The Issue Whether Respondent was required and failed to obtain workers' compensation insurance coverage for his employees during the period from March 7, 1997 through March 7, 2000, and, if so, what penalty should be assessed, pursuant to Section 440.107, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with enforcing the requirement that employers secure workers' compensation insurance for the benefit of their employees. On March 7, 2001, one of Petitioner's investigators observed two individuals, Worker 1 and Worker 2,3 painting a sidewalk, curb stops, and lines in the parking lot of a 7-Eleven store in Lake Worth, Florida. At that time, the investigator performed an on-site inspection. The investigator interviewed the two workers and completed a worksheet to determine if they were independent contractors. Worker 1 and Worker 2, among other things, worked for and were paid weekly by Respondent as painters, did not maintain a separate business from Respondent, did not control the means of performing their work, did not incur the expenses of their work, and did not incur the principal expenses related to their work. The investigator determined that the two workers were not independent contractors but were employees of Respondent. Neither Worker 1 nor Worker 2 was granted a workers' compensation exemption. Both workers were unprotected by workers' compensation insurance. Respondent provided to Petitioner's investigator federal tax Form 1099s for the years 1998 and 1999, pertaining to Worker 1 and Worker 2 and a handwritten note indicating the compensation paid to them during the year 2000. The documents indicated that Respondent paid the workers for the years 1998 through 2000 the following: Worker 1--$9,685 for 1998, $19,180 for 1999, and $3,330 for 2000; and Worker 2--$2,790 for 1999, and $240 for 2000. A compilation of approved classifications that groups employers according to their operations is published by the National Council of Compensation Insurance (NCCI). The publication is Scopes Manual, Scopes of Basic Manual Classifications (Scopes Manual). NCCI is a rating organization in Florida, which represents workers' compensation carriers. NCCI seeks approval from Florida's Department of Insurance of rates charged by workers' compensation carriers. NCCI and Professional Insurance Associates, as well as other sources, publish tables of approved rates for each classification code. It is undisputed that NCCI's publication of class codes and rates is relied upon and used by Petitioner to determine an employer's class code and the workers' compensation insurance rate. On March 7, 2000, Petitioner's investigator issued a SWO to Respondent. On March 8, 2000, Petitioner issued a NPAO to Respondent, indicating an assessment and penalty of $18,824. The investigator determined that, based upon what he had observed and the information that he had obtained, the work being performed by Worker 1 and Worker 2 was painting and was classified under Scopes Manual Code 5474. The investigator determined the evaded premium, or the premium that Respondent would have paid had he secured workers’ compensation insurance, by multiplying the gross compensation to employees each year by the premium rate for that Code for that year. The statutory penalty on the evaded premium is twice the evaded premium. The calculated penalty was $18,724. Added to the $18,724 was $100, which represented the penalty for the one day, March 7, 2000, that Respondent was not in compliance with the workers’ compensation requirement. On October 20, 2000, Petitioner issued a Second Amended Notice and Penalty Assessment Order, which was the final assessment, against Respondent assessing a penalty of $69,569, which included the $100 penalty. Pursuant to an agreement, Respondent performs general maintenance and preventative maintenance (GMPM) for Southland Corporation at 100 or more 7-Eleven stores in Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties. Petitioner was able to interview 13 of Respondent's employees, Worker 1 through Worker 13.4 As not a part of the GMPM agreement, Respondent's employees paint curbs, bumpers, and lines in the parking lot of each 7-Eleven store once each year. Respondent’s employees also engaged in the following: painting of buildings’ exterior and interior, parking lots, and loading docks; hanging drywall; setting of tile; paving of parking lots; repairing stucco and concrete; minor plumbing; carpentry, including trim, installation of doors and locks; filling potholes; and installing walls and cabinets. For example, Worker 10, who was employed with Respondent between June 1996 and January 1998, initially performed a daily activity of painting lines and curbs in parking lots at 7-Eleven stores. He could be assigned three stores in one day performing this activity. Later, Worker 10 performed under the GMPM agreement doing the following: painting the exterior and interior of stores, which could be the entire outside or a storeroom; tiling floors and ceilings; patching blacktop and repairing asphalt; and engaging in carpentry work, including putting up wooden shelves in storage rooms, cutting, nailing and screwing boards, and operating saws. Worker 10 also assisted Worker 6, who was a carpenter, repairing enclosures for dumpsters. The repairs consisted of sinking four-by-four posts into the ground, replacing slats, and occasionally replacing the entire enclosure due to damage caused by a truck backing into the enclosure. As another example, Worker 11 was employed with Respondent during 1998 and 1999 for 14 months and worked under the GMPM agreement. Worker 11 performed all activities under the agreement in maintaining the 7-Eleven stores, except for electrical and internal plumbing. The work to which he was assigned generally lasted four days a week, but for one day a week, he was assigned to handling service calls or performing line striping. Worker 11 performed the following: resurfacing asphalt; painting the entire parking lot, including lines for parking spaces and curbs; replacing or repairing ceiling and floor tile; laying tar on the roof; performing carpentry, including building shelves in storing rooms, reinforcing shelving, hanging new doors, replacing door hardware, and performing carpentry alongside Worker 6; and repairing enclosures for dumpsters by re-hanging doors, replacing slats, and replacing four-by-four posts. Even though Respondent stated that he subcontracted the repair of roofs and dumpsters, the installation of doors and electrical and plumbing work, he failed to present evidence showing to whom and when the work was subcontracted.5 Petitioner presented evidence demonstrating that Respondent’s employees performed all of the work described, except for electrical work. The work performed by Respondent’s employees included multiple class codes. NCCI requires the assignment of the highest rated classification under such circumstances. Carpentry is the highest-rated classification for all the work performed by Respondent’s employees, and the Scopes Manual Code for carpentry is 5403. Scopes Manual Code 5403 is also the code for the enclosure of a dumpster and the installation of a pre-hung door. The corresponding rate per $100 of payroll assigned to Scopes Manual Code 5403 is different for the applicable years 1997 through 2000. The rate for 1997 was 29.77; for 1998 was 29.09; for 1999 was 26.66; and 2000 was 27.96. Worker 1 through Worker 13 did not maintain a separate business from Respondent, did not control the means of performing their work, did not incur the expenses of their work, and did not incur the principal expenses related to their work. None of Respondent’s 13 employees had a valid workers’ compensation exemption. None of them were protected by workers’ compensation insurance. Respondent’s usual and customary practice was to pay his employees on a weekly basis. His usual and customary practice was to employ four or more employees during a weekly pay period. Respondent’s usual and customary practice was to employ four or more employees during any payroll period. Respondent asserts that he relied upon subcontractors for some of the work. The identity of the subcontractors, the service performed, and the frequency of their work are unknown. Whether the subcontractors had workers’ compensation insurance is also unknown. As a result, a determination cannot be made as to what Respondent’s responsibility, if any, was to the subcontractors as to workers’ compensation insurance, which in turn would affect an assessed penalty under worker’s compensation. To establish what his payroll was for the three years preceding the issuance of the SWO on March 7, 2000, Respondent used federal tax Form 1099s and cancelled business checks. For the years 1997 through 2000, Respondent’s payroll was as follows: Worker 1--1998 was $9,685, 1999 was $19,180, and 2000 was $3,330; Worker 2--1999 was $2,790, and 2000 was $240; Worker 3--1997 was $2,100, 1999 was $2,035, and 2000 was $3,045; Worker 4--1999 was $2,100; Worker 5--1997 was $1,900; Worker 6--1997 was $4,620, 1998 was $15,965, 1999 was $5,100, and 2000 was $3,303; Worker 7- -1999 was $610; Worker 8--1997 was $1,380, 1998 was $5,640, 1999 was $7,640, and 2000 was $350; Worker 9--1997 was $3,120; Worker 10--1997 was $8,450, and 1998 was $960; Worker 11--1998 was $7,095, and 1999 was $7,225; Worker 12--1998 was $2,883; and Worker 13--1999 was $2,675. Consequently, Respondent’s total payroll for 1997 was $21,570, for 1998 was $42,228, for 1999 was $49,355, and for 2000 was $10,268. Respondent’s payroll of $21,570 for 1997, was for the entire year. Petitioner made no reduction for the time period in the year 1997 prior to March 8, 1997, which would have been three years prior to the SWO on March 7, 2000. The statutory penalty assessed by Petitioner in its Second Amended Notice and Assessment Order against Respondent was $69,569, which included the penalty of $100. Petitioner’s assessment should be reduced to compensate for the Respondent’s payroll during the period of January 1, 1997 through March 7, 1997.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Labor and Employment Security, Division of Workers' Compensation, Bureau of Compliance enter a final order against Gregory Dennis Nelly: Sustaining the Stop Work Order. Sustaining the penalty assessed in the Second Amended Notice and Penalty Assessment Order minus the calculation for the payroll during the period of January 1, 1997 through March 7, 1997. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of June, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 5th day of June, 2001.
