The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 61D-6.011 is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, in violation of section 120.52(8).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, FHBPA, is a Florida not-for-profit corporation created to advance, foster, and promote the sport of thoroughbred horse racing in the State of Florida. FHBPA’s membership includes over 200 Florida-licensed horse trainers and over 5,000 Florida-licensed horse owners, and has associational standing to file and prosecute actions on behalf of its members. Respondent has not challenged FHBPA’s standing to bring this proceeding. Respondent, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering (PMW), is the state agency charged with the regulation of pari-mutuel wagering in the State of Florida, pursuant to section 20.165 and chapter 550, Florida Statutes. The question to be decided in this proceeding is what the Legislature meant when it amended section 550.2415(7) in 2015, and whether rule 61D-6.011 carries out the legislative directive it contains. Before the 2015 legislative session, section 550.2415 stated, in pertinent part: (3)(a) Upon the finding of a violation of this section, the division may revoke or suspend the license or permit of the violator or deny a license or permit to the violator; impose a fine against the violator in an amount not exceeding $5,000; require the full or partial return or the purse, sweepstakes, and trophy of the race at issue; or impose against the violator any combination of such penalties. The finding of a violation of this section in no way prohibits a prosecution for criminal acts committed. * * * (7)(e) The division may, by rule, establish acceptable levels of permitted medications and shall select the appropriate biological specimens by which the administration of permitted medication is monitored. * * * The division shall adopt rules to implement this section. The rules may include a classification system for prohibited substances and a corresponding penalty schedule for violations. Except as specifically modified by statute or by rules of the division, the Uniform Classification Guidelines for Foreign Substances, revised February 14, 1995, as promulgated by the Association of Racing Commissioners International, Inc., is hereby adopted by reference as the uniform classification system for class IV and V medications. (Emphasis added). During the 2015 legislative session, the Legislature substantially amended section 550.2415. Ch. 15-88, § 1, Laws of Fla. Not all of the changes made are germane to the challenge at issue here, but the amendments to subsections (3) and (7) are critical: (3)(a) Upon the finding of a violation of this section, the division may revoke or suspend the license or permit of the violator or deny a license or permit to the violator; impose a fine against the violator in an amount not exceeding the purse or sweepstakes earned by the animal in the race at issue or $10,000, whichever is greater; require the full or partial return of the purse, sweepstakes, and trophy of the race at issue; or impose against the violator any combination of such penalties. The finding of a violation of this section does not prohibit a prosecution for criminal acts committed. * * * (7)(a) In order to protect the safety and welfare of racing animals and the integrity of the races in which the animals participate, the division shall adopt rules establishing the conditions of use and maximum concentrations of medications, drugs, and naturally occurring substances identified in the Controlled Therapeutic Medication Schedule, Version 2.1, revised April 17, 2014, adopted by the Association of Racing Commissioners International, Inc. Controlled therapeutic medications include only the specific medications and concentrations allowed in biological samples which have been approved by the Association of Racing Commissioners International, Inc., as controlled therapeutic medications. * * * (c) The division rules must include a classification system for drugs and substances and a corresponding penalty schedule for violations which incorporates the Uniform Classification Guidelines for Foreign Substances, Version 8.0, revised December 2014, by the Association of Racing Commissioners International, Inc. The division shall adopt laboratory screening limits approved by the Association of Racing Commissioners International, Inc., for drugs and medications that are not included as controlled therapeutic medications, the presence of which in a sample may result in a violation of this section. (Emphasis added). The title page of the ARCI Document states, “Uniform Classification Guidelines for Foreign Substances and Recommended Penalties and Model Rule.” Each of the remaining pages of the ARCI Document, including those pages that encompass the ARCI Recommended Penalties, identifies the ARCI Document as the “Uniform Classification Guidelines for Foreign Substances.” The Notes Regarding Classification Guidelines, found at page ii, states that “Where the use of a drug is specifically permitted by a jurisdiction, then the jurisdiction’s rule supersedes these penalty guidelines.” (Emphasis added). Rules 61D-6.011 and 61D-6.008 were amended in 2016, in response to the amendments to section 550.2415. Rule 61D-6.008 addresses permitted medications allowed for horses, and rule 61D- addresses the penalties to be imposed for drug violations. Relevant portions of rule 61D-6.011 provide: The penalties in this rule shall be imposed when the stewards or the Division finds that the following substances have been identified by the state laboratory in a urine sample or blood sample collected from a horse participating in a pari-mutuel event: (a) Any medication listed in subsection 61D-6.008(2), F.A.C. [1.-3. provide penalty ranges for first, second, and third offenses] The penalty for any medication or drug which is not described in subsection (1) above shall be based upon the classification of the medication or drug found in the Uniform Classification Guidelines for Foreign Substances, revised December 2014, as promulgated by the Association of Racing Commissioners International, Inc., which is hereby incorporated and adopted herein by reference, https://flrules.org/Gateway/ reference.asp?No=Ref-06400, www.myfloridalicense.com/dbpr/pmw or by contacting the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, 2601 Blair Stone Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32399. The penalty schedule shall be as follows: Class I substances: First violation of this chapter Second violation of this chapter Third or subsequent violation of this chapter Class II substances: First violation of this chapter $3,000 to $5,000 fine and suspension of license 90 days to one year, or revocation of license; $4,000 to $5,000 fine and suspension of license of no less than one year, or revocation of license. $5,000 to $10,000 fine and revocation of license. $250 to $1,000 fine and suspension of license zero to 180 days; Second violation of this chapter Third or subsequent violation of this chapter Class III substances: First violation of this chapter Second violation of this chapter Third or subsequent violation of this chapter Class IV or V substances: First violation of this chapter Second violation of this chapter $500 to $1,000 fine and suspension of license of no less than 180 days, or revocation of license; $1,000 to $5,000 fine and suspension of license of no less than one year, or revocation of license $300 to $500 fine; $500 to $750 fine and suspension of license zero to 30 days, or revocation of license; $750 to $1,000 fine and suspension of license zero to 180 days, or revocation of license. $100 to $250 fine; $250 to $500 fine and suspension of license zero to 10 days; Third violation of this chapter $500 to $1,000 fine and suspension of license zero to 60 days. The Division may consider mitigation or aggravation to deviate from these penalty guidelines. * * * Absent mitigating circumstances, the stewards or the Division shall order the return of any purse, prize, or award from any pari-mutuel event for redistribution when a positive test for a drug or medication described in paragraphs (1)(a), (1)(b), (2)(a), or (2)(b) is reported by the state laboratory and confirmed through the hearing process. The stewards or the Division may order the return of any purse, prize, or award for redistribution when the positive test of a drug or medication reported by the state laboratory is not described in paragraphs (1)(a), (1)(b), (2)(a), or (2)(b) of this rule. In the event the