Findings Of Fact 9. The factual allegations in the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment issued on August 23, 2010, and the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on March 10, 2011, which are fully incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted as the Department’s Findings of Fact in this case.
Conclusions THIS PROCEEDING came on for final agency action and Jeff Atwater, Chief Financial Officer of the State of Florida, or his designee, having considered the record in this case, including the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment, the Amended Order of Penalty Assesment, and the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment served in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 10-216-D7, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby finds that: 1. On August 23, 2010, the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (hereinafter “Department”) issued a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 10-216-D7 to Chastang & Siegel Custom Builders, LLC (Chastang). The Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein Chastang was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Stop- Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. 2. On September 7, 2010, the Stop- Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment was served on Chastang by certified mail. A copy of the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit A” and incorporated herein by reference. 3. On October 5, 2010, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to Chastang in Case No. 10-216-D7. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $82,917.81 against Chastang. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein Chastang was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. 4. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served on Chastang by certified mail on October 23, 2010. A copy of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit B” and incorporated herein by reference. 5. On or about November 8, 2010, Chastang filed a timely Petition for formal administrative hearing in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. The Petition was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned Case No. 10- 10826. 6. On March 10, 2011, the Department issued a 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to Chastang in Case No. 10-216-D7. The 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $1,000.00 against Chastang. The 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served on Chastang on March 14, 2011 through the Division of Administrative Hearings. A copy of the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit C” and is incorporated herein by reference. 7. On March 28, 2011, the Department filed a Notice of Settlement in DOAH Case No. 10-10826. A copy of the Notice of Settlement filed by the Department is attached hereto as “Exhibit D.” 8. On March 28, 2011, Administrative Law Judge W. David Watkins entered an Order Closing File, relinquishing jurisdiction to the Department. A copy of the March 28, 2011 Order Closing File is attached hereto as “Exhibit E.”
Findings Of Fact 8. The factual allegations contained in the Stop- Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment issued on January 4, 2010, and the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on February 24, 2010, which are fully incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted as the Department’s Findings of Fact in this case.
Conclusions THIS PROCEEDING came on for final agency action and Alex Sink, Chief Financial Officer of the State of Florida, or her designee, having considered the record in this case, including the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment, and the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, served in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 10-001-1A, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby finds that: 1. On January 4, 2010, the Department issued a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment to POWELL & SONS ROOFING, INC. 2. On January 15, 2010, the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment were served on POWELL & SONS ROOFING, INC by certified mail. A copy of the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment are attached hereto as “Exhibit A” and incorporated herein by reference. 3. On February 24, 2010, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 10-001-1A to POWELL & SONS ROOFING, INC. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $1,000.00 against POWELL & SONS ROOFING, INC. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein POWELL & SONS ROOFING, INC. was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the ‘Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, 4. On March 4, 2010, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served by personal service on POWELL & SONS ROOFING, INC. A copy of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit B” and incorporated herein by reference. 5. On March 18, 2010, POWELL & SONS ROOFING, INC. filed a request for Administrative Review (“Petition”), requesting review of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. The petition for administrative review was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings on May 20, 2010, and the matter was assigned DOAH Case No. 10- 2789. A copy of the Petition is attached hereto as “Exhibit C” and incorporated herein by : reference. 6. On June 22, 2010, POWELL & SONS ROOFING, INC. filed a Motion to Withdraw Petition with the Division of Administrative Hearings. A copy of the Motion to Withdraw Petition is attached hereto as “Exhibit D” and incorporated herein by reference. 7. On July 1, 2010, the Administrative Law Judge issued an Order Closing File which relinquished jurisdiction to the Department. A copy of the Order Closing File is attached hereto as “Exhibit E” and incorporated herein by reference.
Findings Of Fact 15. The factual allegations contained in the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment issued on November 18, 2008, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on January 16, 2009, and the 2™4 Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on May 21, 2009 which are fully incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted as the Department’s Findings of Fact in this case.