The Issue Whether Respondents violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by failing to secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage, as alleged in the Stop-Work Orders, and, if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with enforcing the requirement of chapter 440, Florida Statutes, that employers in Florida secure workers' compensation coverage for their employees. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Respondents are gas station/convenience stores located in South Florida. Northlake was created by Nazma Akter on May 6, 2014. MB was created by Ms. Akter on March 23, 2010. Congress Valero was created by Muhammad Saadat on July 21, 2011. Hena was created by Ms. Akter and Abu Ahsan on December 14, 2011. Hayma was created by Ms. Akter on December 14, 2011. Blue Heron was created by Ms. Akter on August 4, 2009. At all times relevant hereto, Respondents were duly-licensed to conduct business in the state of Florida. On February 2, 2015, the Department's Compliance Investigator Robert Feehrer, began a workers' compensation compliance investigation of Gardenia, LLC. Investigator Feehrer called the number listed for Gardenia, LLC, and was provided with a corporate office address. On February 10, 2015, upon arrival at Gardenia, LLC's, corporate office located at 165 US Highway 1, North Palm Beach, Florida, 33408, Investigator Feehrer spoke with Operations Manager Mohammad Hossain. Mr. Hossain stated that Gardenia, LLC, was a paper corporation and existed only for the purpose of paying unemployment taxes on the "six stores." Mr. Hossain went on to provide Investigator Feehrer with a list of Respondents and names of the employees that worked at each store. As an employee of Gardenia, LLC, and Respondents, Mr. Hossain's statements are party opponent admissions and bind Respondents. Lee v. Dep't of Health & Rehab. Servs., 698 So. 2d 1194, 1200 (Fla. 1997). With Mr. Hossain's statements and the list of Respondents' employees, Investigator Feehrer then consulted the Division of Corporations website, www.sunbiz.org, and confirmed that Respondents were current, active Florida companies. Investigator Feehrer then consulted the Department's Coverage and Compliance Automated System ("CCAS") for proof of workers' compensation coverage and exemptions associated with Respondents. Investigator Feehrer's CCAS search revealed that Respondents had no workers' compensation policies and no exemptions. On February 24, 2015, Investigator Feehrer conducted site visits at each of the six stores. Ms. Akter and Mr. Hossain accompanied Investigator Feehrer during these site visits. At all times material hereto, Ms. Akter was a corporate officer or managing member of each of the six Respondents. Muhammed Saadat and Abu Ahsan were corporate officers or managing members of Congress Valero, Hena, and Blue Heron. Kazi Ahamed was a corporate officer or managing member of Congress Valero and Hayma. Kazi Haider and Mohammed Haque were managing members of Hayma. All received compensation from the companies with which they were involved. Although Investigator Feehrer only personally observed one employee working at each location during his site visits, the payroll records revealed that at least four employees (including corporate officers or managing members without exemptions) received compensation for work at each location during the relevant period. Investigator Feehrer required additional information to determine compliance, and with Respondents' permission, contacted Respondents' accountant. Investigator Feehrer met with the accountant at least two times to obtain relevant information prior to March 30, 2015. Upon Ms. Akter's authorization, the accountant provided tax returns and payroll information for Respondents' employees. Information from Ms. Akter and Mr. Hossain also confirmed the specific employees at each of the six stores during the period of March 30, 2013, through March 30, 2015. On March 30, 2015, based on his findings, Investigator Feehrer served six Stop-Work Orders and Orders of Penalty Assessment. The Stop-Work Orders were personally served on Ms. Akter. Mr. Hossain was present as well and confirmed the lists of employees for each of the six stores were accurate. In April 2015, the Department assigned Penalty Auditor Christopher Richardson to calculate the six penalties assessed against Respondents. Respondent provided tax returns for the audit period and payroll transaction details were provided, as well as general ledgers/breakdowns, noting the employees for each Respondent company. Based on Investigator Feehrer's observations of the six stores on February 24, 2015, Auditor Richardson used the classification code 8061 listed in the Scopes® Manual, which has been adopted by the Department through Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.021(1). Classification code 8061 applies to employees of gasoline stations with convenience stores. Classification codes are four-digit codes assigned to various occupations by the National Council on Compensation Insurance to assist in the calculation of workers' compensation insurance premiums. In the penalty assessment, Auditor Richardson applied the corresponding approved manual rate for classification code 8061 for the related periods of non-compliance. The corresponding approved manual rate was correctly utilized using the methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)1. and rule 69L-6.027 to determine the final penalties. The Department correctly determined Respondents' gross payroll pursuant to the procedures required by section 440.107(7)(d) and rule 69L-6.027. On January 14, 2016, the Department served the six Amended Orders of Penalty Assessment on Respondents, assessing penalties of $1,367.06 for Northlake, $9,687.00 for MB, $12,651.42 for Congress Valero, $18,508.88 for Hena, $7,257.48 for Hayma, and $4,031.60 for Blue Heron. The Department has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Respondents were engaged in the gasoline station, self-service/convenience store industry in Florida during the periods of noncompliance; that Respondents failed to secure the payment of workers' compensation for their employees, as required by Florida's Workers' Compensation Law; and that the Department correctly utilized the methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)1. to determine the appropriate penalties.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a consolidated final order upholding the Stop-Work Orders and the Amended Orders of Penalty Assessment in the amounts of $1,367.06 for Northlake Mobile Enterprises, Inc.; $9,687.00 for MB Food and Beverage, Inc.; $12,651.42 for Congress Valero, Inc.; $18,508.88 for Hena Enterprises, Inc.; $7,257.48 for Hayma Enterprises, Inc.; and $4,031.60 for Blue Heron BP, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of June, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of June, 2016.
The Issue Whether Royal Roofing and Restoration, Inc. (Respondent or Royal Roofing), failed to secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage for its employees; and, if so, whether the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (Petitioner or Department), correctly calculated the penalty to be assessed against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with enforcing the requirement of chapter 440, that Florida employers secure workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Respondent is a Florida for-profit corporation organized on July 28, 2015, and engaged in the business of roofing and storm damage restoration. The company was formed, and initially conducted business, in Tallahassee, Florida, but expanded to the Panama City area in 2016. Traci Fisher is Respondent’s President and Registered Agent, with a mailing address of 1004 Kenilworth, Tallahassee, Florida 32312. DOAH Case No. 17-0879 On May 4, 2016, Department Compliance Investigator Jesse Holman, conducted a routine workers’ compensation compliance inspection at 374 Brown Place in Crestview, Florida. Mr. Holman observed four men removing shingles from the roof of a residential structure at that address. Mr. Holman first interviewed a worker who identified himself as Dustin Hansel and reported that he and the other three workers on site were a new crew for Respondent, the permit for the job had not yet been pulled, and the workers were not aware of the rate of pay for the job. Mr. Hansel telephoned Respondent’s sales manager, Dillon Robinson, who then spoke directly with Mr. Holman via telephone. Mr. Robinson informed Mr. Holman that Respondent obtained workers’ compensation coverage through Payroll Management Inc. (PMI), an employee-leasing company. Mr. Holman identified the three remaining workers at the jobsite as Milton Trice, Winston Perrotta, and Kerrigan Ireland. Mr. Holman contacted PMI and secured a copy of Respondent’s then-active employee roster. None of the workers at the jobsite, including Mr. Hansel, were included on Respondent’s employee roster. Upon inquiry, Mr. Holman was informed that PMI had no pending employee applications for Respondent. Mr. Holman consulted the Department’s Coverage Compliance Automated System (CCAS) and found Respondent had no workers’ compensation insurance policy and no active exemptions. During Mr. Holman’s onsite investigation, the workers left the jobsite. Mr. Holman could not immediately reach Ms. Fisher, but did speak with her husband, Tim Fisher. Mr. Fisher informed Mr. Holman that the crew was on their way to the PMI Fort Walton office to be enrolled on Respondent’s employee roster. On May 5, 2016, based on his investigation, and after consultation with his supervisor, Mr. Holman issued Respondent Stop-Work Order (SWO) 16-148-1A, along with a Business Records Request (BRR) for records covering the audit period of July 27, 2015 through May 4, 2016. Later that day, Mr. Holman spoke to Ms. Fisher, who informed him the crew did not have permission to begin the work on that date, as she had not yet pulled the permit for the reroof. Ms. Fisher further explained that the crewmembers had been instructed to complete applications with PMI prior to departing Tallahassee for Crestview. Ms. Fisher confirmed the crewmembers were completing applications at PMI Fort Walton that same day. Mr. Holman met with Ms. Fisher the following day and personally served SWO 16-148-1A. Ms. Fisher delivered to Mr. Holman an updated employee roster from PMI which included Mr. Hansel, Mr. Perrotta, and Mr. Ireland; a letter documenting Mr. Trice was not employed by Respondent; and a $1000 check as downpayment on the penalty. Respondent initially submitted business records in response to the BRR on May 23 and 25, 2017. DOAH Case No. 17-1558 On June 8, 2016, Mr. Holman conducted a random workers’ compensation compliance inspection at 532 Rising Star Drive in Crestview. The single-family home at that address was undergoing renovations and Mr. Holman observed three men on the roof removing shingles. None of the men on the roof spoke English, but a fourth man, who identified himself as Jose Manuel Mejia, appeared and stated he worked for Respondent, and that all the workers onsite were paid through PMI at a rate of $10.00 per hour. Mr. Mejia admitted that one of the worker’s onsite, Emelio Lopez, was not enrolled with PMI and explained that Mr. Mejia brought him to the worksite that day because he knew Mr. Lopez to be a good worker. The remaining workers onsite were identified as Juan Mencho and Ramon Gonzalez, both from Atlanta, Georgia. Mr. Mejia produced some PMI paystubs for himself and Mr. Mencho. Mr. Mejia stated that he and his crews also received reimbursement checks directly from Respondent for gas, rentals, materials, and the like. Mr. Holman contacted PMI, who produced Respondent’s then-active employee roster. Mr. Mejia and Mr. Mencho were on the roster, but neither Mr. Gonzalez nor Mr. Lopez was included. Mr. Holman next contacted Ms. Fisher, who identified Mr. Mejia as a subcontractor, but was not familiar with any of the other men Mr. Holman encountered at the worksite. Mr. Holman consulted via telephone with his supervisor, who instructed him to issue an SWO to Respondent for failing to secure workers’ compensation coverage for its employees. Mr. Holman issued SWO 16-198-1A by posting the worksite on June 8, 2016. Department Facilitator Don Hurst, personally served Ms. Fisher with SWO 16-198-1A in Tallahassee that same day. SWO 16-148-1A Penalty Calculation1/ Department Penalty Auditor Eunika Jackson, was assigned to calculate the penalties associated with the SWOs issued to Respondent. On June 8, 2016, Ms. Jackson began calculating the penalty associated with SWO 16-148-1A. Ms. Jackson reviewed the documents submitted by Respondent in response to the BRR. The documents included Respondent’s Wells Fargo bank statements, check images, and PMI payroll register for the audit period.2/ Based on a review of the records, Ms. Jackson identified the following individuals as Respondent’s employees because they received direct payment from Respondent at times during the audit period: David Rosinsky, Dylan Robinson, Jarod Bell, Tommy Miller, and David Shields. Ms. Jackson determined periods of non-compliance for these employees based on the dates they received payments from Respondent and were not covered for workers’ compensation via PMI employment roster, separate policy, or corporate officer exemption. Ms. Jackson deemed payments to each of the individuals as gross payroll for purposes of calculating the penalty. Based upon