Findings Of Fact 1. On December 21, 2010, the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (hereinafter “Department”) issued an Order of Penalty Assessment in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 10-388-D4-OPA to DIABETES AND ENDOCRINE CENTER OF FLORIDA, P.A. for a total assessed penalty of $2,994.10. The Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein DIABETES AND ENDOCRINE CENTER OF FLORIDA, P.A. was advised. that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Order of Penalty Assessment must conform to Rule 28-106.2015, Florida Administrative Code. 2. On December 23, 2010, the Order of Penalty Assessment was served by certified mail on DIABETES AND ENDOCRINE CENTER OF FLORIDA, P.A. A copy of the Order of Penalty Assessment with Proof of Service is attached hereto as “Exhibit 1” and incorporated herein by reference. 3. On January 11,2011, DIABETES AND ENDOCRINE CENTER OF FLORIDA, P.A. filed a Petition for Administrative Review Hearing (“Petition”) with the Department. The petition for administrative review was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings on January 20, 2011, and the matter was assigned DOAH Case No. 11-0345. A copy of the petition is attached hereto as “Exhibit 2” and incorporated herein by reference. 4. On February 18, 2011, the Respondent filed with DOAH a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal/Satisfaction of Penalty Assessment and also sent the Department a certified check for $2,994.10. The check was received by the Department’s investigator and deposited into the Workers’ Compensation Trust Fund on Monday, February 17, 2011. A copy of the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal/Satisfaction of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit 3” and incorporated herein by reference. 5. On April 29, 2011, the Department received from DOAH a copy of an Order Relinquishing Jurisdiction and Closing File. A copy of the Order Relinquishing Jurisdiction and Closing File is attached hereto as “Exhibit 4” and incorporated herein by reference 6. The factual allegations contained in the Order of Penalty Assessment, issued on December 21, 2010, are fully incorporated herein by reference, and are adopted as the Department’s Findings of Fact in this matter.
Conclusions THIS PROCEEDING came on for final agency action and Jeff Atwater, Chief Financial Officer of the State of Florida, or his designee, having considered the record in this case, including the Petition received from DIABETES AND ENDOCRINE CENTER OF FLORIDA, P.A., as well as the Order of Penalty Assessment, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby finds that:
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent failed to provide workers' compensation coverage, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing section 440.107. That section mandates, in relevant part, that employers in Florida secure workers' compensation insurance coverage for their employees. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. At all times relevant, All Florida was a Florida corporation engaged in the business of well drilling for water, a construction business, with its principal office located at 2250 Havana Avenue, Fort Myers, Florida. On August 3, 2010, Amy Thielen (Ms. Thielen), a compliance investigator for the Department, conducted an on-site investigation at a work site located at 129 Montrose Street, Fort Myers, Florida. Ms. Thielen observed a parked truck with the All Florida logo on it at this work site and an individual working nearby. After identifying herself to the individual, the individual identified himself as Edward Perez (Mr. Perez), an employee of and working for All Florida at that time. Ms. Thielen then consulted the Department's Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) database to determine if All Florida had workers' compensation coverage. The insurance companies report any workers' compensation coverage to the Department through this CCAS database, which is kept current. The CCAS showed that All Florida had two periods in which its workers' compensation coverage lapsed: March 3, 2009, through October 24, 2009, and a second period when the workers' compensation policy was cancelled from January 9, 2010, to August 3, 2010. Ms. Thielen contacted All Florida's last workers' compensation carrier and was informed that there was no workers' compensation policy in place. There was no workers' compensation coverage in effect on August 3, 2010, when Ms. Thielen confirmed that Mr. Perez was working for All Florida. Ms. Thielen testified that any construction company could obtain an exemption from having workers' compensation coverage through an application to the Department. All Florida did not have an exemption for any corporate officers.2/ Ms. Thielen checked the Department of State, Division of Corporations', records and learned that Robert Henshaw (Mr. Henshaw) was the president and only officer of All Florida. Based on her investigation, Ms. Thielen determined that All Florida did not have the requisite workers' compensation coverage at that time. After consulting with her supervisor, Ms. Thielen issued a Stop-Work Order to All