Conclusions THIS PROCEEDING came on for final agency action and Alex Sink, Chief Financial Officer of the State of Florida, or her designee, having considered the record in this case, including the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment and the Amended Orders of Penalty Assessment served in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 08-385-1A, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby finds that: 1. On November 18, 2008, the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (hereinafter “Department”) issued a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 08-385-1A to M & M Roofing, LLC. 2. On December 8, 2008, the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment was served by personal service on M & M Roofing, LLC. A copy of the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit A” and incorporated herein by reference. 3. On January 16, 2009, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in Case No. 08-385-1A to M & M Roofing, LLC which assessed a total penalty of $153,187.40 against M & M Roofing, LLC. A copy of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit B” and incorporated herein by reference. 4. On May 21, 2009, the Department issued a 2°4 Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in Case No. 08-385-1A to M & M-Roofing, LLC which assessed a total penalty of $153,556.44 against M & M Roofing, LLC. A copy of the 2° Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit C” and incorporated herein by reference. 5. The Employer timely requested a Formal Hearing on or about February 27, 2009. A copy. of the Request for Hearing is attached hereto as “Exhibit D” and incorporated herein by reference. 6. On March 23, 2009, the request for formal hearing was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of an administrative law judge for a formal hearing. The matter was assigned to Judge Cleavinger and assigned case number 09-1578. 7. A formal hearing was scheduled for May 27, 2009, in Pensacola, Florida. A copy of the Notice of Hearing is attached hereto as “Exhibit E”. 8. A Motion to Continue Hearing was filed by the Department on April 30, 2009. 9. An Amended Motion to Continue Hearing was filed by the Department on May 5, 2009. The motion stated that Petitioner had been contacted and did not oppose the Motion. 10. An Order Granting Continuance and Re-Scheduling Hearing was entered on May 18, 2009. The hearing was re-scheduled for June 30, 2009, in Pensacola, Florida. A copy of the Order Granting Continuance and Re-Scheduling Hearing is attached as “Exhibit F”. 11.. A Letter of Request for Continuance was filed by M & M Roofing, LLC on June 22, 2009. 12. The Request for Continuance was denied on June 23, 2009. The Order Denying Continuance of Final Hearing is attached as “Exhibit G”. 13. A final hearing was held on June 30, 2009. M & M Roofing, LLC failed to appear at the hearing. 14. An Order Relinquishing Jurisdiction and Closing File was entered on July 2, 2009. A copy of the Order Relinquishing Jurisdiction and Closing File is attached as “Exhibit H”. |
The Issue Whether GMD Carpet, Inc., failed to comply with coverage requirements of the workers’ compensation law, Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for enforcing provisions of Florida law, specifically Chapter 440 of the Florida Statutes, which require that employers secure workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. Respondent, whose principal is Emmanuel Simone, Jr. (Mr. Simone), is in the business of providing carpet installation services. At all times material to this case, Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 440.02(16)(a), Florida Statutes. At all times material to this case, Respondent was legally obligated to provide workers' compensation insurance in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, for Mr. Simone and four other individuals employed by GMD. On or about May 21, 2004, Petitioner became aware that Mr. Simone and another GMD employee were working a carpet installation job in Broward County, Florida. Upon inquiry, Petitioner accurately determined that GMD had not furnished the required coverage, and that there was no valid exemption from the coverage requirement. Accordingly, on May 21, 2004, a Stop Work and Penalty Assessment Order was properly entered. Thereafter, Petitioner reviewed Respondent's payroll records, which revealed that GMD employed three other individuals under circumstances which obliged Respondent to provide workers’ compensation for these employees. Based upon Respondent's payroll records, Petitioner recalculated the penalty assessment to be imposed in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 440, and issued an Amended Order in the amount of $1,916.65 on May 25, 2004. Respondent did not intend to violate the law. Rather, he mistakenly believed that he held a valid exemption; that his wife was not an employee, but rather a helper; and that the three other carpet installers were subcontractors to whom he had no insurance-related obligations. It is undisputed that Petitioner correctly calculated the penalty prescribed by law in the amount of $1,916.65 based upon Respondent's records and applicable law.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order confirming the Stop Work Order and imposing a penalty in the amount of $1,916.65, as set forth in the Amended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of October, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of October, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Colin M. Roopnarine, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Workers’ Compensation 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 Emmanuel Simone, Jr. Debra Simone GMD Carpet, Inc. 717 North 31st Avenue Hollywood, Florida 33021 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florid a 32399-0300 Pete Dunbar, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Findings Of Fact 10. . The factual allegations contained in the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment issued on June 23, 2009, the Amended Stop-Work Order issued on July 24, 2009, and the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on July 27, 2009 which are fully incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted as the Department’s Findings of Fact in this case.
