13 Thus, Mr. Swindling's point regarding the self-correcting nature of the GAAP reporting procedures did not really respond to AHCA's concerns about Petitioners' receiving a windfall in their base rate by including the accrual for contingent liabilities. On April 19, 2005, Petitioners entered into a captive insurance program. Petitioners' captive is a claims-made GL/PL policy with limits of $1 million per occurrence and $3 million in the aggregate. Under the terms of the policy, "claims-made" refers to a claim made by Petitioners to the insurance company, not a claim made by a nursing home resident alleging damages. The effective date of the policy is from April 21, 2005, through April 21, 2006, with a retroactive feature that covers any claims for incidents back to June 29, 2002, a date that corresponds to Petitioners' first day of operation and participation in the Medicaid program. The Petitioners' paid $3,376,906 for this policy on April 22, 2005. Mr. Parnell testified that April 2005 was the earliest time that the 14 Palm Gardens facilities could have established this form of insurance program. In summary, the evidence presented at the hearing regarding the contingent liabilities established that Petitioners took over the 14 Palm Gardens facilities after the bankruptcy of the previous owner. Petitioners were faced with the virtual certainty of substantial GL/PL expenses in operating the facilities, and also faced with a Florida nursing home environment market in which commercial professional liability insurance was virtually unavailable. Lacking loss history information from their bankrupt predecessor, Petitioners were unable to self-insure or establish a captive program until 2005. Petitioners understood that if they did not include their GL/PL expenses in their initial cost report, those expenses would be excluded from the base rate and could never be recovered. Petitioners' leases for the facilities required them to fund a self-insurance reserve at a per bed minimum amount of $1,750. Based on the AON studies and the general state of the industry at the time, Petitioners' accountant concluded that, under GAAP principles, $1,750 per bed was a reasonable, conservative estimate of Petitioners' GL/PL loss contingency exposure for the audit period.14 Based on all the evidence, it is found that Petitioners' cost estimate was reasonable and should be accepted by the agency. Petitioners included their GL/PL loss contingency expenses in their initial Medicaid cost report, placing those expenses under a heading indicating the purchase of insurance from a third party. The notes to Petitioners' audited financial statements stated that the facilities were "essentially self- insured." These factors led AHCA to request documentation of Petitioners' self-insurance. Petitioners conceded that they were not self-insured and carried no liability insurance aside from the Mature Care policies. The parties had little dispute as to the facts summarized above. The parties also agreed as to the applicability of the "hierarchy" by which allowable costs are determined. Their disagreement rests solely on the manner in which the principles of the hierarchy should be applied to the unique situation presented by Petitioners in these cases.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that AHCA enter a final order that allows Petitioners' accrual of expenses for contingent liability under the category of general and professional liability ("GL/PL") insurance, and that disallows the Mature Care policy premium amounts in excess of the policy limits, prorated for a nine- month period. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of October, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of October, 2008.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2016), by failing to secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage, as alleged in the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment; and, if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement of chapter 440 that employers in Florida secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage for their employees and corporate officers. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. Respondent owns and operates a gas station/convenience store in Miami, Florida. The Investigation. The Department received a public referral that Respondent was operating without workers' compensation coverage. The case was assigned by the Department to Compliance Investigator Julio Cabrera ("Cabrera"). Cabrera first checked the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations, Sunbiz website to verify Respondent's status as an active corporation. Cabrera then checked the Department's Coverage and Compliance Automated System ("CCAS") to see whether Respondent had a workers' compensation policy or any exemptions. An exemption is a method in which a corporate officer can exempt himself from the requirements of chapter 440. See § 440.05, Fla. Stat. CCAS is the Department's internal database that contains workers' compensation insurance policy information and exemption information. Insurance providers are required to report coverage and cancellation information, which is then input into CCAS. Cabrera's CCAS search revealed that Respondent had no coverage or exemptions during the relevant period. On February 23, 2016, Cabrera visited Respondent's place of business and observed two women, Margarita Maya ("Maya"), and Nuri Penagos ("Penagos") serving customers. Cabrera asked to speak to the owner. Maya telephoned John Obando ("Obando"). After introducing himself, Cabrera asked how many employees worked for the business. Obando indicated he needed to check with his accountant. Shortly thereafter, Obando called Cabrera back and indicated that his employees included Maya; Carolina Santos ("Santos"); his wife, Marta Ayala ("Ayala"); and himself. Obando confirmed that the business did not currently have workers' compensation insurance coverage nor did any of the members of the LLC have an exemption. The LLC had three managing members: Obando; Maria Rios ("Rios"); and Carlos Franco ("Franco"). Obando explained that Rios lived out of the country and did not provide services to Respondent. According to Obando, Franco also resides outside of the United States, but he travels to Florida and periodically assists with the running of Respondent's business enterprise. Cabrera contacted his supervisor and relayed this information. With his supervisor's approval, Cabrera issued a SWO and served a Business Records Request. Respondent provided the requested business records to the Department. The evidence showed that during the two-year look-back period, Respondent did not have workers' compensation coverage for its employees during a substantial portion of the period in which it employed four or more employees, including managing members without exemptions. As such, Respondent violated chapter 440 and, therefore, is subject to penalty under that statute. Penalty