Florida on August 11, 2010. A stop-work order is an enforcement action issued against employers that forces the employer to cease all business operations in Florida until they obtain the requisite workers' compensation coverage and return to full compliance. At the time Ms. Thielen served All Florida with the Stop-Work Order, she also served a request for production of business records for penalty assessment calculation to All Florida. This document requests certain business records from the employer for a three-year period in order for an audit to be performed to properly calculate the penalty assessment. All Florida produced the requested business records to the Department. Melissa Geissler (Ms. Geissler), a penalty calculator for the Department's Bureau of Compliance, calculated the penalty assessment based on All Florida's business records. Based on a review of the produced business records, the initial penalty assessment was $18,216.73. On September 8, 2010, Mr. Henshaw, acting on behalf of All Florida, executed a "payment agreement schedule for periodic payment of penalty" with the Department. Mr. Henshaw paid ten percent of the penalty assessment, put the remainder of the penalty assessment in a payment plan, and obtained the requisite worker's compensation coverage. The Department then issued an "Order of Conditional Release from Stop-Work Order," thus allowing All Florida to continue to operate while paying the remaining penalty assessment in specific increments. After the original penalty assessment order was issued, All Florida submitted additional business records, and the Department sought to and did revise the penalty assessment amount downward. As the case was already at the Division, the Department, with All Florida's consent, requested that a second amended order of penalty assessment be issued, reducing the penalty amount to $13,267.24. On October 20, 2010, the Division issued an Order allowing the second amended order of penalty assessment to be issued. In April 2011, after still more business records were delivered to the Department, the Department issued a third amended order of penalty assessment. This time the penalty assessment was reduced to $12,721.73. On August 24, 2011, the Department filed a motion to amend order of penalty assessment. There was insufficient time for All Florida to respond to the motion, and, at hearing, All Florida, through its president, Mr. Henshaw, voiced no objection to the reduction in the penalty assessment amount. Ms. Geissler's duties at the Department include reviewing financial documentation from employers, identifying payroll transactions, and verifying workers' compensation coverage. Ms. Geissler testified that she utilizes the CCAS database to confirm whether any employer has secured workers' compensation coverage. When she finds a payroll transaction that reflects such coverage, that transaction is not used in the penalty assessment calculation; otherwise, the transaction is used in calculating the coverage cost amount. Ms. Geissler also testified that she utilizes the penalty worksheet authorized in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.027 to aid in the penalty calculation process. Ms. Geissler conducted an audit of All Florida based on the business records it provided to the Department. Ms. Geissler determined the amount of workers' compensation premium that All Florida would have paid had it been in compliance with Florida law between August 12, 2007, and August 11, 2010 (excluding October 25, 2009, through January 8, 2010, when there was coverage). Ms. Geissler testified that, during this three-year period, All Florida was an active construction based employer. It was confirmed that there were four employees (including Mr. Henshaw) of All Florida. In order to calculate the appropriate penalty, Ms. Geissler took 1/100th of the gross payroll and multiplied that figure by the approved manual rate applicable to class code 6204 (the class code designated to specialist contractors engaged in drilling work as found in the approved Scopes Manual3/). The approved manual rates are determined by the National Council on Compensation Insurance, adopted by the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation, and represent the recent trends in workers' compensation loses associated with each individual class code. After reviewing all of the business records submitted by All Florida, and using the applicable formula, Ms. Geissler credibly testified that the final penalty assessment was $12,721.73. Ms. Geissler's calculations for the penalty assessment were performed in accordance with the requirements of section 440.107(7) and rule 69L-6.027. Mr. Henshaw did not provide any testimony during the proceeding, but rather made the statement that there was no point in fighting the allegation, "everything is correct."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that All Florida failed to secure workers' compensation coverage and assessing a penalty of $12,721.73 against All Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of October, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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, 2011.