Conclusions THIS PROCEEDING came on for final agency action and Alex Sink, Chief Financial Officer of the State of Florida, or her designee, having considered the record in this case, including the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment, the Amended Stop-Work Order, and the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, served in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 09-168-D1-09-WC, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby finds that: 1. On June 23, 2009, the DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION (hereinafter “(DEPARTMENT”) issued a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 09-168-D1- 09-WC to THUNDER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. The Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein THUNDER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. 2. On June 23, 2009, the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment was served by posting on THUNDER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. On June 26, 2009, the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment was served by certified. mail on THUNDER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. Copies of the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment are attached hereto as “Exhibit A” and incorporated herein by reference. 3. On July 24, 2009, the DEPARTMENT issued an Amended Stop-Work Order in Case No. 09-168-D1-09-WC to THUNDER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. The Amended Stop-Work Order included a Notice of Rights wherein THUNDER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Amended Stop-Work Order must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of ‘receipt of the Amended Stop-Work Order in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. 4. On July 30, 2009, the Amended Stop-Work Order was served by certified mail on THUNDER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. A copy of the Amended Stop-Work Order is attached hereto as “Exhibit B” and incorporated herein by reference. 5. On July 27, 2009, the DEPARTMENT issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in Case No. 09-168-D1-09-WC to THUNDER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $445,134.86 against THUNDER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein THUNDER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. 6. On August 31, 2009, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served by certified mail on THUNDER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. A copy of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit C” and incorporated herein by reference. 7. On August 17, 2009, THUNDER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION filed a petition for administrative review with the DEPARTMENT. The petition for administrative review was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings on August 25, 2009, and the matter was assigned DOAH Case No. 09-4647. 8. On September 17, 2009, THUNDER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with the Division of Administrative Hearings. 9. On September 21, 2009, the Administrative Law Judge issued an Order Relinquishing Jurisdiction and Closing File which relinquished jurisdiction to the Department. A copy of the Order Relinquishing Jurisdiction and Closing File is attached hereto as “Exhibit D” and incorporated herein by reference.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes,1/ by failing to secure the payment of workers’ compensation, as alleged in the Stop-Work Order and Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure workers’ compensation coverage for the benefit of their employees. Respondent is a corporation with its principal office 3981 North W Street, Unit 36, Pensacola, Florida 32505. At all relevant time periods, Respondent has been engaged in business as a contractor in the construction industry. On March 28, 2012, after receiving a public referral regarding alleged uninsured construction activity at 2544 North D Street in Pensacola, Florida (the Site), Department Compliance Investigator Angelia Brown visited the Site. Upon Ms. Brown's arrival, there were plumbers and a siding company at the Site. According to Ms. Brown, she also saw an individual attaching u- shaped metal clips between the inside beams and the roof and soffits of the house that was being constructed at the Site. The plumbers had a workers' compensation policy and the siding workers had exemptions from workers' compensation requirements. Ms. Brown spoke to the man who appeared to be attaching the metal clips. Based upon that conversation, Ms. Brown concluded that the man was a subcontractor and Respondent's employee. The evidence, however, does not support that conclusion. The man, whose name is apparently Robert Madron, was not called as a witness at the final hearing. According to Ms. Brown, Mr. Madron told her he had his own company. Ms. Brown, however, was unable to obtain information verifying that assertion. Further, while Mr. Howard had paid Mr. Madron prior to Ms. Brown's visit for unsolicited work Mr. Madron had performed for Mr. Howard, consisting of picking up trash and repairing some equipment owned by Mr. Howard, Mr. Howard denied that Respondent ever employed Mr. Madron. Rather than showing that Mr. Madron was a subcontractor with his own business or an employee of Respondent, the