Calculation. The Department assigned Penalty Auditor Matt Jackson ("Jackson") to calculate the penalty assessed against Respondent. Jackson used the classification code 8061 listed in the Scopes® Manual, which has been adopted by the Department through Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.021(1). Classification code 8061 applies to employees of gasoline stations with convenience stores. Classification codes are four-digit codes assigned to various occupations by the National Council on Compensation Insurance to assist in the calculation of workers' compensation insurance premiums. In the penalty assessment, Jackson applied the corresponding approved manual rate for classification code 8061 for the related periods of non-compliance. The corresponding approved manual rate was correctly utilized using the methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)1. and rule 69L-6.027 to determine the final penalties. Utilizing the business records provided by Respondent, the Department determined Respondent’s gross payroll pursuant to the procedures required by section 440.107(7)(d) and rule 69L- 6.027. The Department served an Amended OPA on March 29, 2016, imposing a total penalty of $29,084.62. On May 6, 2016, following receipt of additional records, the Department issued a Second Amended OPA, reducing the penalty to $25,670.88. Because Respondent had not previously been issued a SWO, pursuant to section 440.107(7)(d)1., the Department applied a credit toward the penalty in the amount of the initial premium Respondent paid for workers' compensation coverage. Here, the premium payment amount for which Respondent received credit was $1,718.00. This was subtracted from the calculated penalty of $25,670.88, yielding a total remaining penalty of $23,952.88. No records were provided regarding the compensation of Penagos, who was observed working on the date of the inspection. According to Respondent, Penagos was present and working on that date, not as an employee, but as an unpaid volunteer who was testing out the job to see if it was to her liking. The Department imputed gross payroll for Penagos for February 23, 2016, which resulted in a penalty in the amount of $16.26 and was included in the Second Amended OPA. Respondent's Defenses. At the final hearing, Obando testified that he and the other co-owners of Respondent always attempted to fully comply with every law applicable to Respondent's business and have never had compliance problems. He testified that the business carried workers' compensation coverage until 2013, when its insurance agent advised Respondent it could go without coverage due to the size of the business, if the managing members of the LLC were to apply for, and be granted, an exemption. Obando offered no explanation why Respondent failed to secure the exemptions before letting coverage lapse during the penalty period. Obando also argues that on the date of the investigation, Penagos was not an employee, but rather his sister-in-law, who was trying out the job for a day as a volunteer to determine if she would replace Obando's wife, Ayala, who no longer wanted to work in the store. Obando asserts that only two employees were actually working in the store that day, so Respondent should not have been considered out of compliance. Obando also testified that at most, no more than three employees work at the store on any particular day. Obando testified that Respondent has ample liability coverage and that each worker has health insurance, suggesting that workers' compensation insurance coverage is unnecessary. According to Obando, the $23,952.88 penalty is a substantial amount that Respondent, a small family-owned business, cannot afford to pay. Findings of Ultimate Fact. Excluding Penagos as a volunteer, and Rios as a managing member of the LLC with no active service to Respondent, Respondent was a covered employer with four or more employees at all times during the penalty period. The Department demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent violated chapter 440, as charged in the SWO, by failing to secure workers' compensation coverage for its employees.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, enter a final order determining that Respondent, S & S of Florida, LLC, violated the requirement in chapter 440 to secure workers' compensation coverage and imposing a total penalty of $23,936.62. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of December, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY 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 7th day of December, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Joaquin Alvarez, Esquire Trevor Suter, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 (eServed) John J. Obando S & S of Florida, LLC 8590 Southwest Eighth Street Miami, Florida 33144 Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 (eServed)
The Issue The issues presented are (1) whether Respondent properly secured the payment of workers’ compensation insurance coverage and, if not, what penalty is warranted for such failure; and (2) whether Respondent conducted business operations in violation of a stop-work order and, if so, what penalty is warranted for such violation.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a corporation domiciled in Georgia and engaged in the business of electrical work, which is a construction activity. On July 2, 2004, Petitioner's investigator Katina Johnson visited 6347 Collins Road, Jacksonville, Florida, on a random job site visit. Investigator Johnson inquired of Respondent's superintendent at the job site whether Respondent had secured the payment of workers’ compensation coverage. She was informed that Respondent had done so and was subsequently provided with a Certificate of Liability Insurance from Respondent’s agent in Georgia, the Cowart Insurance Agency, Inc. Investigator Johnson also obtained a copy of Respondent’s workers’ compensation insurance policy which had a policy period of September 23, 2003, to September 23, 2004. The policy and the information contained in the Certificate of Liability Insurance were not consistent. Keith Cowart, Respondent’s insurance underwriter in Georgia, testified in deposition that the certificate of insurance is not correct because it conflicts with Respondent’s workers’ compensation policy, 01-WC-975384-20, which does not have a Florida endorsement. Subsequent to the site visit, Investigator Johnson continued the investigation of Respondent utilizing the Department’s Coverage and Compliance Automated System (“CCAS”) database that contains information to show proof of coverage. She determined that Respondent did not have a Florida workers' compensation insurance policy. Johnson also checked the National Council for Compensation Insurance (“NCCI”) database and further confirmed that Respondent did not have a workers’ compensation insurance policy for the State of Florida. Petitioner also maintains a database of all workers’ compensation exemptions in the State of Florida. In consulting that database, Johnson did not find any current, valid exemptions for Respondent. Florida law requires that an employer who has employees engaged in work in Florida must obtain a Florida workers’ compensation policy or endorsement for such employees utilizing Florida class codes, rates, rules, and manuals to be in compliance. Further, any policy or endorsement used by an employer to prove the fact of workers' compensation coverage for employees engaged in Florida work must be issued by an insurer that holds a valid certificate of authority in the State of Florida. The insurance policy held by Respondent did not satisfy these standards. First, Respondent's policy was written by Cowart Insurance Agency, a Georgia agency which was not authorized to write insurance in Florida. Second, the premium was based on a rate that was less than the Florida premium rate; the policy schedule of operations page shows that Safeco Business Insurance insured Respondent for operations under class codes utilizing Georgia premium rates. On July 6, 2004, Investigator Johnson received a copy of another insurance policy declaration page from the Cowart Insurance Agency for Respondent that still did not have Florida listed as a covered state under Section 3A. In fact, none of Respondent’s workers’ compensation policies had a Florida endorsement with Florida listed in Section 3A. On July 7, 2004, after consulting with her supervisor, Investigator Johnson issued and served on Respondent a stop-work order and order of penalty assessment for failure to comply with the requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, specifically for failure to secure the payment of workers’ compensation based on Florida class codes, rates, rules and manuals. After the issuance of the stop-work order, Respondent produced a certificate of insurance with a Florida endorsement that would allegedly confer workers’ compensation coverage retroactively for Respondent. Such retroactive coverage does not satisfy Respondent’s obligation. Employers on job sites in Florida are required to maintain business records that enable Petitioner to determine whether the employer is in compliance with the workers' compensation law. Investigator Johnson issued to Respondent a request for the production of business records on July 7, 2004. The request asked the employer to produce, for the preceding three years, documents that reflected payroll and proof of insurance. Respondent produced payroll records for a number of employees. On August 2, 2004, Investigator Johnson issued a second business records request to Respondent because she noticed that the names of the workers that she interviewed during her site visit were not the same as the list of employees submitted by Respondent. Respondent failed to produce the requested records. When an employer fails to provide requested business records which the statute requires it to maintain and to make available to the Department, effective October 1, 2003, the Department is authorized by Section 440.107(7)(e), Florida Statutes, to impute that employer's payroll using the statewide average weekly wage multiplied by l.5. Petitioner therefore imputed Respondent's payroll for the entire period for which the requested business records were not produced. From the payroll records provided by Respondent, and through imputation of payroll from October 1, 2003, the Department calculated a penalty for the time period of July 7, 2001, through July 7, 2004, by assigning a class code to the type of work utilizing the SCOPES Manual. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment which assessed a penalty of $115,456.14 was served on Respondent through its attorney on September 27, 2004. The Department issued and served on Respondent a second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on November 10, 2004, with the penalty imputed back three years to July 7, 2001. The Department assessed a penalty of $100 per day for each day prior to October 1, 2003, for a total of $216,794.50. On April 28, 2005, the Department issued to Respondent a third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment with an assessed penalty of $63,871.02. The reduction in the amount of penalty was due to the Department’s determination that it did not have the authority at the time to impute the $100 per day penalty prior to October 1, 2003. On July 7, 2005, Respondent entered into a Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty and was issued an Order of Conditional Release from Stop-Work Order by the Department. Respondent made a down payment of ten percent of the assessed penalty; provided proof of compliance with Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by obtaining a Florida endorsement on its workers’ compensation insurance policy; and agreed to pay the remaining penalty in sixty equal monthly payment installments. Respondent has since defaulted on those payments. Section 440.107(7)(c), Florida Statutes, requires the Department to assess a penalty of $1,000 per day for each day that the employer conducts business operations in violation of a stop-work order. Several months after issuing the stop-work order, Investigator Johnson was informed that Respondent was conducting business operations in Miami in violation thereof. She obtained documentation that showed Respondent was performing electrical work as part of a contract it entered into with KVC Constructors, Inc., on August 4, 2004. Investigator Johnson obtained the daily sign-in sheets of KVC Constructors, Inc., that indicated the names of each entity that performed work on the job site for each particular day. She determined from the records that Respondent had worked 187 days in violation of the stop-work order prior to entering into the Payment Agreement Schedule and obtaining the Order of Conditional Release from the Department. On October 7, 2005, the Department issued to Respondent a fourth Amended Order of Penalty Assessment which assessed a penalty of $250,871.02. That amount was comprised of the $63,871.02 from the third Amended Order plus $187,000 for the 187 days of violation of the stop-work order.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order imposing a penalty against Respondent in the amount of $250,871.02 minus the amount of payments previously made by Respondent to the Department. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of June, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of June, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Colin M. Roopnarine, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 H.R. Electric, Inc. c/o Mr. Jeremy Hershberger 5512 Main Street Flowery Branch, Georgia 30542 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Carlos Muñiz, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issues to be determined in this case are whether Respondent Lockhart Builders, Inc., violated state laws applicable to workers’ compensation insurance coverage by failing to secure coverage for three employees and failing to produce records requested by Petitioner Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (Department) and, if so, what penalty should be assessed for the violations.