Ms. Fisher’s deposition testimony, Ms. Jackson assigned National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) class code 5551, Roofing, to Mr. Miller; NCCI class code 5474, Painting, to Mr. Rosinsky; NCCI class code 8742, Sales, to Mr. Bell and Mr. Robinson; and NCCI class code 8810, clerical office employee, to Mr. Shields. Utilizing the statutory formula for penalty calculation, Ms. Jackson calculated a total penalty of $191.28 associated with these five “employees.” Ms. Jackson next calculated the penalty for Dustin Hansel, Kerrigan Ireland, Milton Trice, and Winston Perrotta, the workers identified at the jobsite as employees on May 4, 2016. The Department maintains that the business records submitted by Respondent were insufficient to determine Respondent’s payroll to these “employees,” thus, Ms. Jackson used the statutory formula to impute payroll to these workers. Ms. Jackson calculated a penalty of $14,970.12 against Respondent for failure to secure payment of workers’ compensation insurance for each of these four “employees” during the audit period. The total penalty associated with these four “employees” is $59,880.48. Ms. Jackson calculated a total penalty of $60,072.96 to be imposed against Respondent in connection with SWO 16-148- 1A. Business Records In compliance with the Department’s BRR, Respondent submitted additional business records on several occasions-- March 21, May 3 and 31, June 7, and August 15 and 24, 2017--in order to establish its complete payroll for the audit period. While the Department admits that the final documents submitted do establish Respondent’s complete payroll, the Department did not issue amended penalty assessment based on those records in either case. The Department maintains Respondent did not timely submit records, pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.028(4), which allows an employer 20 business days after service of the first amended order of penalty assessment to submit sufficient records to establish payroll. All business records submitted by Respondent were admitted in evidence and included as part of the record. The undersigned is not limited to the record before the Department at the time the amended penalty assessments were imposed, but must determine a recommendation in a de novo proceeding. The undersigned has relied upon the complete record in arriving at the decision in this case. Penalty Calculation for Ireland, Trice, and Perrotta For purposes of workers’ compensation insurance coverage, an “employee” is “any person who receives remuneration from an employer” for work or services performed under a contract. § 440.02(15)(a), Fla. Stat. Respondent did not issue a single check to Mr. Ireland, Mr. Trice, or Mr. Perrotta during the audit period. Mr. Ireland, Mr. Trice, and Mr. Perrotta are not included on any PMI leasing roster included in the record for the audit period. The uncontroverted evidence, including the credible and unrefuted testimony of each person with knowledge, established that Mr. Ireland, Mr. Trice, and Mr. Perrotta were newly hired for the job in Crestview on May 4, 2016, and began working that day prior to submitting applications at PMI, despite Ms. Fisher’s directions otherwise. Petitioner did not prove that either Mr. Ireland, Mr. Trice, or Mr. Perrotta was Respondent’s employee at any time during the audit period. Petitioner did not correctly calculate the penalty of $44,911.26 against Respondent for failure to secure workers’ compensation insurance for Mr. Ireland, Mr. Trice, and Mr. Perrotta during the audit period. Penalty Calculation for Hansel Ms. Fisher testified that Mr. Hansel has owned several businesses with which Respondent has conducted business over the years. Originally, Mr. Hansel owned a dumpster rental business, now owned by his father. Mr. Hansel also owned an independent landscaping company with which Respondent occasionally transacted business. When Respondent expanded business into the Panama City area, Ms. Fisher hired Mr. Hansel as a crew chief to supervise new crews in the area. The job on May 4, 2016, was his first roofing job. A review of Respondent’s records reveals Respondent issued the following checks to Mr. Hansel during the audit period: December 4, 2015, in the amount of $360, $300 of which was for “dumpster rental” and the remaining $60 for “sod”; May 4, 2016, in the amount of $200 for “sod repair”; May 6, 2016, in the amount of $925 as reimbursement for travel expenses; May 9, 2016, in the amount of $1,011.50 (with no memo); and May 21, 2016, in the amount of $100 for “7845 Preservation.” Mr. Hansel was included on Respondent’s PMI leasing roster beginning on May 13, 2016. Petitioner proved that Mr. Hansel was Respondent’s employee at times during the audit period. Petitioner did not prove that Respondent’s records were insufficient to determine payroll to Mr. Hansel during the audit period, which would have required an imputed penalty. Petitioner did not correctly calculate the penalty of $14,970.42 against Respondent for failure to secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage for Mr. Hansel during the audit period. Sod repair by Mr. Hansel is a service performed for Respondent during the audit period. Reimbursement of travel expenses is specifically included in the definition of payroll for purposes of calculating the penalty. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L- 6.035(1)(f) (“Expense reimbursements, including reimbursements for travel” are included as remuneration to employees “to the extent that the employer’s business records and receipts do not confirm that the expense incurred as a valid business expense.”). Dumpster rental is neither work performed on behalf of, nor service provided to, Respondent during the audit period. The correct uninsured payroll amount attributable to Mr. Hansel is $2,296.50. Petitioner correctly applied NCCI class code 5551, Roofing, to work performed by Mr. Hansel based on the observation of Mr. Holman at the worksite on May 4, 2016. With respect to Mr. Hansel’s services for sod and sod repair, Petitioner did not correctly apply NCCI class code 5551. Petitioner did not introduce competent substantial evidence of the applicable NCCI class code and premium amount for landscaping services performed during the audit period.3/ Uninsured payroll attributable to Mr. Hansel for roofing services during the audit period is $2,036.50. The approved manual rate for workers’ compensation insurance for NCCI class code 5551 during the period of non- compliance--May 9 and 21, 2016--is $18.60. The premium amount Respondent would have paid to provide workers’ compensation insurance for Mr. Hansel is $378.79 (One percent of Mr. Hansel’s gross payroll during the non-compliance period--$20.36--multiplied by $18.60). The penalty for Respondent’s failure to secure worker’s compensation coverage insurance for Mr. Hansel during the period of non-compliance is calculated as two times the amount Respondent would have paid in premium for the non- compliance period. The correct penalty for Respondent’s failure to maintain workers’ compensation coverage for Mr. Hansel during the period of non-compliance is $757.58. Penalty Calculation for Salesmen Independent contractors not engaged in the construction industry are not employees for purposes of enforcing workers’ compensation insurance requirements. See § 440.02(15)(d)1., Fla. Stat. Sales is a non-construction industry occupation. The Department calculated a penalty associated with payroll attributable to the following persons identified by Ms. Fisher as independent salesmen: Dylan Robinson, Kevin Miller, Marc Medley, Mike Rucker, Colby Fisher, David Jones, Jarod Bell, Matt Flynn, and Todd Zulauf. Section 440.02(15)(d)1. provides that an individual may be an independent contractor, rather than an employee, as follows: In order to meet the definition of independent contractor, at least four of the following criteria must be met: The independent contractor maintains a separate business with his or her own work facility, truck, equipment, materials, or similar accommodations; The independent contractor holds or has applied for a federal employer identification number, unless the independent contractor is a sole proprietor who is not required to obtain a federal employer identification number under state or federal regulations; The independent contractor receives compensation for services rendered or work performed and such compensation is paid to a business rather than to an individual; The independent contractor holds one or more bank accounts in the name of the business entity for purposes of paying business expenses or other expenses related to services rendered or work performed for compensation; The independent contractor performs work or is able to perform work for any entity in addition to or besides the employer at his or her own election without the necessity of completing an employment application or process; or The independent contractor receives compensation for work or services rendered on a competitive-bid basis or completion of a task or a set of tasks as defined by a contractual agreement, unless such contractual agreement expressly states that an employment relationship exists. If four of the criteria listed in sub- subparagraph a. do not exist, an individual may still be presumed to be an independent contractor and not an employee based on full consideration of the nature of the individual situation with regard to satisfying any of the following conditions: The independent contractor performs or agrees to perform specific services or work for a specific amount of money and controls the means of performing the services or work. The independent contractor incurs the principal expenses related to the service or work that he or she performs or agrees to perform. The independent contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of the work or services that he or she performs or agrees to perform. The independent contractor receives compensation for work or services performed for a commission or on a per-job basis and not on any other basis. The independent contractor may realize a profit or suffer a loss in connection with performing work or services. The independent contractor has continuing or recurring business liabilities or obligations. The success or failure of the independent contractor’s business depends on the relationship of business receipts to expenditures. Ms. Fisher testified that each of the above-named salesmen sold roofing jobs for her at various times during the audit period on a commission-only basis. The contractors inspect homeowner roofs, draft schematics, use their own equipment (e.g., drones), incur all of their own expenses, and handle the insurance filing for the homeowner’s insurance to pay on the claim. Ms. Fisher further testified that each of the salesmen also sells for other roofing contractors in the Tallahassee area. She pays the salesmen on a per-job basis. Ms. Fisher does not compensate the salesmen for the time involved in inspecting a roof, preparing schematics, or making the sale. Nor does Ms. Fisher reimburse the salesmen for travel to sales jobsites. Ms. Fisher’s testimony was credible, persuasive, and uncontroverted. Respondent introduced in evidence four “Independent Contractor Checklists” allegedly completed by Mr. Robinson, Mr. Medley, Mr. Fisher, and Mr. Flynn. Each form checklist follows the format of section 440.02(15)(d)1., listing the criteria set forth in subparagraphs a. and b. The forms indicate that they each meet all the criteria listed in subparagraph b.: they perform, or agree to perform services for a specific amount of money and control the means of performing the service; they incur the principal expenses related to the service performed; they are responsible for satisfactory completion of the services performed; they receive compensation for the services performed on a per-job or commission basis; they may realize a profit or suffer a loss in connection with performing the services; they have continuing and recurring business liabilities