evidence adduced at the final hearing indicated that Mr. Madron, who was known as "Gomer" by Mr. Howard, was an unemployed, homeless person, living in nearby woods. Mr. Madron would often come to the Site and surrounding neighborhood looking for work and food. Mr. Howard was surprised that Ms. Brown had taken Mr. Madron seriously, because Mr. Howard believes that Mr. Madron's facial expressions and unbalanced, awkward gait are obvious indicators that Mr. Madron is unstable and has mental problems. Ms. Brown issued a Stop-Work Order to Mr. Madron the day of her first visit at the Site, March 28, 2012. The evidence presented at the final hearing, however, failed to show that Mr. Madron was ever employed by Respondent. The next day, March 29, 2012, Ms. Brown returned and observed four other individuals working at the Site. The individuals included Robert Jones, Charles Lyons, Martin Shaughnessy, and Allen Weeden. While Ms. Brown concluded that these individuals were Respondent's employees on March 29, 2012, the evidence shows that they were paid for the work that day by Pacesetter Personnel, an employee-leasing company. Aside from alleging that Respondent employed Mr. Madron, the Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is based upon Respondent's alleged employment and failure to provide workers' compensation coverage for Mr. Jones, Mr. Lyons, Mr. Shaughnessy, and Mr. Weeden. In addition, the Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment alleges that Respondent employed its officer, Mr. Howard, during a lapse in Mr. Howard's exemption from workers' compensation. There was no testimony from Robert Jones, Charles Lyons, Martin Shaughnessy, or Allen Weeden offered at the final hearing and the evidence is otherwise insufficient to show that those individuals were employed by Respondent on March 29, 2012. The Department's investigator, Ms. Brown, further concluded that Pacesetter Personnel had not provided worker's compensation coverage for those four men on March 29, 2012. Her conclusion, however, was based on a conversation she said she had with Pacesetter Personnel. The Department did not offer the testimony from anyone at Pacesetter, nor did it offer any non- hearsay evidence to support Ms. Brown's conclusion that Pacesetter Personnel was not providing workers' compensation to those four individuals. Further, the only evidence that the Department offered to prove that Messrs. Jones, Lyons, Shaughnessy, and Weeden were ever employed by Respondent, or to support the Third Amended Penalty Assessment, consists of Mr. Howard's cancelled checks to those individuals. The Third Amended Penalty Assessment seeks an assessment for Robert Jones from January 1 to March 28, 2012. At the final hearing, Mr. Howard testified that Mr. Jones is a relative, and the payment to Mr. Jones was a loan to help Mr. Jones with moving expenses. There is no contrary evidence. The Third Amended Penalty Assessment provides an assessment for Charles Lyons for the periods from July 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010, and from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011. The assessment is based upon one check to Mr. Lyons in the amount to $480. Mr. Howard testified that Mr. Lyons had an exemption from workers' compensation. The Department presented no contradictory evidence. The Third Amended Penalty Assessment seeks an assessment for Martin Shaughnessy for several time periods based upon several checks from Mr. Howard. Mr. Howard testified that Mr. Shaughnessy had an exemption and the Department presented no contrary evidence. The Third Amended Penalty assessment also seeks an assessment for James Howard, individually, from July 17 to August 11, 2011, during which time there was a lapse in his certificate of exemption from workers' compensation. The evidence showed that, other than that 26-day lapse, Mr. Howard has maintained his exemption since 2003. The Department presented no evidence that Mr. Howard provided services to, or was paid by, Respondent during the time that his exemption had lapsed. The only evidence presented was a check from Respondent's checking account showing a payment to Mr. Howard's mother during the lapse period. Mr. Howard testified that the check was to reimburse his mother for the use of her American Express card to purchase materials and supplies. The Department presented no countervailing evidence. In sum, the evidence presented at the final hearing was insufficient to support the Stop Work Order or Third Amended Penalty Assessment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Workers’ Compensation enter a final order dismissing the Stop-Work Order and Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of June, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June, 2013.
Findings Of Fact 10. The factual allegations contained in the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment issued on August 5, 2010, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on August 12, 2010, the 2"? Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on June 2, 2011, the Stipulated Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction filed on September 14, 2011, and the Order Relinquishing Jurisdiction and Closing File issued September 14, 2011, which are fully incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted as the Department’s Findings of Fact in this case.