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for the enforcement of the workers’ compensation insurance coverage requirements established in Chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2007).1 Respondent is a Florida corporation with its office in Bradenton. William Lockhart is Respondent’s president. Respondent is licensed to engage in construction activity in Florida. Respondent was engaged to construct a two-story duplex at 2315 Gulf Drive in Bradenton. Respondent began work at the job site on or about February 21, 2007. On August 22, 2007, Lockhart received a proposal from Burak Yavalar, owner of BY Construction, to do the exterior stucco work on the duplex building for a flat fee of $10,750. The proposal was accepted by Respondent on August 23, 2007. Yavalar presented Lockhart with a certificate of liability insurance which indicated that he had obtained workers’ compensation coverage for his employees. The certificate was issued by Employee Leasing Solutions, Inc. (ELS), a professional leasing company in Bradenton. ELS provides mainly payroll services and workers’ compensation insurance coverage for its clients. Lockhart did not ask for, and Yavalar did not provide Lockhart with, a list of the names of the BY Construction employees who were covered by the insurance. Lockhart made a call to ELS to verify that BY Construction had workers’ compensation insurance coverage, but he did not ask for a list of BY Construction employees covered by its insurance policy. BY Construction began work at Respondent’s job site on or about September 10 or 11, 2007. On September 12, 2007, BY Construction had eight employees at the job site. One employee, Justin Ormes, had previously worked for BY Construction, had quit for a while, and had just returned. Two other employees, Carlos Lopez and Jaime Alcatar, had been working on a nearby job site and were asked by Yavalar to come to work at Respondent’s job site. Yavalar claims that on the morning of September 12, 2007, Ormes, Lopez, and Alcatar had not yet been employed or authorized to start work for BY Construction. On September 12, 2007, Petitioner’s investigators Germaine Green and Colleen Wharton performed a random compliance check at Respondent’s job site. Without being specific about what particular work was being performed at the site by Ormes, Lopez, and Alcatar, the investigators testified that when they arrived at the job site they observed all eight men performing stucco work. The investigators spoke to Yavalar, Lockhart and the workers at the job site to determine their identities and employment status. Yavalar told the investigators his eight employees had workers’ compensation insurance coverage through ELS. However, upon checking relevant records, the investigators determined that insurance coverage for Ormes, Lopez, and Alcatar had not been secured by either BY Construction or Respondent. Wharton issued a statewide stop-work order to BY Construction for its failure to obtain workers’ compensation coverage for the three employees. After the stop work order was issued, Yavalar left the job site with Lopez and Alcatar to complete their paperwork to obtain insurance coverage through ELS. Yavalar’s wife was able to re-activate Ormes’ insurance coverage with ELS over the telephone. By the end of the day on September 12, 2007, insurance coverage was secured by BY Construction for Ormes, Lopez, and Alcatar. The business records of BY Construction produced for the Department indicated that Ormes had been paid by BY Construction in the period from March to July 2007, and then on September 12, 2007; Lopez had been paid on August 24, 2007, and then on September 12, 2007; Alcatar had been paid on September 12, 2007. All three men were paid only $28 on September 12, 2007. This evidence supports the testimony of Yavalar that these three had arrived at Respondent’s job site for the first time on September 12, 2008. BY Construction was later served with an amended order of penalty for its failure to obtain workers’ compensation coverage for the three employees. It arranged with the Department to pay the penalty through installments and was conditionally released from the stop-work order. When the Department's investigators were at the job site on September 12, 2007, they informed Lockhart about the stop-work order being issued to BY Construction and gave Lockhart a Request for Production of Business Records for the purpose of determining whether Respondent had obtained proof of workers’ compensation insurance coverage from BY Construction before BY Construction commenced work at Respondent’s job site. Respondent produced the requested records. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law, Florida law charges a contractor with the duty to secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage for any uninsured employees of its subcontractors. On this basis, the Department served Respondent with a Stop-Work Order and an Order of Penalty Assessment on September 21, 2007, for failing to secure coverage for Ormes, Lopez, and Alcatar. On September 21, 2007, the Department served a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation to Respondent. The Department’s request asked Respondent to produce records for the preceding three years, including payroll records, tax returns, and proof of insurance. Respondent produced some records in response to this second request, which the Department deemed insufficient to calculate a penalty. However, the evidence shows Respondent produced the only records that it possessed regarding its association with BY Construction. The Department’s proposed penalty does not include an assessment based solely on Respondent’s failure to produce requested records. When an employer fails to provide requested business records within 15 days of the request, the Department is authorized to assess a penalty by imputing the employer's payroll using "the statewide average weekly wage as defined in Section 440.12(2), multiplied by l.5." § 440.107(7)(e), Fla. Stat., and Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.028. Imputing the gross payroll for Ormes, Lopez and Alcatar for the years 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007, by using the average weekly wage for the type of work, the Department assessed Respondent with a penalty of $138,596.67 and issued an Order of Penalty Assessment to Respondent on October 31, 2007. Petitioner later amended the penalty to $70,272.51, based on the fact that BY Construction was not incorporated until January 1, 2006, and issued a Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on December 20, 2007.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department enter a final order that amends its penalty assessment to reflect one day of non-compliance by Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 2008.