or obligations; and the success or failure of their business depends on the relationship of business receipts to expenditures.4/ In its Proposed Recommended Order, Petitioner conceded the nine men identified by Respondent as independent sales contractors “would not be considered employees of Respondent” because the “salesmen would seem to meet the majority of [the] requirements [of section 440.02(15)(d)1.b.].” Respondent issued Dylan Robinson, Mark Medley, Colby Fisher, Matt Flynn, Kevin Miller, Mike Rucker, Jarod Bell, David Jones, and Todd Zulauf an IRS FORM 1099-MISC for income paid during the 2016 tax year. Respondent did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the above-named salesmen were Respondent’s employees during the audit period. For SWO 16-148-1A, Respondent did not correctly calculate the penalty because Respondent included a penalty associated with Petitioner’s failure to provide workers’ compensation insurance coverage for Dylan Robinson and Jarod Bell. Penalty in the amount of $20.70 associated with Dylan Robinson and Jarod Bell should not be included in the total penalty. The correct penalty amount for SWO 16-148-1A, based on records submitted by Respondent on or before March 20, 2016, is $929.16. Draft Revised Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment The additional records submitted by Respondent revealed payments made to persons during the audit period who were not included in the Department’s Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. The Department and Respondent disagreed at hearing whether the payments qualified as payroll. At hearing, Petitioner submitted a draft revised second amended penalty calculation for SWO 16-148-1A based on all records received from Respondent. The revised penalty is in the amount of $61,453.50. Ms. Jackson populated the spreadsheet with the name of every individual to whom a check was written on Respondent’s business bank account during the audit period, removing only those payments to individuals and entities which, to Petitioner’s knowledge, were not Respondent’s employees. Respondent’s calculations in the revised penalty suffer from some of the same errors as in the second amended penalty calculation--they include individuals Petitioner did not prove were Respondent’s employees, as well as payments which were not uninsured payroll. For the reasons explained herein, Petitioner did not prove that salesmen David Jones, Dylan Robinson, Jarod Bell, Kevin Miller, Mark Medley, Matt Flynn, Mike Rucker, Tim Fischer, and Colby Fisher were Respondent’s employees during the audit period. Respondent did not accurately calculate the penalty associated with those persons. Respondent made payments to David Shields during the audit period, which the Department argues should be included as payroll. The Department included payments to Mr. Shields in its draft revised second amended order of penalty assessment and assigned NCCI class code “8810” for clerical work. Mr. Shields is a licensed professional roofing contractor who acts as “qualifier” for Respondent’s business. A qualifier is a licensed professional who certifies plans for permit applications submitted by another business. Respondent pays Mr. Shields a flat fee per permit application qualified by him. The record evidence does not support a finding that Mr. Shields provides clerical services to Respondent. Mr. Shields provides some sort of professional services to Respondent, and is likely an independent contractor providing his own materials and supplies, maintaining his own business accounts, and liable for his own business success. Assuming Mr. Shields were Respondent’s employee, the Department introduced no evidence of an appropriate NCCI class code for Mr. Shields’ services. The Department did not prove that payments to Mr. Shields should be included as Respondent’s uninsured payroll during the audit period. Respondent paid Susan Swain a total of $258 during the audit period for clerical work. Ms. Fisher maintained Ms. Swain’s work was casual at first, and the payments reflect a time when she worked on-again, off-again, handling the paperwork for restoration insurance claims. Later, Ms. Swain came to work for Respondent full-time and was added to the PMI leasing roster. Section 440.02(15)(d)5. provides that a person “whose employment is both casual and not in the course of the trade, business, profession or occupation of the employer” is not an employee. The statute defines “casual” employment as work that is anticipated to be completed in 10 working days or less and at a total labor cost of less than $500. See § 440.02(5), Fla. Stat. In its Proposed Recommended Order, the Department argues Ms. Swain’s wages should be included as payroll because the “testimony regarding Ms. Swain does not suggest that she was employed for less than 10 days[.]” However, it was the Department’s burden to prove that Ms. Swain was a statutory employee. The Department did not prove that Ms. Swain’s wages should be included within Respondent’s uninsured payroll. The largest portion of the penalty assessed by the Department, as well as in the draft revised second amended penalty assessment, against Respondent is in connection with various roofers who were employed by Respondent at times during the audit period. Each of the roofers was included on Respondent’s PMI leasing roster, but received checks directly from Respondent in addition to PMI payroll checks. The Department included all the direct payments to those roofers as payroll for purposes of calculating a penalty in this case. As Ms. Fisher explained, the company bids a reroof on a per job basis--usually a per square foot price. Ms. Fisher adds each roofing contractor’s name to the PMI leasing roster to ensure that each roofer is covered by workers’ compensation insurance for the duration of the job. When the job is completed (which is a matter of just a few days), the contractor reports to Ms. Fisher what amount of the contract price was spent on materials, supplies, or other non-labor costs. Ms. Fisher cuts a check to the contractor for that amount and authorizes PMI to issue payroll checks for the “labor cost” (the difference between the contract price and the non-labor costs). Ms. Fisher refers to this process as “back-charging” the contractors for their materials, maintenance, tools, and other non-labor costs. The Department is correct that the direct payments are payroll to the roofing contractors. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.035(1)(b) and (h) (remuneration includes “payments, including cash payments, made to employees by or on behalf of the employer” and “payments or allowances made by or on behalf of the employer for tools or equipment used by employees in their work or operations for the employer.”). The Department would be correct to include these payments in the penalty calculation if they represented uninsured payroll. However, the evidence supports a finding that the direct payments to the roofing contractors were made for the same jobs on which Respondent secured workers’ compensation coverage through PMI. The roofing contractors were covered for workers’ compensation throughout the job, even though they may have received partial payment for the job outside of the PMI payroll checks.5/ The direct payments were not for separate reroofs on which the roofers were not otherwise insured. The Department did not correctly calculate penalties associated with the following roofing contractors: Donald Tontigh, Joseph Howard, Keith Mills, Aaron Kilpatrick, Gustavo Tobias, Jose Mejia, and Tommy Miller. Ms. Fisher also received cash payments from Respondent during the audit period. These payments were made in addition to her payroll through PMI. Ms. Fisher described these payments as “cash tickets,” which were paid outside of her PMI payroll to reimburse her for investments made in the company. For purposes of calculating the penalty in this case, these “cash tickets” are clearly payroll, as that term is to be calculated pursuant to rule 69L-6.035. Similar to the issue with the roofing contractors, the question is whether the payments represent uninsured payroll. Ms. Fisher did not hold a corporate officer exemption at any time relevant hereto. Ms. Fisher testified that she was covered through PMI payroll leasing. In contrast to the roofing contractors, Ms. Fisher’s direct payments do not directly coincide with any particular job or specific time frame during which Ms. Fisher was covered for workers’ compensation insurance through PMI. The evidence was insufficient to determine that the amounts were insured payroll. The Department properly calculated a penalty associated with payroll attributable to Ms. Fisher. Respondent made one payment of $75 to Donald Martin during the audit period. The Department calculated a penalty of $27.90 associated with this payment to Mr. Martin. Ms. Fisher explained that Mr. Martin was a down-on-his-luck guy who came by the office one day complaining that Mr. Hansel owed him some money. Ms. Fisher offered to put him on a roofing crew and wrote him the $75 check to help him out. Ms. Fisher’s testimony was both credible and unrefuted. Mr. Martin was never hired by Respondent, put on any roofing crew, or added to the PMI leasing roster. Mr. Martin was not Respondent’s employee because he did not receive remuneration for the “performance of any work or service while engaged in any employment under any appointment or contract for hire” with Respondent. § 440.02(15)(a), Fla. Stat. Cale Dierking works for Respondent full-time in a clerical position. During the audit period, Respondent paid Mr. Dierking directly by check for $1,306.14. This payment was made outside of Mr. Dierking’s PMI payroll checks. Ms. Fisher testified that she paid Mr. Dierking directly on one occasion when “PMI’s payroll got stuck in Memphis, I believe it was a snow-in situation where payroll checks didn’t come.” Rather than ask her employee to go without a timely paycheck, she advanced his payroll. Ms. Fisher’s testimony was both credible and unrefuted. The payment to Mr. Dierking is clearly payroll. However, Mr. Dierking was covered for workers’ compensation through PMI for the period during which the check was issued. Thus, there is no evidence that it was uninsured payroll. The Department did not correctly calculate a penalty associated with payments to Mr. Dierking. The correct penalty to be assessed against Respondent for failure to secure workers’ compensation coverage for its employees during the audit period in connection with SWO 16-148- 1A is $770.60. Penalty Calculation for SWO 16-198-1A Ms. Jackson calculated a total penalty against Respondent in connection with SWO 16-198-1A in the amount of $19,115.84, as reflected in the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. The Department correctly imputed penalty against Respondent in the amount of $91.68 each for uninsured payroll to Mr. Gonzalez and Mr. Lopez. The evidence supported a finding that these workers were Respondent’s statutory employees on June 8, 2016, and were not enrolled on the PMI leasing roster. The Department did not correctly calculate the penalty associated with salesmen Dylan Robinson, Jarod Bell, Kevin Miller, Mark Medley, Matt Flynn, and Todd Zulauf. The Department did not correctly calculate the penalty associated with roofing contractors Abraham Martinez- Antonio, Edwin Kinsey, Dustin Hansel, Efrian Molina-Agustin, Jose Mejia, Joseph Howard, Keith Mills, Samuel Pedro, and Tommy Miller. The Department did not correctly calculate the penalty against Respondent associated with Mr. Shields, Respondent’s qualifier. Based on a review of Respondent’s complete “untimely” records, the Department discovered direct payments made to additional employees not included on the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. Respondent made a direct payment to Ethan Burch in the amount of $602.50 during the audit period. Ethan Burch is one of Respondent’s full-time clerical employees. The evidence is insufficient to determine whether the payment of $602.50 was insured or uninsured payroll. As such, the Department did not prove it correctly calculated the penalty associated with Mr. Burch. Respondent also made a direct payment to Chelsea Hansel in the amount of $965 during the audit period. Ms. Hansel is another clerical employee. Ms. Hansel’s PMI enrollment was delayed due to some background investigation. Respondent paid Ms. Hansel for work she completed prior to enrollment. The direct payment to Ms. Hansel constitutes uninsured payroll. The Department correctly calculated the penalty associated with the payment to Chelsea Hansel. The correct penalty amount to be imposed against Respondent for failure to secure payment of workers’ compensation coverage for its employees (Gonzalez, Lopez, and Chelsea Hansel) during the audit period in connection with SWO 16-198-1A is $187.80.