Conclusions THIS PROCEEDING came on for final agency action and Jeff Atwater, Chief Financial Officer of the State of Florida, or his designee, having considered the record in this case, including the request for administrative hearing received from MARIO PAINTING, L.L.C., the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment, and the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, the 2™ Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, the Stipulated Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction, and the Order Relinquishing Jurisdiction and Closing File, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby finds that: 1. On August 5, 2010, the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (hereinafter “Department”) issued a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 10-320-1A to MARIO PAINTING, L.L.C. The Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein MARIO PAINTING, L.L.C. was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Stop- * Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, and must conform to Rule 28-106.2015, Florida Administrative Code. 2. On August 5, 2010, the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment was served by personal service on MARIO PAINTING, L.L.C. A copy of the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit A” and incorporated herein by reference. 3. On August 12, 2010, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to MARIO PAINTING, L.L.C. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of ~-$32,830:40 against MARIO PAINTING, L.L.C. Fhe Amended Order-of- Penalty-Assessment included-a- —- Notice of Rights wherein MARIO PAINTING, L.L.C. was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, and must conform to Rule 28-106.2015, Florida Administrative Code. 4. On August 16, 2010, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served by personal service on MARIO PAINTING, L.L.C. A copy of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit B” and incorporated herein by reference. 5. On September 2, 2010, MARIO PAINTING, L.L.C. timely filed a request for administrative hearing with the Department. The petition for administrative review was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings on September 8, 2011, and the matter was assigned DOAH Case No. 11-4537. A copy of the petition is attached hereto as “Exhibit C” and incorporated herein by reference. 6. On June 2, 2011, the Department issued a 2™ Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to MARIO PAINTING, L.L.C. The 2"! Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $26,857.15 against MARIO PAINTING, L.L.C. The 2 Amended Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein MARIO PAINTING, L.L.C. was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the 2" Amended Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the 2° Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120:57, Florida Statutes, and must conform to Rule 28-106.2015, Florida Administrative Code. 7. On June 8, 2011, the 2"! Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served by certified mail on MARIO PAINTING, L.L.C. A copy of the 2" Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit D” and incorporated herein by reference. 8. On September 14, 2011, the Department filed a Stipulated Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction Pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(i), Florida Statutes. A copy of the Stipulated Motion to Relinquish Jurisdictionis-attached hereto-as “Exhibit E” and incorporated herein-by-reference—-----~ 9. On September 14, 2011, the Administrative Law Judge issued an Order Relinquishing Jurisdiction and Closing File. A copy of the Order Relinquishing Jurisdiction and Closing File is attached hereto as “Exhibit F” and incorporated herein by reference.
The Issue Whether the petitioner is entitled to an award under section 57.111, Florida Statutes, of attorney’s fees and costs incurred in the appellate matter Witmer v. Department of Business and Professional Regulation, 631 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), and, if so, the amount of such award.
Findings Of Fact Based on 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: The Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, is the state agency responsible for issuing occupational licenses to veterinarians with access to the backside of a racetrack and for regulating such licensees. Sections 550.10(1)(b) and .105(2)(d)2, Florida Statutes. Dr. Witmer has been licensed to practice veterinary medicine in Florida since January 1, 1993, and, as of October 19, 1993, he was authorized to practice veterinary medicine at Florida racetracks by virtue of a pari-mutuel wagering occupational license (“license”) issued by the Department. He has been domiciled in Florida at all times material to this matter. On October 19, 1993, Dr. Witmer was a partner in a professional practice in veterinary medicine with its principal office at 1450 Southwest Third Street, Pompano Park, Broward County, Florida. His professional practice had three full-time employees and a net worth, including both personal and business investments, of less than $2 million. In the Administrative Complaint and Emergency Order of Suspension dated October 19, 1993, the Department took two actions with respect to Dr. Witmer’s license.1 First, in the administrative complaint, it put Dr. Witmer on notice that the Department had initiated a disciplinary action against him, charging him with violations of a