Findings Of Fact 12. The factual allegations contained in the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment issued on June 11, 2010, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on August 3, 2010, the 2™4 Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on November 9, 2010, and the 3" Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on December 15, 2010, and attached as “Exhibit A” “Exhibit B” “Exhibit D” and “Exhibit F” respectively, and fully incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted as the Department’s Findings of Fact in this case.
Conclusions THIS PROCEEDING came on for final agency action and Jeff Atwater, Chief Financial Officer of the State of Florida, or his designee, having considered the record in this case, including the Petition from DIAGONAL TILE AND MARBLE, INC., the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, the 2™ Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and the 3 Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby finds that: 1. On June 11, 2010, the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (hereinafter “Department”) issued a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 10-317-D3 to DIAGONAL TILE AND MARBLE, INC. The Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein DIAGONAL TILE AND MARBLE, INC. was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, and must conform to Rule 28-106.2015, Florida Administrative Code. 2. On June 11, 2010, the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment was served by personal service on DIAGONAL TILE AND MARBLE, INC. A copy of the Stop- Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit A” and incorporated herein by reference. 3. On August 3, 2010, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to DIAGONAL TILE AND MARBLE, INC. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $16,241.92 against DIAGONAL TILE AND MARBLE, INC. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein DIAGONAL TILE AND MARBLE, INC. was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, and must conform to Rule 28- 106.2015, Florida Administrative Code. 4. On August 31, 2010, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served by process server on DIAGONAL TILE AND MARBLE, INC. A copy of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit B” and incorporated herein by reference. 5. On August 31, 2010, DIAGONAL TILE AND MARBLE, INC. timely filed a request for administrative hearing (hereinafter “Petition”) with the Department. The Petition was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings on September 29, 2010, and the matter was assigned DOAH Case No. 10-9374. A copy of the petition is attached hereto as “Exhibit C” and incorporated herein by reference. 6. On November 9, 2010, the Department issued a 2" Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to DIAGONAL TILE AND MARBLE, INC. The 2"! Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $12,793.30 against DIAGONAL TILE AND MARBLE, INC. 7. On November 15, 2010, upon motion by the Department, the Administrative Law Judge entered an order accepting the 2’ Amended Order of Penalty Assessment and allowing it to supersede any previously entered Order of Penalty Assessment. A copy of the 2™ Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit D” and incorporated herein by reference. 8. On December 15, 2010, the Department issued a 3" Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to DIAGONAL TILE AND MARBLE, INC. The 3! Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $2,268.83 against DIAGONAL TILE AND MARBLE, INC. The 3 Amended Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein DIAGONAL TILE AND MARBLE, INC. was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the 3 Amended Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the 3" Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, and must conform to Rule 28- 106.2015, Florida Administrative Code. 9. On January 18, 2011, upon motion of the parties, the Administrative Law Judge issued an Order Relinquishing Jurisdiction and Closing File. A copy of the Order Relinquishing Jurisdiction and Closing File is attached hereto as “Exhibit E” and incorporated herein by reference. 10. On September 10, 2011, the 3 Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served by certified mail on DIAGONAL TILE AND MARBLE, INC. A copy of the 314 Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit F” and incorporated herein by reference. 11. DIAGONAL TILE AND MARBLE, INC. failed to answer the 3 Amended Order of Penalty Assessment or request a proceeding in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent willfully has failed or refused to file a CE Form 1, Statement of Financial Interests (Form 1), for 2015, in violation of section 112.3145(8)(c), Florida Statutes (2018).
