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 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 Petitioner is entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs, associated with defending DOAH Case No. 13- 3820PL, pursuant to section 57.111, Florida Statutes (2014), as a small business and a prevailing party.
Findings Of Fact DFS is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of insurance agents in Florida and is responsible for administrating the disciplinary provisions of chapter 626, pursuant to sections 20.121(2)(g) and (h), Florida Statutes. At all times material to this case, de la Paz was a licensed general lines insurance agent in Florida. De la Paz also is a director and officer of the MDLPA, which she has co- owned with her daughter, Jenny Mondaca Toledo (Mondaca), since 2000. On October 15, 2003, the Office of Insurance Regulation issued a cease and desist order (Order) against IWSF and NAM from conducting insurance-related activities in Florida, including but not limited to, "transacting any new or renewal insurance business in this state, and from collecting any premiums from Florida insureds." The sale of insurance products by unauthorized entities (UEs) poses a danger to Florida consumers, because UEs are not vetted by the Office of Insurance Regulation, their financial stability is questionable, they may not have sufficient reserves to pay claims for consumers, and they do not participate in the Guarantee Fund which protects consumers should a company become insolvent. DFS has undertaken a variety of media campaigns in an effort to warn licensed agents about the dangers and consequences of providing insurance products through UEs. DFS regularly conducts investigations against agents for selling UE products. Generally, consumers will not know the quality of alleged insurance providers until the consumer makes a claim against their policy. For this reason, DFS cautions agents to verify the status of insurance providers prior to selling a policy. Agents can access the website for the Office of Insurance Regulation or call to inquire about the status of a particular company. The website has been available for approximately 17 years. DFS tried to warn Florida insurance agents that IWSF was an UE; however, IWSF was the most prevalent UE selling in Florida, and approximately 584 consumers were provided with IWSF policies sold by various agents. In an effort to stop the sale of insurance products through IWSF and NAM, DFS obtained a list of Florida customers from the Canadian bankruptcy receiver of IWSF. DFS' Bureau of Investigations sent a survey to these consumers and through the survey, it was determined that Carlos Guzman (Guzman) and Jorge Saez (Saez) purchased IWSF watercraft insurance from MDLPA in April 2009. Field Insurance Regional Administrator Lidia Azcue (Azcue) and Investigator Marlene Suarez (Suarez) opened an investigation regarding this transaction. Azcue and Suarez went to MDLPA on December 4 and 5, 2012. The alleged violation being investigated was that the agency sold unauthorized products, and the purpose was to see if any others were being sold. They did not inform the staff at MDLPA of the reason for the investigation. De la Paz was not present nor was she interviewed during these visits. Azcue and Suarez asked for and received the binder book of MDLPA on a thumb drive. Mondaca was present on the first day of the investigation and was described by Azcue as cooperative. Azcue also requested and received files for other consumers who purchased marine insurance products from MDLPA. As a result of the investigation, and prior to the filing of the Administrative Complaint, DFS obtained the following information and documentation regarding MDLPA and the transaction between MDLPA, Saez, and Guzman: De la Paz and her daughter, Mondaca (referred to on the Bank of America signature card as "Jenny M. Toledo, President") had signature authority for the MDLPA corporate bank account at Bank of America; An IWSF quote printed April 14, 2009, for the vessel owned by Saenz (sic) and Guzman, which was faxed to MDLPA by IWSF to "Odalis" (referring to Odaylis Chiullan (Chiullan), an employee of MDLPA) which references de la Paz and MDLPA as the contact; A fax dated May 6, 2009, from Chiullan to IWSF asking IWSF to bind coverage for Guzman and Saez effective May 6, 2009; Undated handwritten notes on a "File Action Log" form regarding "Jorge Sahel Saez" in the handwriting of Chiullan; A fax dated May 6, 2009, from IWSF to "Odaylis" at MDLPA; An unsigned and undated "Insurance Premium Financing Disclosure Form" to be signed by Guzman and Saez, which was obtained by Chiullan from the premium financing company. In correspondence prior to the issuance of the Administrative Complaint, de la Paz advised DFS that it was Chiullan who had the form signed by Guzman and Saez and transmitted the signed forms and check for the down payment to the finance company; A receipt prepared by Chiullan dated May 6, 2009, acknowledging delivery of $280.00 as a "down payment" by Guzman and Saez for financing of a policy with NAM; The premium finance agreement between the finance company and Guzman and Saez prepared by the finance company and sent to Chiullan. The agreement is signed by Guzman and by de la Paz on behalf of MDLPA as "broker or agent"; Check number 1138 dated May 