statute and a rule governing his license which, if proven, would justify the imposition of penalties, including revocation or suspension of his license. Secondly, in the emergency order of suspension, it summarily suspended Dr. Witmer’s license. Dr. Witmer requested a formal administrative hearing pursuant to section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, to challenge the truth of the allegations contained in the administrative complaint. The request was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned DOAH Case Number 93-6638. That action was pending at the time Dr. Witmer filed the application for attorney’s fees and costs at issue in this proceeding. Underlying proceeding On the basis of the allegations contained in the administrative complaint and its determination that Dr. Witmer’s interest in his license was “far outweighed by the immediate danger to the public health and safety and to the integrity of harness racing in the State of Florida,” the Department suspended Dr. Witmer’s pari-mutuel wagering occupational license as of October 19, 1993, ordered him to cease and desist from all activities authorized by the license, and barred him from entering any pari-mutuel establishment as a patron for the duration of the emergency suspension. Dr. Witmer chose to seek immediate judicial review of the emergency order pursuant to sections 120.60(8) and 120.54(9)(a)3, Florida Statutes (1993). It is this appellate proceeding which is the proceeding underlying Dr. Witmer’s application for attorney’s fees and costs at issue herein. State agencies are authorized by section 120.60(8), Florida Statutes (1995) to immediately suspend a license under the following circumstances and subject to the following conditions: If the agency finds that immediate serious danger to the public health, safety, or welfare requires emergency suspension, restriction, or limitation of a license, it shall show compliance in its order with the requirements imposed by s. 120.54(9) on agencies making emergency rules. Summary suspension, restriction, or limitation may be ordered, but a formal suspension or revocation proceeding under this section shall also be promptly instituted and acted upon. Section 120.54(9)(a), Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part: If an agency finds that an immediate danger to the public health, safety, or welfare requires emergency action, the agency may adopt any rule necessitated by the immediate danger by any procedure which is fair under the circumstances and necessary to protect the public interest, provided that: * * * 3. The agency publishes in writing at the time of, or prior to, its action the specific facts and reasons for finding an immediate danger to the public health, safety, or welfare and its reasons for concluding that the procedure used is fair under the circumstances. . . . The agency’s findings of immediate danger, necessity, and procedural fairness shall be judicially reviewable. On February 2, 1994, the District Court of Appeal for the Fourth District of Florida issued its opinion in Witmer v. Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, Case Number 93-3232, reported at 631 So. 2d 338. The court quashed the Emergency Order of Suspension, concluding that the order was “facially inadequate,” and ruling that “the Department’s findings of immediate danger to the public welfare are not supported by specific facts and reasons as required by 120.54(9)(a)3, Florida Statutes.” Id. at 340, 343. The district court in Witmer observed that its review was limited to a determination of whether the order complied with the requirements of section 120.54(9)(a)3 and based its analysis upon the following rules of law: If the facts alleged in the complaint and [emergency] order are sufficient to demonstrate immediacy, necessity and fairness, no hearing is required prior to the emergency suspension. . . . The factual allegations contained in the emergency order must sufficiently identify particularized facts which demonstrate an immediate danger to the public. (Citation omitted.) Where, as here, no hearing was held prior to the entry of the emergency order, every element necessary to its validity must appear on the face of the order. (Citation omitted.) The order must be “factually explicit and persuasive concerning the existence of a genuine emergency.” (Citation omitted.) Witmer, 631 So. 2d at 341. In reaching its conclusion that the emergency order was facially inadequate, the court in Witmer held that the Department failed to allege facts in the complaint and order to establish the essential elements of the violations upon which the emergency suspension was based. Firstly, the court found that the charge in the emergency order that Dr. Witmer had failed to report gratuities was not supported by any allegations of fact in the complaint and order. Id. at 341. Secondly, the court found that the Department failed to allege that Dr. Witmer’s actions related to horse racing or to race horses, an essential element of a violation of section 550.235(2), Florida Statutes, and of rule 61D-1.002(10), Florida Administrative Code. Id. at 342. Thirdly, the court found that the Department failed to allege that Dr. Witmer reached an agreement with a second person to commit the violation, an essential element of any conspiracy, including one to violate section 550.235(2) and rule 61D-1.002(10). Id. Finally, the court concluded that the public harm alleged by the Department in the order was too attenuated to support the emergency suspension