Findings Of Fact Respondent is presently employed by Miami-Dade County as a Purchasing Specialist in the Water and Sewer Department. She has worked for Miami-Dade County continuously since 1997 when she was hired as a clerical worker in the Water and Sewer Department. She assumed procurement duties when she earned a promotion in 2006 to her present position. In 2011, changes in internal operations in the Water and Sewer Department resulted in the assignment to Respondent of spending authority of up to $25,000, and Respondent has filed Forms 1, evidently without litigation, for 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2016. In her job, Respondent routinely documents whether county vendors have performed their contractual obligations. When a vendor fails to perform, Respondent contacts the vendor in an attempt to secure performance. If the vendor's nonperformance persists, Respondent places the vendor on probation. Prior to her employment with Miami-Dade County, Respondent worked for 17 years as a clerical worker with AT&T. By May 15, 2016, the Commission transmitted to the Miami-Dade County Supervisor of Elections a list of persons, including Respondent, who were required to file a Form 1 for 2015 by the deadline of July 1, 2016. On February 26, March 25, and April 22, 2016, the Supervisor of Elections emailed Respondent reminders to file timely her 2015 Form 1, and Respondent received each of these email reminders. On May 27, 2016, the Supervisor of Elections mailed Respondent a detailed letter reminding her of the obligation to file a Form 1 by July 1, supplying the necessary form, and indicating how to file the completed form. Respondent received this letter. Respondent testified that, in the spring of 2016, she was under considerable stress from a marital separation that had commenced when her husband had moved out of the marital home in February 2015. Undoubtedly, Respondent was distraught over the prospect of the failure of a marriage of 35 years' duration, but she timely filed her 2014 Form 1 shortly after the separation had taken place. Three factors are important for determining whether Respondent's failure to file from July 2, 2016, through August 30, 2017, was willful. First, Respondent's employment history includes many years of clerical work and 12 years of managing contracts for the Water and Sewer Department. Clearly, Respondent understands the importance of paperwork, knows how to complete and file forms, and recognizes that there are consequences for failing to file completed forms timely. Second, Respondent had filed four Forms 1 for the four years preceding 2015, so she was well aware of her annual duty to file this financial disclosure and of the general timeframe for when the form was due. Third, the Commission and Respondent's Supervisor of Elections showered Respondent with notices to file the 2015 Form 1. In addition to the above-noted communications prior to July 1, on July 29, 2016, the Supervisor of Elections mailed Respondent, by certified mail, a detailed letter advising that she was delinquent in filing a Form 1, but could file within a grace period that ended on September 1, 2016. This letter warns that a fine of $25 per day, up to $1500, would begin to accrue if the form is not filed by September 1 and, if Respondent fails to file the form within 60 days after the expiration of the grace period on September 1, "you will also be subject to penalties provided in Florida Statute 112.317." Respondent received this delinquency notice. On August 17, 2016, the Commission issued a courtesy notice, in the form of a bright orange postcard, advising Respondent that the grace period for filing the 2015 Form 1 would expire on September 1, 2016, and warning that she would accrue a fine of $25 per day (Automatic Fine) until she filed the form or accrued a total of $1500 in fines (Maximum Automatic Fine). On September 7, 2016, the Commission sent a courtesy letter advising Respondent that the grace period had expired on September 1, and the Automatic Fine was accruing and would continue to accrue until it reached the Maximum Automatic Fine. Respondent received these courtesy communications. On March 2, 2017, the Commission issued to Respondent a Notice of Assessment of Automatic Fine, which is the Maximum Automatic Fine. The notice advises how to appeal the Maximum Automatic Fine and even identifies acceptable grounds for setting aside the fine. The notice concludes that, if Respondent failed to appeal or pay the Maximum Automatic Fine within 30 days, a default order would be issued that could refer the matter to a collection agency or her employer for withholding a portion of her salary until the fine was paid. The notice also warns that the Commission could impose "[a]n additional civil penalty . . . if . . . a complaint is filed against you pursuant to Section 112.324, Florida Statutes." Respondent received this notice. On May 23, 2017, the Commission issued a Final Notice of Assessment of Automatic Fine for Failure to Timely File Form 1, Statement of Financial Interests. This letter advises that Respondent had waived her right to appeal the Maximum Automatic Fine and restates the rights of the Commission to obtain payment of the fine. Respondent received this notice. On August 2, 2017, the Commission issued a Notification of Issuance of Default Final Order advising Respondent that, if she failed to pay the Maximum Automatic Fine by September 7, 2017, the Commission would refer the matter to a collection agency. This letter warns that a failure to pay or arrange to pay the fine by the deadline would result in a copy of the Default Final Order being sent to Respondent's agency head. Respondent received this notice. On August 31, 2017, Respondent filed her 2015 and 2016 Forms 1. Based on the above-cited facts, Respondent's failure