stewards or Division orders the return of the purse, prize, or award for redistribution as described in this subsection, the reason(s) for the redistribution shall be provided in writing. (Emphasis added). Rule 61D-6.011 varies from the penalty provisions in the ARCI Recommended Penalties in several respects. First, in the drug classification tables in the ARCI Document, which the rule incorporates by reference, there are columns to identify the drug or substance; trade name, if any; drug class; and penalty class. Not all drugs in a drug class are in the same penalty class. For example, all class 1 drugs are in penalty class A, with the exception of cocaine, morphine, and strychnine, which are in penalty class B. The majority of class 2 drugs are also in penalty class A, with the exception of caffeine, carisoprodol, diazepam, hydroxyzine, ketamine, levamisole, lidocaine, mepivacaine, and romifidine, which are in penalty class B. Class 3 drugs are generally split between penalty classes A and B, and class 4 drugs include both penalty classes B and C. Similarly, class 5 drugs are split between penalty classes C and D. It is clear from the text of the ARCI Document that the drug classifications and the penalty guidelines are intended to work together as a comprehensive approach to the impermissible drugging of racing horses. In the Recommended Penalty and Model Rule portion of the ARCI Document, there are separate penalties recommended for licensed trainers and for owners. For trainers, class A penalties include a minimum fine of $10,000 or 10% of the total purse, whichever is greater, absent mitigating circumstances, to a maximum of $25,000 or 25% of the purse with aggravating factors for a first offense. For a second offense in any jurisdiction, the fine amount is $25,000 or 25% of the total purse, whichever is greater, absent mitigating circumstances, and may increase with aggravating circumstances to a maximum of $50,000 or 50% of the purse, whichever is greater. For a third offense in any jurisdiction, the minimum fine is $50,000 or 50% of the total purse, whichever is greater, absent mitigating circumstances, and may increase with aggravating circumstances to a maximum of $100,000 or 100% of the purse, whichever is greater. For owners, the first and second offenses include disqualification and loss of purse. The penalty for a third offense includes disqualification, loss of purse, and a $50,000 fine. For owners and trainers, the monetary penalties may exceed the maximum permitted under section 550.4215(3), which authorizes a fine not exceeding the purse or sweepstakes earned by the animal, or $10,000, whichever is greater. The parties have submitted the House and Senate Bill analyses that address the amendment to section 550.2415 at issue here.1/ The House of Representatives Final Bill Analysis for CS/HB 239 includes the following statements: The bill changes the maximum fine for violations from $5,000 to $10,000 or the amount of the purse, whichever is greater. The bill also reduces the time for the division to begin administrative prosecutions for violations from 2 years to 90 days. The bill requires the division to adopt the Association of Racing Commissioners International (ARCI) rules regarding the medications, drugs, and naturally occurring substances given to race animals, including a classification system for drugs that incorporates ARCI’s Penalty Guidelines for drug violations, and updates current methodologies used in testing procedures. . . . * * * Effect of Proposed Changes * * * The bill requires that the penalty schedule for violations must incorporate the Uniform Classification Guidelines for Foreign Substances, Version 8.0, revised December 2014, by the ARCI. These guidelines are “intended to assist stewards, hearing offices and racing commissioners in evaluating the seriousness of alleged violations of medication and prohibited substance rules. ” The bill analysis for CS/SB 226 contains similar provisions stating that the ARCI Penalty Guidelines must be incorporated into a rule adopted by Respondent. The penalty guidelines included in rule 61D-6.011 do not incorporate the ARCI Recommended Penalties. The PMW’s website includes a listing of statutes and rules, with links to the rules. Included in that list is a statement that “The Association of Racing Commissioners International, Inc. ‘Uniform Classification Guidelines for Foreign Substances and Recommended Penalties and Model Rule’ is adopted and incorporated by rule.” Notwithstanding this statement, the ARCI Recommended Penalties are not incorporated into rule 61D-6.011 or any other rule identified in this proceeding. The rule provides for consideration of a number of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, when warranted, that allow for deviation from the identified penalty guidelines. As noted above, rule 61D-6.011(1) refers to the medications listed in rule 61D-6.008. Rule 61D-6.008 provides in pertinent part: Permitted medications for horses: The prescription medications defined in this rule shall be permitted under the conditions set forth to conserve and protect the health of the horse which is entered to race. All such medications shall be procured and administered by a licensed veterinarian, except where a valid prescription or dispensing occurs in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 474, F.S. The following permitted medications at concentrations less than or equal to the following schedule shall not be reported by the racing laboratory to the Division as a violation of Section 550.2415, F.S. [list of medications and concentration levels for each one]. Thus, subsection (1) of rule 61D-6.011 addresses violations where too much of a permitted medication is found in a race day sample, whereas subsection (2) addresses violations based upon prohibited medications. Petitioner presented the testimony of Scott Hay and Edward Martin in support of its contention that the penalty guidelines adopted by PMW are arbitrary and capricious. Dr. Scott Hay is a veterinarian who has worked with thoroughbred racehorses since 1988. He is a member of the American Association of Equine Practitioners, the American Veterinary Medical Association, and the Florida Veterinary Association. He serves as co-chair on the scientific advisory committee for the Racing Medication and Testing Consortium, which worked on the development of the ARCI Document. Dr. Hay was familiar with the ARCI Document and described the process used to determine threshold levels for medications. He testified that the scientific advisory committee relied extensively on the expertise of some of its members to determine the appropriate levels of medications that would be appropriate under the drug classifications. On the other hand, while he is familiar with PMW’s rules and was involved in the rulemaking workshops when the rules were first amended after the 2015 statutory change, he did not believe that he made any comments on these particular rules during that process. He did not provide any testimony that provided information on what methodology PMW used when formulating its penalty guidelines. Mr. Martin works for the Association of Racing Commissioners International as its president and has done so since 2005. He testified that the Racing Medication and Testing Consortium is a consortium of racing industry organizations that advises ARCI and regulatory entities on medication and anti-doping policies. He described the process by which the scientific advisory committee meets and considers recommendations on changes to policies. According to Mr. Martin, the scientific advisory committee relies on the collective judgment of the pharmacologists, chemists, toxicologists, and veterinarians to provide advice and expertise about appropriate public policy. The controlled therapeutic medication schedule is an attempt to provide some consistency in the regulation of some commonly used medications that are considered appropriate for equine care. The schedule recommends a threshold for testing, and only if that threshold is exceeded, is there a violation of the rules of racing. Mr. Martin pointed to the reference in rule 61D-6.011 to rule 61D-6.008. He testified that what “struck him” about the Florida rules is that rule 61D-6.008 encompasses the controlled therapeutic list, but rule 61D-6.011(1) appears to provide the same penalty for any violation of a substance itemized in 61D- 6.008. This treatment is not consistent with ARCI’s penalty schedule, but Mr. Martin did not know whether Florida made a conscious decision to impose a different recommended penalty than what is contained in the ARCI Document, and did not know the intent of the drafters with respect to the rule.