6, 2009, and drawn on the bank account of Guzman payable to the finance company in the amount of $370.00. This check was delivered to Chiullan and forwarded by her to the finance company along with the signed, original documents for the financing of the balance of the insurance premiums; A fax dated May 12, 2009, from NAM to Odaylis at MDLPA, requesting confirmation of the payment plan arranged with Saez and Guzman; IWSF declaration page for Guzman and Saez; IWSF renewal certificate for Guzman and Saez for the period of May 6, 2010, through May 5, 2011, signed by Guzman on May 4, 2010; and Correspondence from IWSF to de la Paz at MDLPA dated May 13, 2010, returning two checks, one signed by Mondaca and one signed by de la Paz, for reissuance in the name of IWSF. No interviews were conducted as part of the investigation by DFS of de la Paz, Mondaca, Chiullan, Guzman, or Saez. After the field investigation was concluded, the investigative file was forwarded on January 16, 2013, to Veronica Jackson, Government Analyst I, who reviewed the file for legal sufficiency. On May 24, 2013, a letter from Kathy Spencer, Stipulation Program Coordinator with the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Jeff Atwater (Atwater), was sent to de la Paz alleging that she "aided and abetted an unauthorized entity in the sale of insurance." No further details were provided, nor were any Florida Statutes cited. Attached to the correspondence was a proposed settlement stipulation for consent order which offered de la Paz a $5,000.00 penalty and a one-year period of probation in lieu of having a formal administrative complaint filed against her. On June 13, 2013, de la Paz responded with a letter to Atwater explaining that at no time had de la Paz or anyone at MDLPA received notification that IWSF and NAM were not authorized to sell insurance products in Florida. De la Paz asserted that Chiullan, who held a 220 license and only worked for MDLPA for a few weeks, was the individual who handled the transaction with Guzman and Saez. De la Paz pointed out that to be charged with violation of section 626.734, de la Paz, as the licensed agent and owner of the insurance agency, cannot be subject to disciplinary proceedings due to Chiullan's placing this one policy with IWSF, because she was not aware of such act and the facts constituting a violation of the insurance code. Additionally, de la Paz pointed out that section 626.910 provides a person "aiding an unauthorized insurer" shall pay a civil penalty of not more than $1000.00 for each non-willful violation. De la Paz emphasized that she personally "did absolutely nothing to violate the code, let alone commit a willful violation of the code." For this reason, she could not sign the stipulation admitting that she committed a willful violation. De la Paz's letter was forwarded to Jackson who asked de la Paz for documentation supporting de la Paz's position. De la Paz corresponded with Jackson on June 29 and July 2, 2013. In this correspondence, in addition to once again supplying the requested documentation, de la Paz reiterated her lack of knowledge of IWSF as a UE and her lack of involvement in the Guzman/Saez transaction. On July 2, 2013, Azcue contacted de la Paz to invite her to come to DFS' office and review the investigative file. This meeting was not mandatory. According to de la Paz's credible testimony, she asked to bring her attorney and was told she could not. De la Paz declined to attend the meeting. On August 26, 2013, after negotiations with de la Paz were unsuccessful, DFS filed a one-count Administrative Complaint against de la Paz, alleging that on May 6, 2009, Guzman and Saez purchased a policy for watercraft insurance from MDLPA. De la Paz was charged with a violation of section 626.611, "Knowingly aiding, assisting, procuring, advising, or abetting any person in violation of or to violate a provision of the insurance code or any order or rule of the department, commission, or office." De la Paz was also charged with a violation of section 626.734, which provides that any general lines agent who is an officer, director, or stockholder of an incorporated general lines insurance agency shall remain personally and fully liable and accountable for any wrongful acts, misconduct, or violations of any provision of the code committed by such licensee by any person under his or her direct supervision and control while acting on behalf of the corporation. A final hearing on the Administrative Complaint was held on December 4, 2013, and January 7, 2014. A Recommended Order was entered by the undersigned on March 28, 2014, which found that DFS failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that de la Paz knowingly aided, assisted, procured, advised, or abetted two UEs when Chiullan sold what was purported to be watercraft insurance in the spring of 2009 to Saez and Guzman. DFS admits that de la Paz is a "small business party" and was a "prevailing party" for purposes of the Florida Equal Access to Justice Act, section 57.111. There is no dispute that de la Paz's attorney's fees for defending the underlying action in the amount of $29,700.00 and costs in the amount of $1,265.39 are reasonable. De la Paz's additional cost for the final hearing Transcript in the amount of $831.75 is also reasonable.