The Issue Should discipline be imposed by Petitioner against Respondent's licenses as a life agent (2-16), life and health agent (2-18), and health agent (2-40), held pursuant to Chapter 626, Florida Statutes (2004)?
Findings Of Fact Respondent in accordance with Chapter 626, Florida Statutes (2005), currently holds licenses as a life agent (2- 16), life and health agent (2-18), and a health agent (2-40). On June 24, 2003, in an Administrative Complaint brought by Petitioner against Respondent, also under Case No. 64776-03-AG, accusations were made concerning violations of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes (2003). On October 4, 2004, the parties resolved the earlier case through a settlement stipulation for Consent Order. On October 20, 2004, the Consent Order was entered. In pertinent part the Consent Order stated: The Settlement Stipulation for Consent Order dated October 11, 2004, is hereby approved and fully incorporated herein by reference; * * * (c) Respondent agrees that he has a continuing obligation for claims, which may not have arisen or otherwise be known to the parties at the time of the execution of the Settlement Stipulation for Consent Order and this Consent Order Respondent shall be responsible for satisfying claims that were covered under the Plans sold by Respondent, up to the amount covered by such Plan, less any applicable deductibles or co-payments. Respondent may attempt to negotiate with the providers for compromised amounts, but any such compromise must result in the release of the consumer from any responsibility for the amounts that would have been covered under the terms of such Plan, less any applicable deductibles or co-payments; * * * (f) Within ninety (90) days following the issuance of this Consent Order, the Respondent shall complete the Section 626.2815(3)(a), Florida Statutes, continuing education requirement relative to unauthorized entities; * * * Within thirty (30) days of the issuance of this Consent Order, Respondent agrees to pay to the Department, a fine, in the amount of ONE THOUSAND AND 00/100 ($1,000.00) DOLLARS. Within ninety (90) days following the issuance of this Consent Order, Respondent shall satisfy any unpaid claims for persons insured under the Local 16 Plans he sold, including claims which may not have arisen or otherwise be known to the parties at the time of the execution of the Settlement Stipulation for Consent Order and this Consent Order. Respondent shall only be responsible, however, for satisfying claims that were covered under the Plans sold by Respondent, up to the amount covered by such Plan, less any applicable deductibles or co- payments. Respondent may attempt to negotiate with the providers for compromised amounts, but any such compromise must result in the release of the consumer from any responsibility for the amounts that would have been covered under the terms of such Plan, less any applicable deductibles or co- payments; Within one hundred (100) days following issuance of this Consent Order, the Respondent shall provide proof to the Department that the full amount of claims or losses under all contracts or health plans solicited or sold by Respondent on behalf of Local 16 have been paid or satisfied. Failure of the Respondent to comply with this paragraph shall constitute a material breach of this Consent Order, unless otherwise advised in writing by the Department; Respondent in the future shall comply with all the terms and conditions of this Consent Order; and, shall strictly adhere to all provisions of the Florida Insurance Code, Rules of the Department, and all other laws of the State of Florida. The Respondent shall give the Department full and immediate access to all books and records relating to the Respondent's insurance business, upon request; If, in the future, the Department has good cause to believe that the Respondent has violated any of the terms and conditions of this Consent Order, the Department may initiate an action to suspend or revoke the Respondent's license(s) or appointments, or it may seek to enforce the Consent Order in Circuit Court, or take any other action permitted by law; Respondent paid the $1,000.00 administrative fine required by the Consent Order, but the payment was 20 days late. Respondent completed the continuing education on unauthorized entities. He completed the course on June 3, 2005, beyond the deadline called for in the Consent Order by a number of months. Respondent took the course at Florida Community College in Jacksonville, Florida, an institution that he was familiar with. He took the course to be completed on June 3, 2005, because it was the earliest course available at that school. Respondent was unfamiliar with other schools who may have offered the course at a time that would meet the due date set forth in the Consent Order. Consistent with the expectations in the Consent Order, Petitioner's employees have reviewed their files to determine whether Respondent has satisfied unpaid insurance claims in relation to the insurance plan for Local 16. Those employees involved in that review are Kerry Edgill, a legal assistant in the Legal Division in charge of complaint settlements and Pamela White who works with the Division of Consumer Services as a senior management analyst. Neither employee found any evidence that Respondent had satisfied the unpaid insurance claims as called for in the Consent Order. In correspondence from Respondent to Petitioner's counsel in this case, dated December 6, 2004, there is no indication that the unpaid insurance claims have been satisfied. Respondent in his testimony explained the extent to which he had attempted to determine who had outstanding unpaid insurance claims. Respondent went to the location where Local 16 union members were employed. His contact with union members had to be outside the building proper. He spoke to several members at that time. This contact took place on June 1, 2005. Respondent identified the persons contacted as James, Luther, Gregory, and Michael. Michael's last name may have been Williams, as Respondent recalls. Of the persons Respondent spoke with on June 1, 2005, none of them had an unpaid insurance claim which needed to be satisfied. Respondent provided correspondence to a person or persons whose name(s) was or were not disclosed in the testimony. The June 6, 2005, correspondence was addressed to the Amalgamated Transit Union, in reference to insurance claims for Local 16. Respondent's Exhibit Numbered 17 is a copy of that correspondence. In the body of the correspondence it stated: June 6, 2005 Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1197 P.O. Box 43285 Jacksonville, FL 32203 Re: Claims for Local 16 To union members and trustees, This letter is to follow up me meeting members at the station on June 1, 2005 to discuss any issues or concerns that you may be or have had relating to the unpaid claims with Local 16 National Health Fund. Although, I feel I am not responsible for the issue I would gladly help assist with resolving any problems or concerns that you may have. Should any members have any correspondents that need immediate attention please forward them to me at: David Bright, P.O. Box 441963, Jacksonville, FL 32222. Should you need to speak to me I can be reached at 904-207-0141. Thanks for your cooperation in this long due matter! In relation to what Respondent refers to as accounts for Local 16 which he was servicing, that refers to insurance coverage, it involved a couple of hundred insureds. Respondent in his testimony acknowledged that union members had insurance claims that were unpaid.