The Issue The issues are whether, under section 440.107, Florida Statutes, Petitioner may calculate a penalty assessment for a failure to secure the payment of workers' compensation for one day as though the failure persisted over two years and whether Petitioner may calculate a penalty assessment based on double the statewide average weekly wage (AWW) when the lone uncovered employee earned $10 per hour.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was incorporated in 2008 by Ineido Soler, Sr., and his son, Ineido Soler, Jr. Since the corporation began operations, the wife of Mr. Soler, Jr., Idalmis Pedrero, has served as the office manager of this family-owned company. At all material times, Respondent has contracted with a personnel leasing company to handle employee matters, such as securing the payment of workers' compensation. Ms. Pedrero's responsibilities include informing the employee leasing company of new hires, so the company can obtain workers' compensation coverage, which typically starts the day following notification. On the afternoon of November 22, 2015, Mr. Soler, Jr., telephoned his wife and told her that he and his father had hired, at the rate of $10 per hour, a new employee, Geony Borrego Lee, who would start work the following morning. Customarily, Ms. Pedrero would immediately inform the employee leasing company. However, Ms. Pedrero was working at home because, six days earlier, she had delivered a baby by caesarian section, and she was still recuperating and tending to her newborn. A fatigued Ms. Pedrero did not notify the employee leasing company that day of the new hire. Late the next morning, Ms. Pedrero was awakened by a call from her husband, who asked her if she had faxed the necessary information to the employee leasing company. Ms. Pedrero admitted that she had not done so, but would do so right away. She faxed the information immediately, so that the employee leasing company could add Mr. Lee to the workers' compensation policy, effective the next day, November 24. Uncovered for November 23, Mr. Lee joined three other employees of Respondent and performed roofing work at a worksite. Late in the afternoon of November 23, one of Petitioner's investigators conducted a random inspection of Respondent's worksite and determined that Respondent had secured the payment of workers' compensation for the three other employees, but not for Mr. Lee. The investigator issued an SWO on the day of the inspection, November 23. The SWO contains three parts. First, the SWO orders Respondent to cease work anywhere in the state of Florida. Second, the SWO includes an Order of Penalty Assessment, which does not contain a specific penalty, but instead sets forth the formula by which Petitioner determines the amount of the penalty to assess. Tracking the statute discussed below, the formula included in the SWO is two times the premium that the employer would have paid when applying approved manual rates to the employer's payroll "during periods for which it has failed to secure the payment of compensation within the preceding 2-year period." Third, the SWO includes a Notice of Rights, which advises Respondent that it may request a chapter 120 hearing. On November 24, Petitioner released the SWO after Respondent had secured the payment of workers' compensation for Mr. Lee. On November 25, the investigator hand delivered to Respondent a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation (Request). The Request covers November 24, 2013, through November 23, 2015, and demands records in eight categories: identification of employer, occupational licenses, payroll documents, account documents, disbursements, contracts for work, identification of subcontractors, and documentation of subcontractors' workers' compensation coverage. The Request identifies "payroll documents" as: all documents that reflect the payroll of the employer . . . including . . . time sheets, time cards, attendance records, earning records, check stubs and payroll summaries for both individual employees and aggregate records; [and] federal income tax documents and other documents reflecting the . . . remuneration paid or payable to each employee . . . . The Request adds: The employer may present for consideration in lieu of the requested records, proof of compliance with F.S. 440 by a workers' compensation policy or coverage through employee leasing for all periods of this request where such coverage existed. If the proof of compliance is verified by the Department the requested records for that time period will not be required. The Request warns: If the employer fails to provide the required business records sufficient to enable the . . . Division of Workers' Compensation to determine the employer's payroll for the period requested for the calculation of the penalty provided in section 440.107(7)(d), F.S., the imputed weekly payroll for each employee shall be the statewide average weekly wage as defined in section 440.12(2), F.S., multiplied by 2. The Department shall impute the employer's payroll at any time after ten, but before the expiration of twenty eight business days after receipt by the employer of [the Request]. (FAC 69L-6.028) . . . . On December 11, 2015, Respondent provided the following documents to Petitioner: itemized invoices, including for workers' compensation premiums, from the employee leasing company to Respondent and checks confirming payment, but the invoices and checks are from December 2011; an employee leasing agreement signed by Respondent on August 1, 2014, and signed by the employee leasing company on August 5, 2014; an employee leasing application for Mr. Lee dated November 23, 2015, showing his date of birth as November 20, 1996, his hourly pay as $10, and his hire date as November 23, 2015; and an employee census dated December 1, 2015, showing, for each employee, a date of hire and, if applicable, date of termination. Partially compliant with the Request, this production omitted any documentation of workers' compensation coverage prior to August 1, 2014, and any documentation of payroll except for Mr. Lee's rate of pay. On December 14, 2015, Respondent filed with Petitioner its request for a chapter 120 hearing. On December 30, 2016, Petitioner issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment (Amended Assessment), which proposes to assess a penalty of $63,434.48. On the same date, Petitioner transmitted the file to DOAH. Petitioner issued a Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on February 16, 2016, which is mentioned in, but not attached to, the Prehearing Stipulation that was filed on April 26, 2016, but the second amended assessment reportedly leaves the assessed penalty unchanged from the Amended Assessment. In determining the penalty assessment, Petitioner assigned class code 5551 from the National Council on Compensation Insurance because Mr. Lee was performing roofing work; determined that the entire two-year period covered in the Request was applicable; identified the AWW as $841.57 based on information provided by the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity for all employers subject to the Florida Reemployment Assistance Program Law, sections 443.01 et seq., Florida Statutes, for the four calendar quarters ending June 30, 2014; applied the appropriate manual rates for class code 5551 to $841.57, doubled, and divided the result by 100--all of which yielded a result of $31,717.24, which, doubled, results in a total penalty assessment of $63,434.48. There is no dispute that the classification code for Mr. Lee is code 5551, the AWW is $841.57, and the manual rates are 18.03 as of July 1, 2013, 18.62 as of January 1, 2014, and 17.48 as of January 1, 2015. Because Petitioner determined that Respondent had failed to provide sufficient evidence of its payroll, Petitioner calculated the penalty assessment by using the AWW of $841.57, doubled, instead of Mr. Lee's actual rate of $10 per hour. Petitioner's calculations are mathematically correct. For the 5.27 weeks of 2013, the penalty assessment is $3198.58 based on multiplying the AWW, doubled, by the manual rate of 18.03 divided by 100 multiplied by 2 and multiplied by 5.27. For the 52 weeks of 2014, the penalty assessment is $32,593.67 based on multiplying the AWW, doubled, by the manual rate of 18.62 divided by 100 multiplied by 2 and multiplied by 52. For the 46.44 weeks of 2015, the penalty assessment is $27,326.48 based on