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Respondent violated various provisions of the Florida Insurance Code, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint, and if so, what penalty, if any, is warranted.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating and licensing the entry of insurance agents into the profession of insurance and with regulating the practice of agents and other insurance professionals already licensed by the State of Florida. The Respondent, at all times pertinent hereto, was and is licensed by the State of Florida as a non-resident life and health insurance agent. The Respondent procured applications for life insurance to be issued from Pacific to the 30 named individuals and entities set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaint in its 25 counts. Pacific was not authorized to transact insurance business in the State of Florida because the company was not yet licensed. However, it was in the process of becoming licensed and licensure was imminent. The company Regional Director, C. Manley Denton, and other company officials, when they recruited the Respondent to sell insurance policies in Florida, assured him that licensure was imminent, that there was no impediment to finalization of the licensure procedures in the very near future, and that the Respondent could legally obtain life insurance policy applications and sell policies in Florida if he took the applications and dated them in and from his Tulsa, Oklahoma, office. He was assured that this procedure would render his activities legal. In reliance on these representations by officials of Pacific, the Respondent undertook to and did obtain the applications for, and sell the insurance policies, referenced above and in the Amended Administrative Complaint. The Respondent, for many years, has transacted insurance business as a general agent of life and health insurance in Oklahoma and in Florida. He is a resident of both states, spending part of each year in each state. Many of the policyholders referenced above and in the Amended Administrative Complaint were clients of the Respondent, who had already had other insurance policies issued by him through companies he represents. In the particular instances involved in this proceeding, many of these clients had been policyholders of the First Capital Life Insurance Company, which had experienced financial difficulties and gone into receivership. Because of his policyholders' concern and his own concern about the possibility of the future inability to pay claims by the company in receivership, the affected clients and the Respondent were desirous of replacing those policies with policies in a different and sounder insurance company. This desire dovetailed neatly with the desire by the executives at Pacific to obtain a large block of insurance policy business in Florida and in other states in the mainland United States. This desire by Pacific executives was due to a recent merger of that company with the Hawaiian Life Insurance Company, a company which was owned by Meiji Mutual Life of Tokyo Japan (Meiji). The resulting merged company, Pacific, was owned by Meiji. The executives at Pacific, which had historically been headquartered in San Jose, California, desired to continue to maintain the company domicile and their own personal residences in California and avoid having to relocate to Hawaii. This was the reason they desired to secure a large block of insurance business very rapidly in order to enhance the sales record of the "stateside branch" of the company. They believed that this would insure that their relocation would not have to be accomplished. With this interest in the forefront of their plans, the executives of Pacific began to search for the best insurance agents in the nation who have a record of successfully writing large volumes of life insurance policy business. The Respondent is such an insurance agent. He had recently achieved a nationally-recognized ranking as one of the highest volume life insurance producer agents in the country. Because the Respondent was desirous of placing a high-dollar volume of life insurance policies for the clients referenced above, who had had policies in the financially-troubled First Capital Life Insurance Company, the Respondent agreed, at the behest of the officials of Pacific, to attempt to write a large block of life insurance business in the State of Florida. The Respondent is a well-respected general life insurance and health insurance agent. He is widely known throughout the insurance profession and industry, throughout the United States, as an ethical, competent and successful life insurance policy producer. He has no blemish on his licensure and practice record as an agent, throughout the approximate 40 years he has engaged in the profession. When the Respondent obtained the insurance policy applications and policies at issue in this proceeding, he engaged in one course of conduct. That is, he contacted the clients and obtained their applications and arranged for the sale of the insurance policy contracts to them, as either new policies and clients, or as replacement policies for his existing clients, as the case might be. He engaged in this essentially-identical transaction with all 30 of these policyholders, in the genuine, good-faith belief that he was legally writing insurance policy business in the State of Florida