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding Respondent in violation of Sections 626.611(7) and (13), and 626.621(2) and (3), Florida Statutes (2004), finding no violation of Section 626.611(9), Florida Statutes (2004), or 626.9521, Florida Statutes (2004), and suspending Respondent's respective licenses as a life agent (2-16), life and health agent (2-18), and health agent (2-40), for a period of six (6) months. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of October, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 7th day of October, 2005.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent failed to properly maintain workers' compensation insurance coverage for his employees, and, if so, what penalty should be assessed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for ensuring that all employers maintain workers' compensation insurance for themselves and their employees. It is the duty of the Department to make random inspections of job sites and to answer complaints concerning potential violations of workers' compensation rules. Respondent is an individual doing business as a roofer in the construction industry. At all times relevant hereto, Respondent was operating an unincorporated business. (Respondent had previously operated a business known as Helms Roofing, Inc., but that corporation had been dissolved in 1990.) Roofing work is assigned a Class Code of 5551 for purposes of calculating workers' compensation insurance coverage. On August 25, 2009, the Department sent an investigator to 4205 Glascow Court in Fort Myers, Florida, in response to a complaint that had been made. The complaint alleged that certain workers were operating without proper insurance coverage. Upon arrival at the job site (at approximately 11:00 a.m.), inspector Qureshi observed two men engaged in work on the roof of the house. (Respondent maintains that Qureshi could see him on the roof, but that she could not see the other worker, Troy Wilhite, because Wilhite was on the back side of the roof.) When the men came down from the roof at around 11:15 a.m., Qureshi identified herself to Respondent and asked whether the two men had workers' compensation insurance in place. Respondent advised that he was covered and that he had Wilhite's application for coverage in his truck. He was planning to fax the application, in accordance with his normal procedure, when the men broke for lunch. Wilhite had come to work that day to take the place of an employee of Respondent's who failed to show up for work. Wilhite had arrived only shortly before 11:00 a.m., that morning. Wilhite filled out the application for insurance at the job site, and it was ready to be faxed to AMC Staff Leasing ("AMC"). According to Respondent's unrefuted testimony, he and Wilhite had not started putting the shingles on the roof when Qureshi arrived. Rather, the men were doing chalk lines on the tar-paper covering as a prerequisite to laying the shingles. Respondent said that Wilhite was not yet working; they were only "chalking some lines." There was no competent, substantial evidence as to whether chalking lines constituted roofing work. Respondent presumed that after faxing Wilhite's application to AMC at lunch time, the men would be covered and ready to work after lunch. It was Respondent's experience that coverage could be obtained from AMC in "about 5 minutes." Qureshi checked the Department's database and ascertained from it that neither Respondent, nor Wilhite, had current workers' compensation insurance coverage. A review of the records from AMC revealed that Wilhite was not a named employee covered by its insurance at that time. Wilhite had been covered previously, and there was no reason to expect that his current application would be denied, but obviously it had not been sent in at the time Qureshi conducted her investigation. Respondent was listed as an employee, but his last period of employment ended on July 12, 2009. AMC required a contracted employer to submit payrolls every week in order to maintain their coverage. Respondent said his coverage with AMC had been cancelled during a period of time in which he had no work to do, but that he had paid a penalty and sent in his payment for coverage before starting work on August 25, 2009. Respondent had been out of work for a few weeks, so his coverage had lapsed, and he had to pay the penalty to get reinstated. Qureshi's review of the Department's database and AMC's records failed to verify the existence of coverage, so Qureshi prepared and hand delivered an SWO to Respondent immediately upon determining the absence of proper coverage. The SWO had an OPA at the bottom, but the OPA was silent as to an exact amount of penalty. Qureshi asked for and received from Respondent his business records. Using those records, Qureshi ascertained that Respondent worked without appropriate insurance coverage during the period of April 22, 2009, through August 25, 2009. The gross payroll to Respondent for that period was $2,605.05. Applying its formula for calculation of a penalty for non- compliance, the Department assessed a penalty of $813.69 for Respondent's period of non-coverage. An additional penalty of $49.22 was assessed for Wilhite's period of non-compliance, i.e., August 25, 2009. Respondent testified that he never worked without insurance coverage and explained his actions to obtain coverage. Respondent's testimony was very credible. He obviously believed that both he and Wilhite were properly covered by workers' compensation insurance at the time they worked on the job site. Respondent had taken measures to reinstate his own coverage with AMC and had Wilhite's application ready to file. Although the Department's database does not identify Respondent as having coverage, Respondent's testimony is believable. Neither Respondent, nor the Department, offered any explanation as to this discrepancy. Comparing the (hearsay) print-out of the computer screen from the Department's database to Respondent's (credible, but self-serving) testimony, makes it difficult to make a determination as to whether coverage did or did not exist for Respondent. Wilhite was obviously not covered by insurance during the morning of August 25, 2009. The Department's penalty worksheet