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, finding that Royal Roofing and Restoration, Inc., violated the workers’ compensation insurance law and, in DOAH Case No. 17-0879, assessing a penalty of $770.60; and in DOAH Case No. 17-1558, assessing a penalty of $187.80. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of January, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of January, 2018.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Sunburst Construction, Inc. ("Sunburst"), failed to properly maintain workers' compensation insurance coverage for his employees and, if so, what penalty should be assessed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for ensuring that all employers maintain workers' compensation insurance for themselves and their employees. It is the duty of the Department to make random inspections of job sites and to answer complaints concerning potential violations of workers' compensation rules. Sunburst is a business created by Cecil Moore and has been in operation for 35 years in the construction industry. At all times relevant hereto, Sunburst was duly-licensed to do business in the State of Florida. Construction work is assigned a Class Code of 5651 for purposes of calculating workers' compensation insurance coverage. On April 30, 2014, the Department’s investigator, Stephanie Scarton, was driving on South Peninsula Drive in Daytona Beach, Florida, when she noticed what appeared to be construction activity going on. As she is charged with doing, Scarton went to find out whether people working at the construction site were legally covered by workers’ compensation insurance. She talked to four people at the job site and made a determination that workers’ compensation coverage was missing. Scarton’s and Sunburst’s statements of the facts surrounding the coverage are significantly different in detail. Each will be set forth below. Scarton’s Version of the Facts According to Scarton, she observed three people working at the site: Two men were engaged in carpentry, specifically, securing bolts to beams on a form used for pouring concrete. One man was grinding a screw or some other metal object. Scarton identified herself to the man who was grinding the metal object. The man was Carlos Barbecho. The man did not speak English very well, but conversed with Scarton, telling her that he (Barbecho) worked for Sunburst. According to Scarton, Barbecho also told her that the other two men, Edlezar “Eddie” Cano-Lopez and Jeronimo Cano-Lopez, also worked for Sunburst. Neither of the two men (who were brothers) spoke English. Barbecho acted as an interpreter for Scarton as she asked the brothers if they worked for Sunburst. They allegedly “shook their heads up and down,” i.e., they nodded affirmation. However, Scarton could not verify exactly what question Barbecho posed to the brothers in Spanish. Meanwhile, another man, Raley, showed up at the site on his bicycle. He reported that he was an independent contractor and was not related to Sunburst. He was doing some pressure washing on the house located at the site. The investigator then went to her vehicle to research Sunburst, finding it to be a duly-registered Florida corporation. She checked the building permit which had been issued by the City of Daytona Beach and found that it had been pulled by Sunburst. She then checked the Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) used by the Department to track workers’ compensation coverage by businesses and individuals. According to CCAS, there was no coverage for Sunburst but Moore had a personal exemption. When she found there was no coverage for Sunburst but that its employees were working at the job site, Scarton contacted Moore directly via telephone. Barbecho had provided Scarton with Moore’s number. Scarton testified that Moore admitted the men were his employees, but that he believed he had up to 24 hours to obtain workers’ compensation coverage for them. Scarton eventually ascertained that Sunburst did have appropriate workers’ compensation coverage for Barbecho through a leasing company, but neither of the Cano-Lopez brothers was on the policy. Sunburst’s Version of the Facts Moore has owned Sunburst for over 35 years. He has always maintained workers’ compensation coverage for his employees and has never been cited for failing to do so. In April 2014, Sunburst was in the midst of renovations at the South Peninsula Drive job site. Barbecho was the foreman on the job. He had been working for Sunburst for about two years as a foreman or job manager. Moore had obtained workers’ compensation coverage for Barbecho through a leasing company. On April 30, 2014, Barbecho was working at the job site when the Cano-Lopez brothers came up and asked if there was work for them to do. They had been referred to the site by Pillo, a man who had worked with Moore for many years and often found laborers for him. Barbecho called Moore to see if he wanted to hire the brothers or not. Meanwhile, the men stood around talking as they waited for a determination from Moore. Raley had also been at the site on that date. He was preparing to pressure-wash the outside of the house so that it could be painted. Just about the time he was leaving on his bicycle to retrieve a chair from his nearby home, the Cano-Lopez brothers arrived. Raley paid them no mind as he had never seen them before at the job site. When he returned with his chair, Raley met Scarton, who identified herself as an investigator for the Department. Although Raley told Scarton that he was an independent contractor, he was actually doing the pressure- washing because he owed a favor to Moore. Raley watched Scarton talk to the brothers and could see that there was a large communication problem based upon language. Scarton then began talking more to Raley because he spoke English much better than the other men there. Barbecho says he only met the Cano-Lopez brothers the morning that Scarton showed up at the work site. He did not have authority to hire them on behalf of Sunburst, but put a call into Moore to see if he wanted to hire the men. Barbecho maintains that he never told Scarton the men were employees of Sunburst. He does not remember being asked to ask the brothers, in Spanish, whether they were employees of Sunburst. The men had arrived on the job site just minutes prior to Scarton’s arrival, and Barbecho had not really talked to them at all other than to give a casual greeting. Edlezar Cano-Lopez says he is not now nor has he ever been an employee of Sunburst. He has never done any work for or received any money from Moore or Sunburst. (He was hoping that Moore would pay him for his time traveling to Tallahassee and appearing at the final hearing, but there was no specific agreement in that regard.) When Moore got a call from Scarton, he told her that he did not know who the Cano-Lopez brothers were, that they were not his employees, and that he had coverage for all of his bona fide employees. He has no recollection of telling Scarton that he believed he had 24 hours to get the workers covered by insurance. Scarton asked Moore to come to the job site and he complied with her request. At the job site, Scarton served Moore with a Stop Work Order (SWO) and explained that he needed to cease doing business until it was addressed. The basis of the SWO was that two putative employees, the Cano-Lopez brothers, did not have workers’ compensation insurance coverage. The Stop Work Order and Penalty Assessment At the same time, Scarton made a request for business records in order to determine what penalty should be assessed. The request had a list of various types of documents needed by the Department to make its penalty assessment. Moore was given 20 days to produce the records to the Department. Moore contacted his bank about obtaining the requested records. He was told that it would take five to seven days to pull the records together, but in fact it took more than three weeks. The records were therefore not timely submitted to the Department. Based upon the absence of business records, the Department calculated a penalty assessment which imputed income to the Cano-Lopez brothers for a period of three years. This assessment was in accordance with the Department’s rules and guidelines. A penalty assessment of $61,568.36 was imposed on Sunburst. After the penalty assessment was calculated by the Department, the requested business records were eventually received from the bank by Moore. The records contained summaries of statements, but did not include check images. The check images were provided at a later date. However, the check images showed a large number of checks made out to “cash” so the Department could not really ascertain whether any of them were for payroll or not. Moore explained that his employee leasing company required cash, so each week he would find out what amount was needed and issue a check made payable to “cash” and obtain the needed funds. Moore’s explanation is plausible. The Department did not take heed of the business records provided by Moore because they did not arrive within the prescribed 20-day window. The Department’s auditor did, however, create a draft penalty assessment based upon the records.1/ The Cano-Lopez Brothers The dispositive issue in this case appears to be the employee status of Eddie and Jeronimo Cano-Lopez. Eddie testified at final hearing (through an interpreter) that he has never been an employee of Sunburst. He and his brother were at the job site on April 30 for the purpose of obtaining employment, but they were never hired and have never been paid for doing any work for Sunburst. There are no check images or other business records that reflect Sunburst ever paid the Cano-Lopez brothers for doing work. Moore did not hire them and did not know they were at the work site on April 30 until advised by Barbecho and Scarton that very day. Moore’s denial that he told Scarton he was intending to add the Cano-Lopez brothers to his insurance coverage within 24 hours is credible. Scarton inspects 45 to 55 business sites per month and could easily be confused about who told her they were adding employees. After 35 years in the industry, it is unlikely Moore would be confused about the requirements for coverage of his employees. The foreman, Barbecho, met the Cano-Lopez brothers for the first time on April 30 at the job site. He knew that in order to work for Sunburst, the brothers would first have to fill out an application. In fact, the Cano-Lopez brothers filled out an application after the SWO had been entered. The applications were delivered to Sunburst’s employee leasing company the next day in hopes of alleviating the SWO. But as the SWO was still in place, the Cano-Lopez brothers never engaged in work for Sunburst, and have not to this day. And in the words of the Department’s investigator, “An employee is someone who is being paid by the business.” Scarton testimony, transcript page 46. The Department calculated its penalty assessment as follows: It ascertained the average wage for construction laborers and assigned that figure to each of the Cano-Lopez brothers. The appropriate class code was assigned. A period of three years of non-compliance was imputed, per rule. The gross payroll for that three-year period was assigned to each of the brothers. The gross payroll amount was divided by 100. The resulting sum was multiplied by the manual rate, resulting in a premium. The premium was then multiplied by 1.5 to reach the penalty amount. The calculation of the penalty was based upon the mistaken presumption that the Cano-Lopez brothers were employees of Sunburst. It is clear from the evidence presented that neither Eddie nor Jeronimo Cano-Lopez were ever employees of Sunburst. Scarton’s recollection of the events (without the benefit of any contemporaneous note) was refuted by the testimony of Moore, Barbecho, Raley, and Eddie Cano-Lopez, thus her testimony does not constitute clear and convincing evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Financial Services rescinding the Stop-Work Order and Amended Penalty Assessment. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of January, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of January, 2015.