based upon the circumstances related to him by officials of Pacific, upon which he relied. He candidly acknowledges, through counsel, that, in so relying, he knew that the company was not actually licensed in the State of Florida, but that that eventuality was imminent in the very near future, and that based upon the method the company assured him of writing the policies through the Tulsa, Oklahoma, office, he would be obtaining and transacting this business in a legally acceptable way. He also candidly acknowledges that, in fact, he understands, from his contact with the Department since that time, this was not the case and that he was writing the business for a company not legally authorized to do business in the State of Florida. The Respondent has freely admitted these above-found facts and does not dispute that he was in violation of the portion of the charges that do not depend on intent. He has established, however, through the exhibits admitted as explanatory hearsay and the agreed-upon proffer of his counsel, that the transactions at issue, all of which were the result of one essentially-identical course of conduct, were accomplished with no intent to defraud the policyholders, the company, or the Florida Department of Insurance. There was no willful, dishonest or deceitful intent by the Respondent during the course of his engagement in these transactions. There was no such willful wrongful intent in the course of his contact and relations with the company, those policyholders, or the Department of Insurance since that time. No policyholder or company suffered any financial detriment as a result of the Respondent's conduct, nor did any insurance coverage lapse at any time. Although there were some 30 policyholders who were sold insurance by the Respondent, as the agent for a company not actually licensed in the State of Florida, that circumstance had no effect on the validity of the policy coverages involved and there were no actual "victims" of the Respondent's conduct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Petitioner, Department of Insurance, finding the Respondent, Wayne Harland Creasy, guilty of a violation of Section 626.901(1), Florida Statutes, in the manner found and concluded above and that a penalty of $3,000.00 be imposed, together with the award of $500.00 in attorney's fees. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of April, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of April, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-32. Accepted. Rejected, as constituting a conclusion of law and not a finding of fact. Accepted, in part, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted, in a technical sense, but not in the sense that any overt, intentional effort to circumvent Florida law was committed by the Respondent. Rather, it was a negligent failure to act in a legal way due to being misled by Pacific Guardian Life Insurance Company, Ltd. or its officers or employees. Accepted, as to the factual allegations of the Administrative Complaint, but not as to their legal import, and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are not ruled upon or considered because they were not timely filed, being approximately one month out of time with no motion for extension of time, during the originally-set time period, being filed. Consequently, the Petitioner's motion to strike the Respondent's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law is granted. COPIES FURNISHED: Willis F. Melvin, Jr., Esquire Department of Insurance and Treasurer Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 C. Rabon Martin, Esquire Martin and Associates 403 South Cheyenne Avenue Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103 Bill Nelson, State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Dan Sumner, Acting General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent complied with Sections and 440.38, Florida Statutes, with regard to workers' compensation insurance for his subcontractors, and if not, the appropriate amount of penalty that should be assessed.
Findings Of Fact Hernandez, Inc., is a contractor based in the Jacksonville, Florida area, and is in the business of installing dry wall, among other construction related activities. The Department of Financial Services is the state agency responsible for enforcing the Workers' Compensation Law. This duty is delegated to the Division of Workers' Compensation. On February 5, 2004, Hernandez, Inc., was engaged in installing drywall in the Bennett Federal Building in Jacksonville, Florida. Hernandez, Inc., was a subcontractor for Skanska, Inc., who was the general contractor for the building. Hernandez, Inc., was accomplishing the installation of drywall by using two subcontractors, GIO & Sons (GIO), of Norfolk, Virginia, and U&M Contractors, Inc., (U&M), of Charlotte, North Carolina. Hernandez, Inc., was also using its own personnel, who were leased from Matrix, Inc., an employee leasing company. Prior to contracting with GIO and U&M, Hernandez, Inc., asked for and received ACORD certificates of insurance, which on their face indicated that the subcontractors had both liability coverage and workers' compensation coverage. It is the practice of Hernandez, Inc., to ensure that certificates of insurance are provided by subcontractors and the office staff of Hernandez, Inc., tracks