of Dr. Witmer’s license. Id. at 343. The district court issued its mandate to the Department on February 18, 1994, directing it to act in accordance with the opinion quashing the Emergency Order of Suspension. The Department did not seek review of the decision of the district court in the Florida Supreme Court. Consequently, the decision of the district court had the effect of nullifying the emergency suspension of Dr. Witmer’s license. Summary Dr. Witmer was a small business party, as that term is defined for purposes of section 57.111, at the time the Department entered the emergency order.2 The evidence is sufficient to establish that the Department initiated an action against Dr. Witmer when it entered an Emergency Order of Suspension. This order was issued under the authority granted state agencies in section 120.60(8), Florida Statutes. The order had the effect of immediately and summarily suspending Dr. Witmer’s pari-mutuel wagering occupational license. Dr. Witmer had the right to seek immediate judicial review of the emergency order pursuant to section 120.54(9)(a)3. The appellate court quashed the emergency order because it was legally insufficient to support the suspension of Dr. Witmer’s license under the standards of section 120.54(9)(a)3. The Department did not appeal or seek further review of the appellate court’s decision. Dr. Witmer, therefore, prevailed in the administrative proceeding initiated by the Department. The Department presented no evidence to establish that its action in ordering the emergency suspension of Dr. Witmer’s license had a reasonable basis in law and fact or that any special circumstances exist which would make an award of attorney’s fees and costs in this case unjust.3 The monetary value of the attorney’s fees rendered in connection with the appellate proceeding culminating in the decision quashing the Emergency Order of Suspension is $9,715.00, and the costs incurred total $250. These fees and costs are reasonable and were necessary to prosecute the appellate proceeding.4
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is subject to assessed penalties as set forth in the Amended Stop Work and Penalty Assessment Order dated March 11, 2003.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency charged with enforcing statutory requirements that employers secure the payment of workers' compensation for their employees. Respondent is a Florida corporation, Federal Employer Identification No. 592489849, located in Ocala, Florida, that provides livestock transportation services. Henry Hayes Hudson, III, is Respondent's president. Martha Hudson is Respondent's vice president. Henry and Martha Hudson are Respondent's only officers and shareholders. On or about March 3, 2003, Petitioner received a complaint alleging that Respondent did not carry workers' compensation coverage. That same day, Petitioner's investigator, William Pangrass, conducted a compliance inspection at Respondent's principal place of business, 5879 West County Road 326, Ocala, Florida. During the investigation, Mr. Pangrass interviewed Martha Hudson and Respondent's bookkeeper, Kelly Hadsock. The investigation revealed that Respondent had no proof of workers' compensation for the prior three years. Petitioner personally served Respondent with a Stop Work and Penalty Assessment Order, No. 03-191-D1, on March 3, 2003. The Order required Respondent to cease all business activities. The Order also assessed the minimum statutory penalty in the amount of $100.00 under Section 440.107(5) and $1,000.00 under Section 440.107(7)(b). Martha Hudson refused to sign the Order. Next, Petitioner personally served a Request for Business Owner Affidavit and Production of Business Records on March 3, 2003. Martha Hudson also refused to sign this document. Respondent subsequently provided Petitioner with copies of its payroll records. The records included Respondent's payroll from March 3, 2000, through March 3, 2003. For all or part of that period, Respondent employed 52 individuals. Petitioner used the payroll records to calculate the penalty assessment for the three-year period of time that Respondent did not provide its employees with workers' compensation. On March 11, 2003, Petitioner issued the Amended Stop Work and Penalty Assessment Order, No. 03-191-D1-2. The Amended Order required Respondent to cease all business operations and to pay a penalty in the amount of $109,500.00, pursuant to Section 440.107(5), and a penalty in the amount of $325,045.57, pursuant to Section 440.107(7)(a). The total assessed penalty was $434,545.57. In a telephone conference on July 11, 2003, the parties stipulated that Respondent had no workers' compensation coverage for the period of time at issue here. They also stipulated that the only remaining issue involved the accuracy of the assessed penalty. During the hearing, Petitioner presented competent evidence to support the accuracy of the assessed penalty. More importantly, Respondent stipulated to the accuracy of the assessed penalty.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order affirming the Amended Stop Work Penalty Assessment Order and directing Respondent to pay a penalty in the amount of $434,545.57. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of November, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of November, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Larry Collins, Esquire 202 South Magnolia, Suite 3 Ocala, Florida 34474 Eric Lloyd, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