multiplying the AWW, doubled, by the manual rate of 17.48 divided by 100 multiplied by 2 and multiplied by 46.44. Adding these sums yields a total penalty assessment of $63,118.73, which approximates Petitioner's penalty assessment calculation of $63,434.48. (Mistranscription of difficult-to- read manual rates or a different rule for handling partial weeks may account for the small difference.) Respondent challenges two factors in the imputation formula: the two-year period of noncompliance for Mr. Lee instead of one day's noncompliance and the AWW, doubled, instead of Mr. Lee's $10 per hour rate of pay. Underscoring the differences between the two-year period of noncompliance and double the AWW and the actual period of noncompliance and Mr. Lee's real pay rate, at the start of the two-year period, Mr. Lee was three days past his 16th birthday and residing in Cuba, and Mr. Lee continues to earn $10 per hour as of the date of the hearing. The impact of Petitioner's use of the two-year period of noncompliance and double the AWW is significant. If the calculation were based on a single day, rather than two years, the assessed penalty would be less than the statutory minimum of $1000, which is described below, even if double the AWW were used. One day is 0.14 weeks, so the penalty assessment would be $82.38 based on multiplying the AWW, doubled, by the manual rate of 17.48 divided by 100 multiplied by 2 and multiplied by 0.14. If the calculation were based on the entire two years, rather than a single day, the assessed penalty would be about one-quarter of the proposed assessed penalty, if Mr. Lee's actual weekly rate of pay were used instead of double the AWW. Substituting $400 for twice the AWW in the calculations set forth in paragraph 15 above, the penalty would be $760.14 for 2013, $7746.92 for 2014, and $6494.17 for 2015 for a total of $15,001.23. Explaining why Petitioner treated one day of noncompliance as two years of noncompliance, one of Petitioner's witnesses referred to Mr. Lee as a "placeholder" because the real focus of the imputation formula is the employer. The same witness characterized the imputation formula as a "legal fiction," implying that the formula obviously and, in this case, dramatically departs from the much-smaller penalty that would result from calculating exactly how much premium that Respondent avoided by not covering the modestly paid Mr. Lee on his first day of work. Regardless of how Petitioner characterizes the imputation formula, the statutory mandate, as discussed below, is to determine the "periods" during which Respondent failed to secure workers' compensation insurance within the two-year period covered by the Request. The focus is necessarily on the employee found by the investigator to be uncovered and any other uncovered employees. Petitioner must calculate a penalty based on how long the employee found by the investigator on his inspection has been uncovered, determining how many other employees, if any, in the preceding two years have been uncovered, and calculating a penalty based on how long they were uncovered. There is evidence of one or two gaps in coverage during the relevant two years, but Petitioner has failed to prove such gaps by clear and convincing evidence. One of Petitioner's witnesses testified to a gap of one month "probably" from late January to late February 2015. This witness relied on Petitioner Exhibit 2, but it is completely illegible. Ms. Pedrero testified that Respondent had workers' compensation coverage since 2011, except for a gap, which she thought had occurred prior to August 2014, which is the start date of the current policy. This conflicting evidence does not establish by clear and convincing evidence any gap, and, even if a gap had been proved, no evidence establishes the number of uncovered employees, if any, during such a gap, nor would such a gap justify enlarging the period of noncompliance for Mr. Lee. Ms. Pedrero testified that her mother-in-law, Teresa Marquez cleaned the office and warehouse on an occasional basis, last having worked sometime in 2015. Respondent never secured workers' compensation coverage for Ms. Marquez, but she did no roofing work and appears to have been a casual worker, so her periods of employment during the two-year period covered by the Request would not constitute additional periods for which Respondent failed to secure workers' compensation insurance. Based on the foregoing, Petitioner has proved by clear and convincing evidence only a single day of noncompliance, November 23, concerning one employee, Mr. Lee, within the relevant two-year period for the purpose of calculating the penalty assessment. Likewise, Petitioner has proved by clear and convincing evidence a rate of pay of only $10 per hour for the purpose of calculating the penalty assessment. At no time has Respondent provided payroll records of all its employees for November 23, 2015. Respondent Exhibit E covers payroll for Respondent's employees for a two-week period commencing shortly after November 23, 2015. But the evidence establishes that Mr. Lee's rate of pay was $80 for the day, which, as discussed below, rebuts the statutory presumption of double the AWW.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order determining that Respondent has failed to secure the payment of workers' compensation for one employee for one day within the two-year period covered by the Request and imposing an administrative penalty of $1000. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of July, 2016, 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 19th day of July, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Jonathan Anthony Martin, Esquire Trevor S. Suter, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 (eServed) Daniel R. Vega, Esquire Robert Paul Washington, Esquire Taylor Espino Vega & Touron, P.A. 2555 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 220 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 (eServed) Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 (eServed)
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent's life and health insurance license should be disciplined for the reasons set forth in the Administrative Complaint filed on June 15, 1989. That Complaint alleges that Respondent has violated certain provisions of the Florida Insurance Code. Specifically, Petitioner alleges Respondent has violated Section 626.611(7), Florida Statutes as a result of a demonstrated lack of fitness or trustworthiness to engage in the business of insurance, Section 626.611(14), Florida Statutes as a result of having been found guilty of, or having pleaded guilty or nolo contendere to, a felony in this state which involves moral turpitude and/or Section 626.621(8), Florida Statutes as a result of being guilty of, or having pleaded guilty, or nolo contendere to a felony in this state.
Findings Of Fact At all pertinent times, Respondent has been licensed by Petitioner as a life and health insurance agent. In October of 1987, Respondent was arrested and formally charged by the State Attorney of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit for the State of Florida with grand theft of over $20,000.00 and three counts of perjury in an official proceeding. The criminal charges against Respondent arose in connection with her relationship with an elderly woman who was stricken with cancer. The evidence provided only sketchy details of the circumstances that led to the criminal charges. From the evidence presented, it appears that Respondent befriended the woman a short time before she died. After the woman died, a controversy arose regarding certain transfers of property to Respondent and a will executed by the deceased woman naming Respondent as beneficiary. A civil law suit was filed contesting the will and the property transfers to Respondent. Ultimately, the will which left all of the elderly woman's property to Respondent was disallowed and certain transfers of property to Respondent were overturned. Criminal charges were initiated against Respondent by the prevailing heir. As part of a plea bargain arrangement, Respondent entered a plea of guilty to the charge of grand theft and the three perjury counts were dismissed. The Circuit Court for Broward County withheld adjudication on the grand theft count and placed Respondent on probation for ten years with a requirement that she make restitution to the victim, an heir of the estate. The restitution required as part of the criminal proceeding was intended to compensate the prevailing heir for attorney's fees incurred in