the certificates so that they are kept current. Since the beginning of 2001, Hernandez, Inc., has received approximately 310 certificates of insurance from subcontractors. These certificates listed Hernandez, Inc., as the certificate holder. Though most of the producers and insureds on these certificates are from Florida, a substantial number are from other states. Hernandez, Inc., relied on the certificates as evidence that the subcontractor's workers were covered by workers' compensation insurance. Hernandez, Inc., has relied on certificates of insurance for more than twenty years and, with the exception of this case, has never known an instance where the underlying policy was invalid. On February 5, 2004, Katina Johnson, an investigator with the Division, made a routine visit to the Bennett Federal Building with another investigator. She observed personnel from Hernandez, Inc., and its subcontractors, installing dry wall. On February 5, 2004, Ms. Johnson determined that Hernandez, Inc., also had a contract to install dry wall as a subcontractor participating in the construction of the Mayport BEQ. L. C. Gaskins Company was the general contractor engaged in the construction of the Mayport BEQ. U&M worked at both the Bennett Federal Building site and the Mayport BEQ site as a subcontractor of Hernandez, Inc. Ms. Johnson issued a Stop Work Order on February 26, 2004, to Hernandez, Inc., GIO, and U&M. By the Stop Work Order, Hernandez, Inc., was charged with failure to ensure that workers' compensation meeting the requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and the Florida Insurance Code, was in place for GIO and U&M. The Stop Work Order indicated that the penalty amount assessed against Respondent would be subject to amendment based on further information provided by Hernandez, Inc., including the provision of business records. An Amended Order of Penalty Assessment dated March 19, 2004, was served on Hernandez, Inc., which referenced the Stop Work Order of February 26, 2004. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was in the amount of $157,794.49. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment reached back to September 29, 2003. An Amended Order of Penalty Assessment dated March 22, 2004, was served on GIO. This Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was in the amount of $107,885.71. An Amended Order of Penalty Assessment with a March 2004 date (the day is obscured on the document by a "filed" stamp), was served on U&M. This Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was in the amount of $51,779.50. The sum of these numbers is $159,665.21. However, the parties agreed at the hearing that the amount being sought by the Division was $157,794.49, which represented the total for GIO and U&M. Hernandez, Inc.'s, employees leased from Matrix were covered by workers' compensation insurance through a policy held by Matrix. The Matrix policy did not cover the employees of GIO and U&M. Although Skanska, Inc., and L. C. Gaskins Company had workers' compensation insurance in force, their policies did not cover the workers used by Hernandez, Inc., or the employees of GIO or U&M. GIO and U&M employees were considered by the Division to be "statutory employees" of Hernandez, Inc., for purposes of the Workers' Compensation Law. This meant, according to the Division, that Hernandez, Inc., was required to ensure that the employees of GIO and U&M would receive benefits under the Workers' Compensation Law if a qualifying event occurred, unless the subcontractors had workers' compensation insurance policies in force that satisfied the Division. GIO had a policy of workers' compensation insurance evidenced by an ACORD certificate of liability insurance for the period December 3, 2002, until December 3, 2003. The policy was produced by Salzberg Insurance Agency in Norfolk, Virginia. It listed Hernandez as the certificate holder. The policy was issued by Maryland Casualty Company, a subsidiary of the Zurich American Insurance Company. These companies are admitted carriers in Florida. The Classification of Operations page of this policy indicated class code 5022, masonry work. GIO employers were installing drywall during times pertinent. Rates for drywall installation are substantially higher than for masonry work. In the policy section titled "Other States Insurance," Florida is not mentioned. William D. Hager, an expert witness, reviewed the certificate of insurance and the policy supporting the certificate. Mr. Hager is a highly qualified expert in insurance and workers' compensation coverage. Among other qualifications, he is an attorney and a former member of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners by virtue of his position as Insurance Commissioner for the State of Iowa. He concluded that this policy did not conform to the requirements of Chapter 440 because the policy was Virginia based and did not apply Florida rates, rules, and class codes. Mr. Sapourn, testified as an expert witness. Mr. Sapourn has a degree from the University of Virginia in economics with high distinction and a juris doctorate from Georgetown. He is a certified insurance counselor and owned an insurance agency in the District of Columbia area. As an insurance agent he has issued tens of thousands certificates of insurance and written hundreds of workers' compensation