indicates a salary of $163.96 for Wilhite on that day. Wilhite was being paid ten or twelve dollars per hour and was on the roof for only a short time on that day. It is impossible to reconcile the $163.96 salary assigned to Wilhite by the Department in its penalty calculation. Respondent had paid Wilhite money over a period of time, but not for working as a roofer. Rather, Wilhite and Respondent were long-time friends, and Respondent often paid Wilhite to help with various kinds of projects and endeavors (e.g., helping around his house, helping him deliver materials, etc.). There is no credible evidence that Wilhite worked as a roofer at the job site on the morning of August 25, 2009. It is clear that Wilhite was at the site, and by filling out an application for workers' compensation coverage, it is obvious he intended to work. But whether Wilhite did any roofing work on the morning of the investigation has not been established in the record. The most credible competent, substantial evidence presented at final hearing would suggest that Respondent had the appropriate workers' compensation insurance coverage for himself.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, rescinding the Amended Stop-Work Order and Amended Penalty Assessment against Respondent, Jeffery G. Helms. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of March, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Alex Sink Chief Financial Officer R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of March, 2010. Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Benjamin Diamond, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307 Julie Jones, Agency Clerk Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 Jeffery G. Helms 2413 Ted Avenue South Lehigh, Florida 33973 Paige Billings Shoemaker, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent condominium association should have assessed unit owners, in proportionate shares, to pay for the replacement of hurricane-damaged balcony screens, in accordance with Petitioner's policy that repair costs which do not exceed an insurance deductible are "costs of insurance" that must be paid as "common expenses" regardless of what the declaration of condominium provides concerning reconstruction or repair after a casualty.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Fountains South Condominium No. 3C Association, Inc. ("Association") is the entity responsible for operating the Fountains South Condominium No. 3C ("Condominium"). As such, the Association is subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of Petitioner Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums, and Mobile Homes ("Division"). The Condominium was created——and continues to be governed by——a Declaration of Fountains South Condominium No. 3C ("Declaration"), which instrument was recorded, in 1987, in the public records of Palm Beach County, Florida. On October 24, 2005, Hurricane Wilma struck Palm Beach County, causing damage to elements of the Condominium. The damaged property included some portions of the "Common Elements." Also damaged were some parts of the "Limited Common Elements." (The terms "Common Elements" and "Limited Common Elements" are defined in the Declaration, the relevant provisions of which will be set forth verbatim below. Generally speaking, though, the Common Elements comprise all of the property of which the Condominium is composed except for that included within the residential units. The Limited Common Elements, which are a subset of the Common Elements, consist of properties or structures whose use is reserved to a particular unit or units to the exclusion of other units.) Fulfilling a statutory obligation (that will be discussed in detail below), the Association had purchased property insurance to protect the Common Elements and Limited Common Elements. Issued by Nutmeg Insurance Company ("Nutmeg"), Policy No. SW 0000071 (the "Policy") provided coverage to the Association for loss or damage to property from multiple risks, including hurricanes. The premium for the Policy——the effective dates of which were from December 31, 2004 to December 31, 2005——was $395,000. The Policy provided for various deductibles depending on the cause of the covered loss. For loss or damage caused by a hurricane, the deductible was 5 percent of the value of the insured property. It is undisputed that, at the time of Hurricane Wilma, this deductible was approximately a quarter of a million dollars. Under the relevant provisions of the Policy, therefore, Nutmeg would not be obligated to indemnify the Association for any loss or damage caused by Hurricane Wilma unless and until the total losses from that particular occurrence exceeded (roughly) $250,000. The Association paid about $5,000 to repair the damage that Hurricane Wilma caused to the Common Elements, using funds on hand that had been saved for such contingencies. Because this expense was far below the applicable deductible, the Association did not submit a claim to Nutmeg. The Association's position regarding the damage to the Limited Common Elements, consistent with its longstanding view of such matters, was that the costs of repairing or replacing such properties should be borne by the respective unit owners to whose exclusive use the damaged elements were reserved. The Association based its position on a provision of the Declaration (which will be quoted below) that assigns the general responsibility for maintenance and repair of the units, together with the Limited Common Elements appurtenant thereto, to the respective unit owners. At the time of Hurricane Wilma, Haskell and Flora Ginns (the "Ginns") owned Unit No. 201 in the Condominium. (As of the final hearing, the Ginns were still the owners of this unit.) The hurricane caused damage both to their unit and to the screens surrounding the balcony outside their unit. It is undisputed that the balcony and screens appurtenant to the Ginns' unit are part of the Limited Common Elements. The Ginns submitted a claim for these losses to their insurer, Allstate Floridian Insurance Company ("Allstate"). By letter dated January 7, 2006, Allstate denied the portion of the Ginns' claim relating to the damaged screens, asserting that the screens were not covered property under the Ginns' policy because they were within the "insuring responsibility" of the Association. The Ginns did not protest Allstate's decision in this regard. (Allstate paid the full policy limit of nearly $30,000 on the Ginns' claim anyway; thus, its denial of coverage for the damaged screens actually had no effect on the reimbursement that the Ginns received from Allstate.) The Ginns then wrote a letter to the Association's president, Milton Kutzin, requesting that the Association pay to replace the damaged screens. Dated January 16, 2006,i the letter reads as follows: Dear Milton: As you may be aware, the screens on the deck of our condo were severely damaged because of Hurricane Wilma. According to the