connection with the civil action. While Respondent continues to deny any wrongdoing in her dealings with the deceased woman, she claims she had inadequate resources to fight the criminal matter further. In entering into the plea arrangement, Respondent anticipated that she would be able to continue in the insurance business. Her insurance business is the only source of income which Respondent can reasonably anticipate generating sufficient money to make the restitution payments. It is clear from the transcript of the sentencing proceeding that the circuit court judge withheld adjudication on the grand theft charge with the understanding that by doing so the Respondent would be able to continue to sell insurance. Respondent has been making the restitution payments required as part of her probation and she is dependent upon the continuation of her insurance business in order to make those payments in the future. As a result of the initiation of this proceeding against Respondent by Petitioner, Respondent has been cancelled by the various insurance companies for whom she used to write insurance. Thus, she has been effectively suspended from the insurance business since shortly after the initiation of this proceeding. No evidence was introduced that Respondent committed any other criminal offenses of any nature at any time, nor was any evidence produced of any other violations of the insurance code by Respondent since her initial licensure in 1981.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered suspending Respondent's licensure and eligibility for licensure for six- months. DONE and ORDERED this 19 day of March, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19 day of March, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert F. Langford, Jr., Esquire Department of Insurance and Treasurer Office of Legal Services 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Barbara Helen Askea 2315 Northeast 5th Avenue Pompano Beach, Florida 33064 Tom Gallagher Department of Insurance and Treasurer State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Don Dowdell General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2016), by failing to secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage, as alleged in the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment; and, if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement of chapter 440 that employers in Florida secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage for their employees and corporate officers. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. Respondent sells roof coating and provides installation services in the Bradenton, Florida, area. The Investigation On April 20, 2015, the Department received a public referral that Respondent was operating without a roofing license or workers' compensation coverage. The case was assigned by the Department to Compliance Investigator Germaine Green ("Green"). Green first checked the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations, Sunbiz website to verify Respondent's status as an active corporation. Green then checked the Department's Coverage and Compliance Automated System ("CCAS") to see whether Respondent had a workers' compensation policy or any exemptions. An exemption is a method in which a corporate officer can exempt himself from the requirements of chapter 440. See § 440.05, Fla. Stat. CCAS is the Department's internal database that contains workers' compensation insurance policy information and exemption information. Insurance providers are required to report coverage and cancellation information, which is then input into CCAS. Green's CCAS search revealed that Respondent had no coverage or exemptions during the relevant period. Because Green was not aware of any specific job site at which Respondent was working, she issued a Business Records Request ("BRR") No. 1 to Respondent seeking records for an audit period of January 1, 2015, through April 29, 2015, to determine compliance. Respondent provided payroll records and bank statements. Respondent's president, Felecia Bly ("Bly"), contacted Green and described the nature of the business as a roof coating business that sells a sealant that coats roofs to seal leaks and extend their longevity. Bly explained that Respondent used commissioned salesmen to review the county assessor's website to determine the square footage of a residence. The salesman then contacted property owners to determine whether they experienced leaks and offered the product and installation. The salesmen did not go on the roofs. Respondent considered its salesmen independent contractors to whom they issued IRS Forms 1099. Respondent used subcontractors to perform the installations. According to Respondent, these workers had their own businesses or exemptions. Respondent also used the services of part-time workers for a short period that addressed and sent post cards marketing Respondent's business. Based on her conversation with Bly, Green determined that the business should be categorized as "roofing," which is classified as National Council on Compensation Insurance ("NCCI") class code 5551 and is considered a type of construction activity under Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.021(2)(cc). Green also determined Respondent was non-compliant with the obligation to secure workers' compensation coverage for its workers. The corporate officers did not have exemptions, and several individuals, identified as sales and roofing subcontractors, did not have their own businesses or exemptions and, therefore, were employees. Petitioner did not issue a Stop-work Order because Respondent came into compliance on June 22, 2015, by securing exemptions for the corporate officers. Petitioner issued a BRR No. 5 for additional records from July 1, 2013, through June 21, 2015, to make a penalty calculation for the two-year period of non-compliance. Penalty Calculation The Department assigned Penalty Auditor Christopher Richardson ("Richardson") to calculate the penalty assessed against Respondent. Richardson reviewed the business records produced by Respondent and properly identified the amount of gross payroll paid to Respondent's workers on which workers' compensation premiums had not been paid. Richardson researched Respondent's corporate officers and Respondent's subcontractors to determine those periods when they were not compliant with chapter 440 during the audit period. Richardson determined that Respondent was not compliant for the period of June 22, 2013, through June 21, 2015. Respondent's compliant subcontractors (those with their own workers' compensation insurance or exemptions) were not included in the penalty. The business records ultimately produced by Respondent were sufficient for Richardson to calculate a penalty for the entire audit period. The initial OPA was in the amount of $257,321.16. After receiving and reviewing additional records supplied by Respondent, an Amended OPA was issued in the amount of $51,089.52. After a deposition of Bly's assistant, Sueann Rafalski ("Rafalski"), who provided additional details regarding those individuals and businesses identified in the Amended OPA, a 2nd Amended OPA was issued on July 18, 2016, in the amount of $43,542.16. During the hearing, Respondent disputed a few items that the Department subsequently voluntarily removed in the 3rd Amended OPA. The Department's Motion for Leave to Amend Order of Penalty Assessment was granted on September 29, 2016. Respondent disputed the inclusion of referral fees to Hicks and Campbell, a customer reimbursement payment to Robert Nyilas, payment to House Medic for work done on the Bly's home, and a loan repayment to the Bly's son, Brian Bly. The Department correctly removed any penalties associated with Hicks, Campbell, Robert Nyilas, House Medic, and Brian Bly. The Department also removed $14,200.00 from the penalty that Respondent disputed as repayments toward a $150,000.00 loan from its corporate officers. Respondent continues to dispute the penalty calculation for all others identified in the 3rd Amended OPA, except for the inclusion of the payment to Unexpected Blessings. For the penalty assessment calculation, Richardson consulted the classification codes listed in the Scopes® Manual, which has been adopted by the Department of Financial Services through rules 69L-6.021 and 69L-6.031. Classification codes are assigned to various occupations to assist the calculation of workers' compensation insurance premiums. Richardson assigned the class codes based on information provided by Bly. Richardson