policies. Mr. Sapourn, opined that this certificate represented workers' compensation coverage that complied with Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. Upon consideration of the testimony of the experts, and upon an examination of the documents, it is concluded that the policy represented by the certificate of insurance for the period December 3, 2002, to December 3, 2003, did not comply with the requirements of Chapter 440. Subsequently, someone forged an ACORD certificate of liability insurance, which indicated that it was produced by Salzberg Insurance Agency, and that indicated that GIO was covered from December 4, 2003, until December 4, 2004. The forged certificate was presented to Hernandez, Inc., upon the expiration of the policy addressed above. It was accepted by Hernandez, Inc., and considered to be a valid certificate. Both of the experts pointed out that with their practiced eye they could easily determine that the certificate was a forgery. However, there was no evidence that Mr. Hernandez, or his employees, had training in forgery detection. Accordingly, it was reasonable for them to accept the certificate as valid. U&M presented Hernandez, Inc., with an ACORD certificate which indicated insurance coverage from October 24, 2003, until October 24, 2004. The producer was Insur-A-Car Commercial Division of Charlotte, North Carolina. The insurer was The St. Paul, an admitted carrier in Florida. The insured was U &M. The certificate holder was Hernandez Enterprises, Inc. William D. Hager reviewed the certificate of insurance and the policy supporting the certificate. He noted that The St. Paul policy upon which the certificate was based did not apply in Florida because U&M was not working temporarily in Florida and because it included a policy endorsement that stated: "The policy does not cover work conducted at or from 3952 Atlantic BLVD #D-12 Jacksonville, FL 32207." U&M's mailing address in Jacksonville was 3952 Atlantic Boulevard, Suite D-12. The information page of the policy, at Part 3.A. states that Part One applies to North Carolina. Part 3.C., Other States Insurance states that Part 3 of the policy applies to the states listed, and then refers to the "residual market limited other states insurance." Mr. Hager testified that the policy did not indicate compliance with Chapter 440, because the policy is North Carolina based, applies only North Carolina rates, and does not provide Florida coverage. Mr. Sapourn, on the other hand, opined that the policy provided workers' compensation that complied with Chapter 440. Although it is possible that a worker who was injured during times pertinent may have received benefits, it is clear that the policy did not comply with the requirements of Chapter 440. The Division instituted a Stop Work Order against U&M and sought to impose penalties upon it for failure to comply with Chapter 440 for offenses committed at the exact times and places alleged in this case. U&M demanded a hearing and was provided one. In a Recommended Order entered April 7, 2005, an Administrative Law Judge recommended that the Division enter a final order affirming the Stop Work Order and assessing a penalty in the amount of $51,779.50. See Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation vs. U and M Contractors, Inc., Case No. 04-3041 (DOAH April 7, 2005). The recommendation was adopted in toto by the Department of Financial Services on April 27, 2005. See In the Matter of: U and M Contractors, Inc., Case No. 75537-05 WC (DFS April 27, 2005). The evidence taken as a whole demonstrates that U&M did not have workers' compensation coverage in Florida that complied with the requirements of Chapter 440, during times pertinent. Mr. Sapourn testified that the theory behind ACORD certificates of insurance is that they provide a uniform document upon which business people may rely. This testimony is accepted as credible. In order to continue working on a project not addressed by the Stop Work Order, Hernandez, Inc., entered into and agreement with the Division which provided for partial payments of the penalty in the amount of $46,694.03. This payment was made with the understanding of both parties that payment was not an admission of liability.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is
The Issue The issues to be determined in this case are whether Respondent Lockhart Builders, Inc., violated state laws applicable to workers’ compensation insurance coverage by failing to secure coverage for three employees and failing to produce records requested by Petitioner Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (Department) and, if so, what penalty should be assessed for the violations.