to file the 2015 Form 1 from July 2, 2016, through August 30, 2017, was intentional and, thus, willful. Addressing solely the collection of the Maximum Automatic Fine, on September 7, 2017, the Commission sent Respondent a letter stating that a recent statutory change required the Commission to notify her agency head to implement withholding from her salary. On October 11, 2017, the Commission sent a letter to the Finance Manager of the Miami-Dade County Finance Department. The letter states that, "[t]o timely resolve this matter," which refers to the Maximum Automatic Fine, the Commission requested that the manager withhold a portion of Respondent's salary and remit it to the Commission. The Finance Manager implemented salary withholding, typically $174.11 per month, as of November 6, 2017, and the Commission received the final payment on March 6, 2018, for a total of $1500. None of Respondent's Forms 1 for the years 2011 through 2016 discloses financial interests above the disclosure thresholds. At this point, as she explained tearfully at the hearing, Respondent is merely trying to keep her job so she can work a few more years and retire with a pension on which she can live.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order dismissing the Order Finding Probable Cause and this section 112.3145(8)(c) proceeding. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of October, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 8th day of October, 2018.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent complied with coverage requirements of the workers' compensation law, Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. A determination of whether Respondent functioned as an employer is a preliminary issue to be resolved.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency of state government currently responsible for enforcing the requirement of Section 440.107, Florida Statutes, that employers secure the payment of compensation for their employees. Respondent works in the fence construction industry and employs four people. Petitioner's investigator identified three people preparing a worksite for the erection of a privacy fence at 3000 Majestic Oaks Lane South in Jacksonville, Florida. The investigator then contacted Respondent and confirmed that the three identified individuals in addition to Respondent, were employed by Respondent for a total of four employees. The investigator determined none of the employees had workers’ compensation exemptions nor had Respondent secured the payment of workers’ compensation to his employees. On April 27, 2005, the investigator served a SWO on Respondent. The SWO required Respondent to cease all business operations in Florida. At the same time, the investigator served a Request for Business Records for Penalty Calculation on Respondent, requesting payroll records from Respondent for the period April 27, 2002, through April 27, 2005 (the audit period for penalty calculation). Respondent provided no records to the investigator. On May 23, 2005, the investigator determined 520 days had passed between the beginning of the audit period and September 30, 2003, and the penalty for noncompliance during this period was $52,000.00. The investigator also determined that during the period October 1, 2003, through the end of the audit period, the statewide average weekly wage paid by employers was $651.38; Respondent had four (4) employees; the imputed weekly payroll for Respondent’s employees was $320,848.00; using approved manual rates Respondent should have paid $97,969.40 in workers’ compensation premium; and the penalty for noncompliance during this period was calculated to be $146,954.12. On May 26, 2005, Investigator Bowman served the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on Respondent. The Amended Order assessed Respondent with a penalty for the entire audit period in the amount of $198,954.12. The investigator obtained records created by Respondent demonstrating Respondent placed a bid on a job on June 1, 2005, and Respondent completed the job on July 1, 2005. On July 19, 2005, the investigator served a Corrected Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on Respondent, which assessed a penalty in the amount of $3,000.00 for violating the terms of the SWO. Respondent violated the SWO on two separate days, the day of the bid and the day the work was completed. No competent substantial evidence was presented regarding intervening business operations.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order affirming the Stop Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment, Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and Corrected Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, requiring Respondent to pay a penalty in the amount of $200,594.12 to Petitioner, and requiring Respondent to cease all business operations in Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of September, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of September, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: John M. Iriye, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Workers Compensation 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-422 Martin D. Snyder 10367 Allene Road Jacksonville, Florida 32219 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Carols G. Muniz, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Findings Of Fact 12. The factual allegations contained in the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment issued on October 17, 2011, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on November 4, 2011, and the 2"! Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on April 26, 2012, attached as exhibits and fully incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted as the Department’s Findings of Fact in this case.