then utilized the corresponding approved manual rates for those classification codes and the related periods of non-compliance. Richardson applied the correct approved manual rates and correctly utilized the methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)l. and rules 69L-6.027 and 69L-6.028 to determine the penalty. Penalty for the Blys Respondent admits that during the audit period, the business did not carry workers' compensation insurance coverage, and its corporate officers, Glenn and Felecia Bly ("the Blys"), did not have workers' compensation exemptions. Because neither Mr. nor Mrs. Bly was engaged in the application of the roofing materials, the Department correctly assigned class code 8742, for sales and marketing, to them. However, the Department miscalculated the gross income of the Blys. Respondent provided check stubs and its accountant's itemization of payments to the Blys, which constituted repayment of loans from Respondent to the Blys. No evidence to the contrary was presented to indicate these sums were anything other than loan repayments. The Department erroneously included these sums in its calculation of gross payroll to the Blys. Although the Department made a $14,000.00 deduction from gross income for the Blys during this period as "loan repayments," no explanation was provided regarding how this sum was ascertained and why the Department disregarded the information of Respondent's accountant showing repayments during the relevant period in the amount of $19,200.00. The Department obviously accepted the testimony of Bly that, in fact, a portion of what the Department previously concluded was gross income to the Blys, was rather repayments for loans made to Respondent. Accordingly, in the absence of any evidence by the Department of how it parceled out which portion of money paid to the Blys constituted wages and which portion was loan repayments, the Department failed to demonstrate clearly and conclusively that the penalty associated with payments to the Blys is accurate.2/ Penalty for Postcard Mailers Three women, Meghan Saulino, Kimberly Kalley, and Stacy Boettner, were identified by Bly as independent contractors she hired to address and mail postcards for Respondent. According to Bly and Rafalski, these workers were college students who did the work at home, on their own time, and were paid by the job. This arrangement did not last long because the women did not like the work, and the task was transferred to Minuteman, a printing and copying business. These women are included in the Second Amended OPA and are assigned class code 8742 for sales and marketing. Respondent contends they should not be included because they were not employees. No evidence was presented to refute that these three women were merely casual workers whose duties (addressing and mailing postcards) were not in the course of the trade, business, profession, or occupation of Respondent (selling and installing roof coating). Accordingly, the amount included in the penalty for their work, $78.18, should be excluded from the 3rd Amended OPA. Penalty for Commissioned Salesmen Respondent contends that its commissioned sales people are all independent contractors who performed jobs for others. These salespeople included Kevin Kalley, Robert Patton, Gino Barone, Scott De Alessandro, Scott Black, and Tim Paige. However, no evidence was presented of the independent contractor agreements for these individuals, certificates of exemption for them for the penalty period, or evidence that these individuals owned their own businesses. As such, the Department was correct in including the amounts received by the salespeople as gross income for purposes of the penalty calculations. Penalty for Roof Coating Installers Respondent similarly argues that its roof coating installers were independent contractors. The roof coating installers included Bill Boettner, owner of Unexpected Blessings who did not have an exemption during the penalty period, and his business, Unexpected Blessings. Again, no evidence was presented of certificates of exemption for the penalty period or evidence that Unexpected Blessings had coverage. As such, the Department was correct in including the amounts received by the roof coating installers as gross income for purposes of the penalty calculations. Penalty for Other Independent Contractors Respondent argues that Rafalski and Bobby McGranahan ("McGranahan") should not be included in the penalty calculation because they were independent contractors not directly associated with Respondent's business. Rafalski was hired by Bly to help with personal errands and to respond to the audit which serves as a basis for this action. McGranahan is alleged to have run errands for the roof coating installers and acted as a handyman for Respondent before becoming a salesperson for Respondent. It is undisputed that Rafalski and McGranahan performed duties directly related to Respondent's business. Although Rafalski testified at her deposition that she considered herself an independent contractor, it was clear she worked on-site and was the individual most familiar with Respondent's business operations and internal accounting practices. McGranahan's duties, of shopping for supplies for the roofing installers, and then selling for Respondent, were directly related to Respondent's business. No evidence was presented demonstrating that either Rafalski or McGranahan owned their own business or had an exemption. Accordingly, they were properly included in the Department's 3rd Amended OPA.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, enter a final order assessing a penalty against Respondent in the amount of $34,552.20. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of October, 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 12th day of October, 2016.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Edward Willison Carroll, III, is currently eligible for licensure and is licensed in this state as a Credit Life, including Credit Disability Insurance Agent; General Lines - Property, Casualty, Surety and Miscellaneous Lines Agent; General Lines - Motor Vehicle Physical Damage and Mechanical Breakdown Agent; Ordinary Life, including Health Insurance Agent; Health Insurance Agent; and Automobile and Inspection and Warranty Association Salesman. On March 10, 1980, respondent filed a verified application with petitioner for examination as a General Lines Agent (Property, Casualty, and Miscellaneous Lines) . Question number 13 of the application asked the following: Have you ever been charged with or convicted of a felony? If so, complete the following and submit a full and detailed report on a separate sheet. Date Name of Court Address of Court Nature of Charge and Outcome Respondent answered no to this question. On May 28, 1982, respondent filed a verified application with petitioner for examination as an Ordinary Life including Disability Agent. Question number 15 of the application asked the following: Have you ever been charged with or convicted of a felony? If so, complete the following and submit a full and detailed report on a separate sheet. Date Name of Court Address of Court Nature of Charge and Outcome Respondent answered no to this question. Respondent's answers to question 13 on the March 10, 1980, application and question 15 on the March 28, 1982, application were false. On December 11, 1970, the State Attorney for the Second Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida, filed an information with the circuit court which charged that respondent did on December 3, 1970, in Leon County, Florida ... knowingly commit a lewd or lascivious act in the presence of Alice Leigh Divita, a female child under the age of fourteen years, to-wit: of the age of six years, without intent to commit rape upon said child, contrary to Section 800.04, F.S. On March 9, 1971, respondent entered a plea of guilty to the crime of fondling, as charged in the information. The court withheld adjudication of guilty and imposition of sentence, and placed respondent on probation for a period of three years. At hearing, respondent conceded that he had been charged with the aforementioned felony. He averred, however, that his failure to disclose such charge on his applications was not intended to be deceitful but was premised on his belief that he could properly answer no to such inquiries because adjudication of guilty had been withheld. While respondent may reasonably have believed that he could respond in the negative to an inquiry concerning felony convictions, his contention that he held an honest belief that he could also respond in the negative to inquiries about whether the had ever been charged with a felony is not persuasive. But for the foregoing charge, respondent has not been charged or convicted of any other felonies. Nor, has the respondent been shown to have engaged in any improprieties as an insurance agent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered suspending respondent's licensure and eligibility for licensure for three months. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of August, 1988. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of August, 1988. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: 1. Addressed in paragraph 1. 2 & 3. Addressed in paragraph 2. 4 & 5. Addressed in paragraph 3. 6. Addressed in paragraph 5. 7 & 8 Addressed in paragraph 6. 9 & 10. Addressed in paragraphs 7 and 8. 11. Addressed in paragraph 9. 12-14. Rejected as not relevant. COPIES FURNISHED: S. Marc Herskovitz, Esquire Office of Legal Services 413-B Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Thomas L. Neilson, Esquire 105 West Fifth Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32303 The Honorable William Gunter State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Don Dowdell, Esquire General Counsel The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Findings Of Fact 13. The factual allegations contained in the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment issued on April 7, 2010, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on April 19, 2010, the 2" Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on June 2, 2010, and the 3K Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on September 1, 2010, attached as “Exhibit A”, “Exhibit B”, “Exhibit D”, and “Exhibit E”, 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 Alex Sink, Chief Financial _ Officer of the State of Florida, or her designee, having considered the record in this case, including the request for administrative hearing received from TOM HINDS, INC., the Stop- Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, the 2nd 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 April 7, 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. 10-169-D3 to TOM HINDS, INC. The Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein TOM HINDS, 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 April 7, 2010, the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment was personally served on TOM HINDS, 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 April 19, 2010, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to TOM HINDS, INC. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $47,827.66 against TOM HINDS, INC. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein TOM HINDS, 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 5, 2010, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings. A copy of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit B” and incorporated herein by reference. 5. On May 18, 2010, the Department received a request for administrative hearing (“Petition”) from TOM HINDS, INC. A copy of the Petition is attached hereto as “Exhibit C”. 6. On June 2, 2010, the Department issued a 2°4 Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to TOM HINDS, INC. The 2™ Amended Order of Penalty Assessment reduced the penalty assessed against TOM HINDS, INC. to $5,744.16. 7. On June 19, 2010, the 2"! Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served by certified mail to TOM HINDS, INC. A copy of the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit D” and incorporated herein by reference. 8. On August 5, 2010, the Petition from TOM HINDS, INC. was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned DOAH Case No. 10-7165. 9. On September 1, 2010, the Department issued a 3° Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to TOM HINDS, INC. The 3 Amended Order of Penalty Assessment reduced the penalty assess against TOM HINDS, INC. to $5,733.10. 10. On September 3, 2010, the Department filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings a Motion to Amend Order of Penalty Assessment. A copy of the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit E” and incorporated herein by reference. 1. On October 24, 2010, TOM HINDS, INC. informed the Department that TOM HINDS, INC. did not wish to proceed to an administrative hearing in DOAH Case No. 10-7165. 12. On October 27, 2010, the Department filed a Joint Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction with the Division of Administrative Hearings. As a result, on November 18, 2010, Administrative Law Judge, R. Bruce McKibben, entered an Order Closing File, relinquishing jurisdiction of this matter to the Department. A copy of the Order Closing File is attached hereto as “Exhibit F”.
The Issue Whether Respondent Rachel J. Porter's License No. 37341-2 should he suspended or revoked, or whether Respondent should be placed on probation or otherwise disciplined.
Findings Of Fact An administrative complaint was filed against Respondent on or about November 2, 1978, seeking to place on probation, suspend, or revoke the license of Respondent and her right to practice as a registered nurse. Respondent requested an administrative hearing. From approximately May 14, 1978, through June 1, 1978, while serving as a registered nurse at Polk General Hospital in Bartow, Florida, Respondent on several occasions falsified hospital records for the purpose of concealing the conversion of narcotics by Respondent to her own use. During said period of time Respondent on several occasions signed out for narcotics for patients and failed to properly document the disposition of same. On or about May 28, 1978, Respondent signed out for Demerol (Meperidine), a controlled substance, for a patient by the name of Laura Williams for whom there were no physician's orders for said narcotic for that date and time. On or about June 1, 1978, while on duty, Respondent injected herself with a controlled narcotic, to wit Meperidine, for which she had signed out for a patient and had failed to administer the entire amount to said patient. On or about June 1, 1978, Respondent was arrested by an officer of the Polk County Sheriff's Department at Polk General Hospital and, after being advised of her rights, produced a partially filled 75 mg. tubex of Meperidine. Respondent admitted to having taken the Meperidine from hospital stock by signing it out for patients and, instead, injecting herself with it. On or about October 3, 1978, in the Circuit Court in and for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Respondent entered a plea of "no contest" in Case No. CF78- 1558 to the charges of unlawful possession of a controlled substance and unlawful possession of a device and paraphernalia with the intent of unlawfully administering a controlled substance in violation of Florida Statute Section 893.13. Respondent was placed on five years probation on November 16, 1978, without adjudication of guilt. She was placed on five years' probation on each of two counts with the sentences to run concurrently. She was required as a condition of the probation to pay the court costs. The court restricted her probation prohibiting her access to certain scheduled narcotics and drugs, and prohibiting her handling of certain scheduled narcotics and drugs in the event she were again to be employed as a nurse. Respondent has not been employed since being placed on probation. Respondent has a history of numerous physical maladies, some physiological and some psychosomatic. She has suffered from several operations and has headaches. During the past several years she has received various pain- killing prescriptions from various physicians and has taken these to relieve her various pains. A witness called by Respondent, Annette C. Barnes, M. D., a psychiatrist, testified that Respondent had become addicted to drugs. It was Dr. Barnes' opinion that the Respondent has progressed to the point where she is no longer actively addicted, and that if Respondent maintains her periods of therapy she can function normally without the aid of any medication other than that prescribed by her attending psychiatrist. Dr. Barnes' opinion was that it would be to the benefit of the Respondent to enter again into employment in the field of her profession, but that she should be restricted from contact with controlled narcotics. Respondent submitted proposed findings of fact and memorandum of law. These instruments were considered in the writing of this order. To the extent the proposed findings of fact have not been adopted in, or are inconsistent with, factual findings in this order they have been specifically rejected as being irrelevant or not having been supported by the evidence.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the license of Respondent Rachel Porter be suspended for a period of time not less than one (1) year. If, upon investigation by the Petitioner Board performed no earlier than one (1) year from the date hereof, the Respondent appears to have cured herself of her addiction, it is recommended that Respondent's license be reinstated but that she be kept on probation until the end of the period for which she is on probation as a result of Case No. CF78-1558. DONE and ORDERED this 17th day of July, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Julius Finegold, Esquire 1107 Blackstone Building 233 East Bay Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Geraldine B. Johnson, R. N. Florida State Board of Nursing 111 East Coastline Drive, Suite 504 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Jack T. Edmund, Esquire Post Office Box 226 Bartow, Florida 33830