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for the enforcement of the workers’ compensation insurance coverage requirements established in Chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2007).1 Respondent is a Florida corporation with its office in Bradenton. William Lockhart is Respondent’s president. Respondent is licensed to engage in construction activity in Florida. Respondent was engaged to construct a two-story duplex at 2315 Gulf Drive in Bradenton. Respondent began work at the job site on or about February 21, 2007. On August 22, 2007, Lockhart received a proposal from Burak Yavalar, owner of BY Construction, to do the exterior stucco work on the duplex building for a flat fee of $10,750. The proposal was accepted by Respondent on August 23, 2007. Yavalar presented Lockhart with a certificate of liability insurance which indicated that he had obtained workers’ compensation coverage for his employees. The certificate was issued by Employee Leasing Solutions, Inc. (ELS), a professional leasing company in Bradenton. ELS provides mainly payroll services and workers’ compensation insurance coverage for its clients. Lockhart did not ask for, and Yavalar did not provide Lockhart with, a list of the names of the BY Construction employees who were covered by the insurance. Lockhart made a call to ELS to verify that BY Construction had workers’ compensation insurance coverage, but he did not ask for a list of BY Construction employees covered by its insurance policy. BY Construction began work at Respondent’s job site on or about September 10 or 11, 2007. On September 12, 2007, BY Construction had eight employees at the job site. One employee, Justin Ormes, had previously worked for BY Construction, had quit for a while, and had just returned. Two other employees, Carlos Lopez and Jaime Alcatar, had been working on a nearby job site and were asked by Yavalar to come to work at Respondent’s job site. Yavalar claims that on the morning of September 12, 2007, Ormes, Lopez, and Alcatar had not yet been employed or authorized to start work for BY Construction. On September 12, 2007, Petitioner’s investigators Germaine Green and Colleen Wharton performed a random compliance check at Respondent’s job site. Without being specific about what particular work was being performed at the site by Ormes, Lopez, and Alcatar, the investigators testified that when they arrived at the job site they observed all eight men performing stucco work. The investigators spoke to Yavalar, Lockhart and the workers at the job site to determine their identities and employment status. Yavalar told the investigators his eight employees had workers’ compensation insurance coverage through ELS. However, upon checking relevant records, the investigators determined that insurance coverage for Ormes, Lopez, and Alcatar had not been secured by either BY Construction or Respondent. Wharton issued a statewide stop-work order to BY Construction for its failure to obtain workers’ compensation coverage for the three employees. After the stop work order was issued, Yavalar left the job site with Lopez and Alcatar to complete their paperwork to obtain insurance coverage through ELS. Yavalar’s wife was able to re-activate Ormes’ insurance coverage with ELS over the telephone. By the end of the day on September 12, 2007, insurance coverage was secured by BY Construction for Ormes, Lopez, and Alcatar. The business records of BY Construction produced for the Department indicated that Ormes had been paid by BY Construction in the period from March to July 2007, and then on September 12, 2007; Lopez had been paid on August 24, 2007, and then on September 12, 2007; Alcatar had been paid on September 12, 2007. All three men were paid only $28 on September 12, 2007. This evidence supports the testimony of Yavalar that these three had arrived at Respondent’s job site for the first time on September 12, 2008. BY Construction was later served with an amended order of penalty for its failure to obtain workers’ compensation coverage for the three employees. It arranged with the Department to pay the penalty through installments and was conditionally released from the stop-work order. When the Department's investigators were at the job site on September 12, 2007, they informed Lockhart about the stop-work order being issued to BY Construction and gave Lockhart a Request for Production of Business Records for the purpose of determining whether Respondent had obtained proof of workers’ compensation insurance coverage from BY Construction before BY Construction commenced work at Respondent’s job site. Respondent produced the requested records. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law, Florida law charges a contractor with the duty to secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage for any uninsured employees of its subcontractors. On this basis, the Department served Respondent with a Stop-Work Order and an Order of Penalty Assessment on September 21, 2007, for failing to secure coverage for Ormes, Lopez, and Alcatar. On September 21, 2007, the Department served a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation to Respondent. The Department’s request asked Respondent to produce records for the preceding three years, including payroll records, tax returns, and proof of insurance. Respondent produced some records in response to this second request, which the Department deemed insufficient to calculate a penalty. However, the evidence shows Respondent produced the only records that it possessed regarding its association with BY Construction. The Department’s proposed penalty does not include an assessment based solely on Respondent’s failure to produce requested records. When an employer fails to provide requested business records within 15 days of the request, the Department is authorized to assess a penalty by imputing the employer's payroll using "the statewide average weekly wage as defined in Section 440.12(2), multiplied by l.5." § 440.107(7)(e), Fla. Stat., and Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.028. Imputing the gross payroll for Ormes, Lopez and Alcatar for the years 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007, by using the average weekly wage for the type of work, the Department assessed Respondent with a penalty of $138,596.67 and issued an Order of Penalty Assessment to Respondent on October 31, 2007. Petitioner later amended the penalty to $70,272.51, based on the fact that BY Construction was not incorporated until January 1, 2006, and issued a Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on December 20, 2007.