The Issue Whether Petitioner failed to secure worker’s compensation coverage for seven employees who worked from February 28, 2006, to March 3, 2006, in violation of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and whether, as a result, Petitioner should be assessed a penalty in the amount of $1,115.52.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation ("the Division"), is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers provide workers' compensation coverage for their employees. Subsection 440.107, Florida Statutes (2006). Petitioner, Boudreau Concrete, Inc. (BCI), was, at all relevant times, an employer and engaged in concrete construction work in Florida. John Cipyak is a vice president with Builders Plus, a Boynton Beach Company hired to work on a Westview Office Building Site, in Port St. Lucie, Florida. Builders Plus subcontracted with BCI to perform pre-concrete form carpentry work at the site, including construction of the foundation and panels into which the concrete slab would be poured. Near the end of February 2006, Mr. Cipyak told Mr. Boudreau that the Westview project was falling behind schedule and that BCI needed more laborers on the job. Mr. Cipyak testified that Mr. Boudreau specifically agreed that his company, BCI, would hire sufficient additional manpower and would not use subcontractors. That agreement was not reduced to writing. In response to the need for additional laborers, the Division claims that BCI violated the applicable statutes and the insurance code by hiring seven carpenters, who worked at the Westview site from February 27, 2006, through March 3, 2006, as employees of BCI without providing workers' compensation insurance coverage for them. The seven carpenters are Dimas Zelaya, Francisco Figueroa, Gerardo Nava, Hector Sevilla, Jeremias Martinez, Carlos Quevedo and Jesse Hernandez. BCI claims that the seven carpenters were employees of a subcontractor, J. A. J. Construction Company, owned by Jose Alfredo Jiminez, and that Mr. Jiminez, BCI believed, carried the required workers' compensation insurance. The arrangements to have the additional workers on the project were made during a telephone call between Mr. Boudreau, Mr. Jiminez and Mr. Zelaya, who got the other six men to come with him and once they reported to the job, served as a translator for them. On March 2, 2006, Lynn Cornelius, a manager with Woodland Construction Company, Inc. (“Woodland”), sent an e-mail to Thomas Puglis, of the Division, listing the names of seven former employees of Woodland who had left Woodland’s employment, on February 24, 2006, to work for a subcontractor on another project. He named the same seven people who started work on the Westview site on the following Monday, February 27, 2006. On March 3, 2006, Mr. Puglis and Lieutenant Vance Akins, both investigators for the Division, visited the construction site where the seven former Woodland employees were working. With the assistance of an interpreter over the telephone, because no Spanish speaker was available for the site visit, the investigators instructed the seven workers to fill out Spanish language questionnaires for public works contractor licensing, provided by St. Lucie County. The investigators also tape recorded a statement from the only one of the seven men who spoke some English, Dimas Zelaya, during which, at best, he could be understood to have recognized and identified a picture of Mr. Boudreau. Lieutenant Akins telephoned another Division investigator Robert Barnes from the work site. Mr. Barnes testified that he telephoned someone who identified himself as Todd Freeman, a BCI employee, from whom he got the name of William Yocum of First Financial Employee Leasing, Inc., as the leasing company that provided workers' compensation coverage for BCI. Although he had no personal knowledge about where the seven carpenters were working from February 27 through March 3, 2006, Mr. Yocum noted that they were not covered on the policy for BCI and that the failure of BCI to report the names of all of its employees to the leasing company would violate the agreement between those two companies. Mr. Boudreau, on behalf of BCI, wrote a check dated March 10, 2006, to J. A. J. Construction Services, Inc., for $3860.00, with the notation "7 men - 2/27-3/3." BCI had no evidence of a written agreement with J. A. J. and the compensation to J. A. J. was solely for the wages earned by the carpenters. The Division's case is essentially based on the inference, without corroborating evidence, that Mr. Boudreau fabricated the subcontractor relationship and furthered that deception by writing the check after he knew BCI was being investigated for failure to secure workers’ compensation insurance. The Division based its assertion on the fact that Mr. Boudreau could not name the subcontractor during his first interviews by Mr. Barnes, saying that he was dealing with the subcontractor through Mr. Zelaya. The Division also presented evidence to demonstrate that the nature of the working relationship between BCI and the seven men was that of employer and employee, not independent contractors. That evidence was inconclusive. Although Mr. Boudreau kept their time sheets and personally supervised the work at the job site everyday from Monday through Thursday, with the assistance of Mr. Zelaya, as a translator, the carpenters brought their own tools and used materials and supplies provided by Builders Plus. The argument that J. A. J.'s role was administrative in nature is not convincing, since the same can be said of the leasing company, with which the Division asserted BCI should have obtained coverage. Mr. Barnes testified that he reviewed records of J. A. J., that someone from his office questioned Mr. Jiminez, and that they determined that the seven carpenters were not covered by J. A. J.'s workers' compensation policy during the time that they were working for Mr. Boudreau, based on some sworn statement made by Mr. Jiminez to the investigators. Mr. Jiminez did not appear as a witness in this case. The Division's investigator conceded that the Division did not determine whether or not the seven workers should have been on the J. A. J. policy. Mr. Zelaya testified that he spoke to Mr. Jiminez about getting more pay and understood that he would ". . . work with the license and insurance of Jose Jiminez. Mr. Boudreau was going to pay Jose and Jose was to pay me." Further, he stated that "Jose gets the workers, Jose makes a dollar off of the pay that we make. Mr. Boudreau was to give Jose a check, and Jose was to pay us, but Jose never paid us." Before he paid Mr. Jiminez, Mr. Boudreau requested and received from J. A. J. a workers' compensation policy, but that certificate of insurance was dated March 6, 2006, and did not appear to cover BCI for the prior week. At the same time, Mr. Boudreau added some of the workers to his own lease company policy, in an apparent attempt to continue the job, but was unable to do so after the stop work order was issued.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division enter a final order rescinding the Stop Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment, Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of June, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELEANOR M. HUNTER 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, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: John M. Iriye, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Workers' Compensation 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 Mary Morris, Esquire Morris & Morris, P.A. 224 Datura Street, Suite 300 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Honorable Alex Sink Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Daniel Sumner, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation's (Department's) Stop Work Order and Second Amended Penalty Assessment and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with enforcement of the laws related to workers' compensation pursuant to Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. On August 15, 2006, Katina Johnson, a workers' compensation compliance investigator for the Division, observed two men painting the exterior of a home at 318 First Street, in Jacksonville. The two men were identified as William Furr and his son, Corey Furr. Upon inquiry, Mr. Furr stated that he held a lifetime exemption from workers' compensation requirements. He provided to Ms. Johnson a copy of his exemption card, which was issued April 30, 1995, in the name of Arby's Painting & Decorating. The exemption card had no apparent expiration date. 4. In 1998, Sections 440.05(3) and 440.05(6), Florida Statutes, were amended, effective January 1, 1999, to limit the duration of construction workers' compensation exemptions to a period of two years. Express language in the amended statute provided that previously held "lifetime exemptions" from workers' compensation requirements would expire on the last day of the birth month of the exemption holder in the year 1999. Ms. Johnson researched Respondent's status on the Department's Compliance and Coverage System (CCAS) database that contains all workers compensation insurance policy information from the carrier to an insured, and determined that Respondent did not have a State of Florida workers' compensation insurance policy. The CCAS database indicated that Respondent previously held an exemption as a partner for Arby's Painting and Decorating, and that the exemption expired December 31, 1999. Ms. Johnson also checked the National Council on Compensation Insurance ("NCCI") database which confirmed that Respondent did not have a current workers' compensation insurance policy in the State of Florida. After conferring with her supervisor, Ms. Johnson issued a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment to Respondent on August 15, 2006. She also made a request for business records for the purpose of calculating a penalty for lack of coverage. Respondent submitted a written payroll record for his son, Corey Furr, along with a summary of what Respondent had earned on various jobs he performed from 2004 through 2006 and a Miscellaneous Income Tax Form 1099 for himself. On August 30, 2006, he also provided to the Department a copy of his occupational license with the City of Jacksonville. Based on the financial records supplied by Respondent, Ms. Johnson calculated a penalty for a single day, August 15, 2006, for Corey Furr. She calculated a penalty from January 1, 2005, through August 15, 2006, for William Furr. Ms. Johnson assigned a class code to the type of work performed by Respondent using the SCOPES Manual, multiplied the class code's assigned approved manual rate with the payroll per one hundred dollars, and then multiplied the result by 1.5. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a penalty of $5,296.37. A Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was issued November 1, 2006, with a penalty of $5,592.95. This Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was issued because Ms. Johnson used the incorrect period of violation for Respondent when she initially calculated the penalty. On August 25, 2006, Respondent entered into a Payment Agreement Schedule for periodic payment of the penalty, and was issued an Order of Conditional Release from Stop-Work Order by the Department. Respondent paid ten percent of the assessed penalty, provided proof of compliance with Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by forming a new company and securing workers' compensation exemptions for both himself and his son, Corey Furr, and agreed to pay the remaining penalty in sixty equal monthly payments. Respondent claims that he was not aware of the change in the law and continued to operate under the belief that his "lifetime exemption" remained valid. Although under no statutory obligation to do so, the Department sent a form letter to persons on record as holding exemptions to inform them of the change in the law and the process to be followed to obtain a new exemption.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Division of Workers' Compensation enter a Final Order affirming the Stop Work Order issued August 15, 2006, and the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued to Respondent on November 1, 2006. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 23rd day of February, 2007.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Pro Quality Enterprises, LLC (“Pro Quality”), should have a penalty assessed against it by Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (the “Department”), for failure to have workers’ compensation insurance in place, and, if so, the amount of such penalty or assessment.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the State agency responsible for, inter alia, insuring that all businesses operating in this State have workers’ compensation insurance coverage. Pro Quality is a duly-formed and validly-existing limited liability company in the State of Florida. The company was formed on April 23, 2012, for the purpose of conducting any and all lawful business. At the time of its formation, Gabor Albok and Jaco Kotze were the named managers of the company. Mr. Albok was also the registered agent. Mr. Albok created the company when he first came to the United States from his native Hungary. He envisioned using the entity for some business purpose, i.e., perhaps shipping automobiles back to Europe. When that venture did not pan out, Mr. Albok came up with the idea of being a referral source for businesses engaged in the construction industry, e.g., painters, carpenters, lawn services, roofers, etc. On January 14, 2014, Jose Bird, a compliance investigator with the Department, conducted an investigation at 47 Lake Walk, Palm Coast, Florida. Upon arrival at the site at around 11:30 a.m., Mr. Bird saw a person (later identified as Mr. Albok) “doing touch-up work” with a paint brush and then cleaning the brush. Mr. Bird approached Mr. Albok, identified himself as an investigator for the Department, and asked Mr. Albok to identify himself. Mr. Albok complied with the request, including the name of his company, Pro Quality. Mr. Albok did not attempt to hide from the investigator or avoid his questions; he was fully cooperative at all times. Mr. Bird then asked Mr. Albok to provide proof of identity, so Mr. Albok went to his car to retrieve his wallet. At that time he realized he had left his wallet somewhere, so he hurriedly left in his car to return to the 7-11 store he had visited that morning to see if they had his wallet. Meanwhile, Mr. Bird used the information he had received from Mr. Albok to begin his investigation as to whether Pro Quality had workers’ compensation insurance coverage required by someone in the painting business. He found that it did not have such coverage after checking the Department’s compliance and coverage automated system. Mr. Bird, operating under the assumption that Mr. Albok was a painter, provided his findings to his supervisor and was directed to issue an SWO and request for business records. He prepared the documents and they were sent via certified mail to Mr. Albok at his address of record. Mr. Albok responded by providing such business records as he could locate, but maintained that he did not have workers’ compensation insurance coverage because he was not engaged in an activity that required such insurance. Specifically, Mr. Albok explained that he was not a painter, had never been a painter, had never employed a painter in his business, and could not understand why the Department thought otherwise. Mr. Albok was not engaged in any construction-related business. Pro Quality was a company that attempted to help persons building a new home to find professionals who might assist in the development and maintenance of the new home. Pro Quality would then get a referral fee from the companies if they were hired. He was not an employee of any of the companies and performed no services for them nor were the professionals he referred employees of Pro Quality. At the time Mr. Bird arrived at the work site in Palm Coast, Mr. Albok was talking to a painter at the house who he had referred to the homeowner. He touched up a spot on a windowsill and was helping the painter clean his brushes as they talked. He had wiped a brush on the windowsill and was bending down to spray it off as he talked. He had not been painting and the painter was not under his employ, nor was he under the painter’s employ. Mr. Albok’s testimony was credible and is accepted as true. The Department did not provide any evidence to refute Mr. Albok’s assertions in this matter. Mr. Bird’s short observation and minimal inquiry to Mr. Albok was insufficient to establish that Mr. Albok was a painter working at the job site. The Department nonetheless found that Pro Quality was engaged in the business of painting, issued a penalty assessment based on that presumption, and calculated a penalty of $20,727.38, later reduced to $15,215.68. Based upon the determination that Mr. Albok and Pro Quality were not engaged in the business of painting (or other work requiring workers’ compensation insurance), there is no basis for calculating a penalty assessment or imposing a penalty against the company.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered rescinding the Stop-Work Order entered against Pro Quality Enterprises, LLC, and all penalties assessed therefrom. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of August, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of August, 2016.
The Issue The issues to determine in this matter are whether Respondent Alpha and Omega Builders of Jacksonville, Inc., failed to secure workers’ compensation coverage for its employees; and, if so, whether Petitioner Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (Department), correctly calculated the penalty assessment it imposed against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with enforcing the requirement of chapter 440 that employers in Florida secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage for their employees. See § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Respondent is a corporation located in Jacksonville, Florida, engaged in the roofing industry. Ms. Beckstrom, the Jacksonville supervisor for workers’ compensation compliance investigators, testified at the final hearing. Ms. Beckstrom largely read from the January 30, 2018, investigative report and narrative completed by Investigator Frank Odom, who did not testify at the final hearing.1/ Ms. Beckstrom did not perform the investigation of Respondent, but authorized Mr. Odom to do so. On January 30, 2018, Mr. Odom investigated the worksite at 5065 Soutel Drive, Jacksonville, Florida, which is the J. Fralin Funeral Home, a commercial business (the Soutel Drive site). Mr. Odom’s narrative stated, “[a]s I approached the site I observed 3 individuals on the roof installing shingles.” Much of the remaining portions of Mr. Odom’s narrative, which ultimately led to his determination that Respondent employed these three individuals without workers’ compensation insurance, is inadmissible hearsay. Although Ms. Beckstrom testified extensively on what Mr. Odom wrote in the investigative report and narrative, the undersigned cannot base findings of fact on inadmissible hearsay unless it explains or supplements other evidence. In contrast, Mr. Jessie, the owner of Respondent, testified at the final hearing that Mr. Odom contacted him the morning of January 30, 2018, by telephone. When Mr. Odom asked if Respondent had three individuals working on the Soutel Drive site, Mr. Jessie testified that he told Mr. Odom that these individuals were not supposed to be working.2/ Mr. Jessie stated that when he arrived at the Soutel Drive site after receiving the call from Mr. Odom, the three individuals had left. On cross-examination, Mr. Jessie did not recognize the names of Roberto Flores, Alex Alvarado, or Dagoberto Lopez, who Mr. Odom identified in the investigative report and narrative as the three individuals working on the roof at the Soutel Drive site. Mr. Jessie testified that he normally employs workers through an organization called Action Labor, who in turn secures the applicable workers’ compensation insurance for them. Mr. Jessie testified that he had arranged, through Action Labor, for three individuals to work on the Soutel Drive site, and that Action Labor had provided him a “ticket” for three individuals to work at the site. His testimony is credited. Although not crystal clear from his testimony, the undersigned understood Mr. Jessie to refer to Action Labor as an employee leasing company.3/ Mr. Jessie further testified that after meeting with Mr. Odom at the Soutel Drive site, he received a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment, as well as a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation (Request for Production). The Request for Production requested several categories of business records from Respondent, for the time period of January 31, 2016, through January 30, 2018, to determine Respondent’s payroll during that time period (audit period). The Request for Production requested that Respondent provide all payroll documents, account documents, disbursements, workers’ compensation coverage, temporary labor service and day labor service records, subcontractors, and documentation of subcontractors’ workers’ compensation insurance coverage. At the final hearing, Ms. Murcia, the Department’s penalty auditor, testified that because Respondent had not timely provided sufficient records in response to the Request for Production, the Department issued the Amended Order. Ms. Murcia testified that the Department received some records requested pursuant to the Request for Production in February 2019 (which was well after the response deadline of 10 business days), but that they were incomplete and thus not sufficient to calculate a penalty. Because Respondent failed to provide sufficient records in response to the Request for Production, the Department calculated the Amended Order based on a completely imputed payroll. Ms. Murcia explained that the Department calculates a gross payroll for an employer (who provides insufficient records) at the statewide average weekly wage multiplied by 1.5 for each employee for the period requested for the calculation of the penalty. Based on this imputation calculation, the Amended Order imposed a penalty in the amount of $166,791.18. The evidence presented at the final hearing was insufficient to establish that the three individuals observed at the Soutel Drive site on January 30, 2018, were Respondent’s employees or subcontractors on that day or at any time during the audit period. The evidence presented at the final hearing established that Respondent failed to timely present sufficient records pursuant to the Request for Production.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the undersigned recommends that the Department enter a final order dismissing the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment, and the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of April, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT J. TELFER 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 3rd day of April, 2019.