attached memo, the condo is responsible for replacing them. For your information, my insurance company, Allstate Floridian, has refused payment and has advised us that our condo association is responsible (by law) to replace them. We do have an estimate to replace the screens. I shall be happy to discuss this matter with you at any time. Please let me know approximately when this matter will be settled. (The "attached memo" to which the Ginns referred purports to be an undated letter from the Director of Maintenance of Versailles Court (evidently a residential community) to the homeowners of that project, clarifying the responsibilities of the homeowners, on the one hand, and their homeowners' association, on the other, vis-à-vis maintenance obligations. As far as the undersigned can tell, this Versailles Court memorandum has no bearing whatsoever on the issues at hand.) If the Association responded in writing to the Ginns' letter of January 16, 2006, the document is not in evidence. In any event, the Association refused to repair the screens surrounding the Ginns' balcony because (a) it believed that the Ginns were responsible, under the Declaration, for the cost of such repair and (b) the total losses to the Common Elements and Limited Common Elements (including the screens in question) did not come near the deductible under the Nutmeg Policy, meaning that there were no insurance proceeds to distribute to unit owners for repairs to Limited Common Elements. On January 18, 2006, the Ginns paid a company called Rainguard, Inc. either $1,100 or $1,200 to replace the damaged screens around "their" balcony.ii Meantime, on January 13, 2006, the Division rendered a Declaratory Statement in In Re Petition for Declaratory Statement of Plaza East Association, Inc., Docket No. 2005059934, Final Order No. BPR-2006-00239 (DBPR Jan. 13, 2006)(the "Plaza East Declaration"). In the Plaza East Declaration, the Division made a number of statements concerning the meaning and effect of certain provisions of the Florida Condominium Act ("Act") pertaining to the duties of condominium associations as they relate to property insurance. These statements will be examined in greater detail below. For now, it suffices to quote several sentences that form the core of the Division's policy regarding the scope of an association's "insuring responsibilities": As association is not required to insure 100% of the replacement cost of the condominium property, but must have adequate insurance to replace the property destroyed by a hurricane. The board may include reasonable deductibles in replacement value insurance policies. § 718.111(11)(a), Fla. Stat. A deductible amount is part of the cost of insurance and is a common expense for which reserves might be set aside. § 718.111(11), 718.115, Fla. Stat. As such, an association may not shift the cost of an insurance common expense to an individual unit owner as common expenses must be assessed in the proportions or percentages required under sections 718.104(4)(f), 718.116(9), Florida Statutes. [An association therefore] may not shift the cost of the deductible, a common expense, to only those unit owners whose windows were damaged by the insurable event such as a hurricane. Plaza East Declaration at 16 (emphasis added). The Plaza East Declaration reflected——and continues to be authoritative regarding——the Division's firmly fixed policy, which is that the deductible under a property insurance policy is a "cost" that an association must incur, using common funds collected through proportionate-share assessments. The Division's expert witness made this clear, giving the following testimony (which the undersigned accepts as credible) in deposition: Q. Doesn't [the] Plaza East [Declaration] declare that a deductible is a common expense? A. Well, it makes the deductible a common expense because insurance is a common expense and the deductible is just a part of the insurance purchase decision. * * * Q. Let me ask you this: Is there anything in [the Act] that clearly states that a casualty loss insurance deductible is a common expense? A. No, sir, there's nothing [in the statutes] that specifically says that. Q. But [the] Plaza East [Declaration] says that, doesn't it? A. Plaza East says that, yes, sir. Q. So that's a policy of the Department? A. Yes, sir, that is. Q. And it's a general policy, isn't it? A. Yes, sir. Q. And it's a general policy that would apply to any condominium in South Florida regardless of what the declaration of condominium said? A. Yes, sir. Q. And that's being applied in this case, isn't it? A. Yes, sir. Deposition of James T. Harrison, Jr. (10/29/07) at 20-21. At some point after the issuance of the Plaza East Declaration, the Ginns sought the Division's help in persuading the Association to reimburse them for the new screens. The Division informed the Ginns of the Plaza East Declaration. Armed with this information, the Ginns again pressed the Association to reimburse them for replacing the screens. The Association, again, declined. By letter dated May 3, 2006, the Ginns made a formal complaint to the Division regarding the Association's refusal to pay for the replacement of the screens. The Division acted promptly, completing its investigation into the matter on or before May 10, 2006. Siding with the Ginns, the Division demanded, in a letter dated May 22, 2006, that the Association either reimburse the Ginns or (possibly) be fined. Yet, the Association resisted. On July 28, 2006, the Division entered a Notice to Show Cause against the Association, charging as follows: Count 1: Respondent [Association], in violation of section 718.115(2), Florida Statutes, failed to asses unit owners in their proportionate shares for the common expense insurance deductible to repair damage to condominium property caused by a hazard to be insured by Respondent under section 718.111(11), Florida Statutes. The Respondent refused to treat the hurricane damage to the wrap-a-round deck and screens in unit #201 as a common expense covered by the association's policy under sections 718.111(11) and 718.115(1), Florida Statutes. Specifically, the Respondent failed to reimburse Haskell Ginns and Flora Ginns for damage sustained by Hurricane Wilma to their wrap-a-round screens. Since the May 22, 2006, warning letter, the complainants have replaced their wrap-a- round deck screens at a cost of $1,200.00 and have requested reimbursement from Respondent. The Association demanded a formal hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division enter a final order rescinding the Notice to Show Cause and exonerating the Association of the charge of failing to assess unit owners, in proportionate shares, to pay the cost of repairing or replacing Limited Common Elements damaged during Hurricane Wilma. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of January, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings 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 10th day of January, 2008.