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department enter a final order that amends its penalty assessment to reflect one day of non-compliance by Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 2008.
The Issue Whether the licensure and eligibility for licensure as an insurance agent in Florida held by Respondent Michael David Garrett should be disciplined based on the allegations of the Administrative Complaint filed against him and, if so, the extent of such discipline.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency that is responsible for the regulation of insurance agent conduct and licensure. Respondent is currently eligible for licensure as an insurance agent and is licensed in this state as a life, variable annuity and health agent, life and health agent, and health agent. The Association for Independent Managers (AIM) is an entity that was founded in 1979 for the purpose of providing educational and other services or benefits to a membership base that is comprised primarily of small businesses. In February 2002, Jack Winebrenner, AIM’s chief executive officer, desired to secure health insurance benefits for AIM’s members. On or about February 7, 2002, Winebrenner delivered applications for health insurance and a cashier’s check in the amount of $23,920.77 to Respondent. The pertinent applications were intended to secure health insurance with an entity known as Mutual Service Life Insurance Company and/or an entity known as United States Life Insurance Company. Winebrenner agreed to gather the applications on behalf of AIM and to forward them to Respondent and Respondent’s company, known as Eastwich Re, Inc. Respondent had represented that he was a licensed insurance agent. The identifying number of the $23,920.77 cashier’s check referred to hereinabove that was delivered to Respondent is 381524555. Respondent’s company, Eastwich Re, Inc., had a business checking account at Flagship National Bank (Flagship) in Sarasota, Florida. On February 12, 2002, the $23,920.77 check that Winebrenner had delivered to Respondent was deposited into Eastwich Re’s Flagship account. Respondent was a signatory on Eastwich Re’s Flagship account. Respondent did not secure health insurance from United States Life Insurance Company or Mutual Service Life Insurance Company or any other company for any of the AIM applicants. Respondent did not forward any premium moneys in the year 2002 to United States Life Insurance Company or Mutual Service Life Insurance Company for the purpose of securing health insurance for any of the AIM applicants. Respondent returned only $10,000.00 from the amount that Winebrenner gave to him in the $23,920.77 cashier’s check. Winebrenner testified that he requested several times of Respondent that the full amount ($23,920.77) of the cashier’s check be returned, once it was clear that no health insurance had been secured for any AIM applicants. AIM engaged private counsel to seek return of the entire $23,920.77 amount, but the efforts of private counsel were not successful. No reason was offered for Respondent only returning $10,000.00. On September 19, 1991, Respondent’s licenses and appointments as an insurance agent were surrendered as part of a Consent Order into which he entered with the Department of Insurance. In 1996, Respondent’s application for licensure as an insurance agent was denied. Respondent’s application for licensure was denied based on information “indicating that Respondent transacted insurance in 1992, in violation of the September 19, 1991 Consent Order which resulted in the surrender of all licenses and appointments held by Respondent . . . [and] had the same force and effect as a revocation.” Respondent was again granted a license as an insurance agent in 1997. Respondent was a licensed insurance agent in Florida at the relevant times that are material to the Administrative Complaint that is the basis for the instant action.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Michael David Garrett guilty of violating the provisions of Section and Subsections 626.561(1); 626.611(7), (9), (10), and (13); 626.621(6); 626.9521; and 626.9541(1)(o)1., Florida Statutes. As penalty for these violations, it is recommended that Petitioner (1) revoke Respondent's insurance licenses and eligibility for licensure; (2) that Respondent be required to pay an administrative fine of $20,000.00; and (3) that Respondent be required to pay restitution to AIM for the benefit of the defrauded insurance applicants in the amount of $13,920.77. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of June, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK 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 28th day of June, 2005.