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Ocala Exterior Solutions, Inc., failed to properly maintain workers' compensation insurance coverage for its employees, and, if so, what penalty should be assessed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for ensuring that all employers maintain workers' compensation insurance for themselves and their employees. It is the duty of the Department to make random inspections of job sites and to answer complaints concerning potential violations of workers' compensation rules. This case arose as a result of a random inspection. Respondent is a business created by Johnny Busciglio on or about October 16, 2012. At all times relevant hereto, Respondent was duly licensed to do business in the State of Florida. Its business address is 140 Southwest 74th Lane, Ocala, Florida 34476. On May 22, 2015, the Department’s investigator, William Pangrass, made a random site visit to a construction site located at a residence at 9189 Southwest 60th Terrace Road, Ocala, Florida. He saw two men installing soffit as part of the construction which was going on. Pangrass remembers the men identifying themselves as Derek McVey and Frank Deil. When Pangrass inquired as to their employer, the two men were initially not certain for whom they were working. One of the men made a telephone call and then told Pangrass they were employees of Sauer & Sons. Interestingly, Respondent said the two men on-site that day were McVey and a man named James Van Brunt. Pangrass contacted Sauer & Sons and were told that neither McVey nor Deil (or Van Brunt) were employees of that company. He was told by a representative of Sauer & Sons that the men were in fact employees of Respondent. Pangrass then verified that Respondent was a current, viable company and checked whether the company had workers’ compensation insurance coverage for its employees. He found that Respondent had a workers’ compensation insurance policy for a short time in 2014. Two of Respondent’s employees, however, did have exemptions from coverage. Those two were Johnny Busciglio and Anthony Wayne. Based on his findings, Pangrass issued a SWO which he posted at the work site he had visited. He posted the SWO on the permit board in front of the job site on May 26, 2015. On May 29, he served a Request for Production of Business Records on Respondent, seeking information concerning Respondent’s business for purposes of calculating a penalty for failure to have workers’ compensation insurance in place. Respondent emailed the requested business records to Pangrass. The Department requested additional records and clarification concerning some of the records which had been provided. Busciglio made a good faith effort to respond to each of the Department’s requests. After review of Respondent’s business records, the Department calculated a penalty and issued an amended OPA. That amended OPA was issued on September 8 and served on Busciglio (as agent for Respondent) on October 1, 2015. The amount of the penalty in the amended OPA was $9,896.32. Within a few days after receiving the amended Order, Busciglio obtained workers’ compensation insurance for his employees, paid a down payment of $1,000 to the Department, and Respondent was released to resume its work. The penalty in the amended OPA was based upon information obtained from Busciglio concerning Respondent. Using the bank records supplied by Busciglio, the Department determined that Respondent had the following employees: Eric McVey, Frank Dorneden, Jeff Burns, Jordan Anchondo, Anthony Wayne, Nikki Smith, Johnny Busciglio, and Jason Bridge. Their wages were used by the Department to calculate the penalty. The penalty was calculated by the Department as follows: The business was assigned class code 5645, construction on residential dwellings; The period of non-compliance was set at two years; The gross payroll amount for that two-year period was established at $30,905.14; The gross payroll amount was divided by 100, resulting in the sum of $309.05; The approved manual rate, i.e., the amount the employer would have paid if insurance was in place, was assigned for each employee; The gross payroll was multiplied by the manual rate; And the penalty amount was established, taking the figure in (f), above, and multiplying by two. Busciglio established by credible testimony, unrefuted by the Department, that Nikki Smith was a person from whom he bought tools; she was never an employee of Respondent. The same was true for the person listed as Jason Bridge (although his real name may have been Jason Woolridge). As for Eric McVey, he worked for Frank Dorneden, who paid McVey directly. There were no payroll records or checks from Respondent provided to the Department which were attributable to McVey. Dorneden had begun working for Respondent on December 22, 2014. On May 22, 2015, he was asked by Busciglio to visit the work site; he found McVey working there and Deil/Van Brunt was also on the site. Neither the Department nor Respondent offered any further explanation about Deil/Van Brunt, nor did the Department attribute any penalty to Van Brunt as a putative employee. His status in this matter is a mystery. When the penalties associated with McVey, Smith, and Bride are subtracted from the calculation, the amount of the penalty would be $9,454.22.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Financial Services requiring Respondent, Ocala Exterior Solutions, Inc., to pay the sum of $9,454.22. DONE AND ORDERED this 20th day of November, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of November, 2015.
The Issue Whether Jax Painting and Restoration, Inc. (“Respondent”), failed to secure the payment of workers’ compensation insurance coverage for its employees; and, if so, whether the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (“Petitioner” or “Department”), correctly calculated the penalty to be assessed against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with enforcing the requirement of chapter 440, Florida Statutes, that employers in Florida secure workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Respondent was a Florida for-profit corporation doing business in Jacksonville, Florida, from May 1, 2014, until it was administratively dissolved on September 23, 2016. Michael Percival was Respondent’s President and Registered Agent, with a mailing address of 4833 De Kalb Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida. On April 25, 2016, Deryk Gallegos, the Department’s Compliance Investigator, encountered Mr. Percival and Richard Hill at a home under renovation at 4254 Marquette Avenue in Jacksonville. Mr. Gallegos observed the two men cutting raw wood and installing trim around the doorway. Mr. Gallegos identified himself and requested proof of workers’ compensation insurance. Mr. Percival identified himself as Respondent’s owner, and Mr. Hill as an employee. Mr. Percival indicated both men were exempt from workers’ compensation insurance coverage. Mr. Gallegos consulted the Secretary of State, Division of Corporations “Sunbiz” website and identified Respondent as an active Florida corporation and Mr. Percival as its only corporate officer. Mr. Gallegos consulted the Department’s Coverage Compliance Automated System (“CCAS”) and found Respondent had no workers’ compensation policy. However, CCAS revealed an exemption on file for Mr. Percival. CCAS showed no exemption for Mr. Hill and no coverage for him separately. After consulting his supervisor via telephone, Mr. Gallegos issued Mr. Percival a Stop-Work Order and a Business Records Request (“BRR”). The BRR requested records to establish Respondent’s payroll in order to calculate the penalty for failure to secure workers’ compensation coverage for Respondent’s employees. Some months later, on August 3, 2016, Mr. Percival met with Department Compliance Facilitator, Pete Vallejo, who reviewed the BRR with Mr. Percival and explained the types of business records needed to establish Respondent’s payroll, including bank statements, check images, W-2 forms, tax returns, and a cash ledger, for the audit period of May 7, 2014 through April 25, 2016. Later that month, Mr. Percival emailed Mr. Vallejo a W-2 form for Mr. Hill and two pay stubs for checks issued to Mr. Hill. Mr. Vallejo reviewed the documents and informed Mr. Percival that additional records were still needed to establish payroll, including bank statements, check images, and a cash ledger. The W-2 form submitted by Mr. Percival was for Mr. Hill’s employment by “Ally HR, Inc.” for 2016. It reflects total wages paid in the amount of $17,572.70. One of the pay stubs submitted by Mr. Percival was to Mr. Hill from “Southside Paint + More, Inc.,” on May 15, 2015, showing total year-to-date earnings of $3,615. Mr. Percival’s intent was to establish that Mr. Hill did not work full-time for Respondent during the audit period. The documents are insufficient to determine Respondent’s payroll to Mr. Hill during the audit period. At the end of August, Mr. Vallejo received additional records from Mr. Percival, including bank statements, check images, and a cash ledger. Bank statements submitted by Mr. Percival for the audit period were insufficient to establish Respondent’s payroll. The bank statements revealed over $260,000 in cash withdrawals. A cash ledger provided by Mr. Percival allocated the majority of the cash payments to materials. Respondent submitted no backup records to substantiate the cash ledger payments. The Department requested, but did not receive, from Respondent, tax returns, receipts, and invoices from Respondent to verify the listed cash transactions. The cash ledger allocated payroll to Mr. Hill beginning on February 5, 2016, and ending on April 25, 2016, in a total amount of $3,310. The Department’s Lead Auditor, Lawrence Pickle, calculated the penalty assessed in the Department’s Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. Because the records submitted by Mr. Percival were insufficient to establish Respondent’s payroll for the audit period, Mr. Pickle imputed the payroll based on the statutory formula. See § 440.107(7)(d)1., Fla. Stat. Based upon Mr. Gallegos’ observations of the work being performed at the jobsite, Mr. Pickle determined that the type of construction work performed was carpentry. Mr. Pickle consulted the Scopes Manual published by the National Council on Compensation Insurance and utilized classification code 5645, the carpentry classification for construction or remodeling of residences not exceeding three stories in height, for purposes of calculating the penalty. Mr. Pickle then applied the corresponding approved manual rates for classification code 5645 for the related periods of non-compliance.1/ Mr. Pickle applied the correct approved manual rates and correctly utilized the methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)1. and Florida Administrative Code Rules 69L-6.027 and 69L-6.028 to determine the penalty to be imposed. Because Respondent did not provide records sufficient to determine its payroll during the audit period, Mr. Pickle correctly assigned the statewide average weekly wage (“AWW”) to the employees identified on the jobsite on the date in question. § 440.107(7)(e), Fla. Stat. Mr. Pickle likewise correctly utilized the AWW multiplied by two when applying the statutory formula for calculating the penalty to be assessed. See § 440.107(7)(d)1., Fla. Stat. On August 3, 2016, the Department hand-delivered Mr. Percival an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessing a penalty of $59,195.14, which was fully imputed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, finding that Jax Painting and Restoration, Inc., violated the workers’ compensation insurance law and assessing a penalty of $59,195.14. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of October, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of October, 2017.