The Issue The issue is whether the Stop-Work Order and 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued by Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation (Department), on July 1, 2015, and February 29, 2016, respectively, should be upheld.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the various requirements of chapter 440. Respondent is a Florida corporation with offices located at 1904 28th Avenue North, St. Petersburg, Florida. The company is engaged in the construction business, and its activities fall within the statutory definition of "construction industry." See § 440.02(8), Fla. Stat. Respondent also does business under the name of M & M Construction of South Florida, but both are the same corporate entity with the same Federal Employer Identification Number and use the same bank accounts. Respondent's assertion that the two are separate and work done under the "d/b/a" name cannot be used to establish liability under chapter 440 is rejected. On July 1, 2015, Munal Abedrabbo, a Department compliance inspector, made a random inspection of a job site at 4115 East Busch Boulevard, Tampa, where remodeling work on a commercial building was being performed. When he entered the premises, Mr. Abedrabbo observed Bernard Reed on a ladder painting an interior ceiling. After identifying himself, he informed Mr. Reed that he needed to verify his insurance coverage. Mr. Abedrabbo was directed to Mr. Cook, Respondent's vice-president and part owner, who acknowledged that he was the general contractor on the job and had three employees/painters working that day, Reed, James Dabnes, and John Russell. Mr. Cook informed the inspector that the three employees were leased from Paychek, Inc., an employee leasing company, and that firm provided workers' compensation coverage for the leased employees. Mr. Abedrabbo returned to his vehicle and accessed on his computer the Department of State, Division of Corporations, Sunbiz website to verify Respondent's status as a corporation. After verifying that it was an active corporation, he then checked the Department's Coverage and Compliance Automated System to verify whether Respondent had a workers' compensation policy or any exemptions. He was unable to find any active policy for Respondent, as the most recent policy had lapsed in January 2013. Mr. Cook has an exemption, covering the period October 20, 2014, through October 19, 2016, but the exemption is with a different company, Thomas Cook Carpenter, LLC. Mr. Abedrabbo spoke again with Mr. Cook and informed him that Department records showed no insurance coverage for his employees. Mr. Cook telephoned Paychek, Inc., and then confirmed that the three painters had no workers' compensation insurance. Mr. Cook explained that before he allowed Mr. Reed to begin work, Mr. Reed had shown him an insurance certificate that turned out to be "falsified," and then "conveniently lost it" when the inspector appeared. He also explained his firm "was caught with our pants down once before" and he did not want it to happen again. For that reason, he contended he was especially careful in hiring leased employees. Even so, he does not deny that Respondent has had no insurance in place since January 2013 and Paychek, Inc., failed to provide coverage. The Department issued a Stop Work Order and Penalty Assessment the same day. To determine the amount of Respondent's unsecured payroll for purposes of assessing a penalty in accordance with section 440.107(7)(d)(1), Florida Statutes, the Department requested Respondent to provide business records for the preceding two years. This period of non-compliance is appropriate, as Respondent was actively working in the construction industry during that time period without securing insurance. The request informed Mr. Cook that if complete records were not provided, the Department would use the imputation formula found in section 440.107(7)(e) to calculate the penalty. After reviewing the information provided by Respondent, on August 18, 2015, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in the amount of $114,144.52 for the period July 7, 2014, through June 30, 2015. Based on two depositions of Mr. Cook, a 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in the amount of $105,663.48 was issued on February 29, 2016. The Department penalty auditor calculated the final penalty assessment using the "imputed" method because insufficient business records were provided to determine Respondent's payroll for all relevant time periods, except the month of October 2014. In addition to missing bank statements and check images, Respondent failed to provide its entire second bank account. Although Mr. Cook contends some records were in the possession of M & M Construction of South Florida, and he could not access them in a timely manner, this does not excuse Respondent's failure to timely produce all relevant records. Under the imputed method, the penalty auditor used the average weekly wage ($841.57) times two to determine Respondent's payroll for the imputed portions. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.028(2); § 440.107(7)(e), Fla. Stat. The gross payroll was then divided by 100 in order to be multiplied by the applicable approved manual rates. The Department applied the proper methodology in computing the penalty assessment. A class code is a numerical code, usually four digits, assigned to differentiate between the various job duties or scope of work performed by the employees. The codes were derived from the Scopes Manual Classifications (Manual), a publication that lists all of the various jobs that may be performed in the context of workers' compensation. The Manual is produced by the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc., an authoritative data collecting and disseminating organization for workers' compensation. The Manual provides that class code 5474 applies to painters who perform painting activities. Reed, Dabnes, and Russell were assigned this code. Mr. Cook agrees this code is correct. Mr. Cook was assigned class code 5606 (construction executive) and placed on the penalty assessment because he is an owner of the corporation and was managing the work. Although Mr. Cook argues he had an exemption and should not be placed on the assessment, Department records reflect that Mr. Cook had an exemption with a different company during the audit period. Therefore, his inclusion in the employee census was correct. Because Respondent's business records included checks written to Kerry Francum for tile work, he was assigned class code 5348 (tile work) and placed on the penalty assessment as an employee. At his deposition, Mr. Cook acknowledged that Francum performed tile work for his firm and was an employee. At hearing, Mr. Cook changed his testimony and contended Francum was only a material supplier, not a subcontractor, and should not be on the penalty assessment. This assertion has not been accepted. Mr. Francum's inclusion on the assessment is appropriate. Respondent's business records also indicated a check was written to Kerry Randall, a tile subcontractor. At hearing, however, Mr. Cook established, without contradiction, that because of Mr. Randall's violent temper, he was paid a one-time fee of $1,000.00 and let go before he performed any work. Mr. Randall should be removed from the assessment. The Department has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is correct, less any amount owed for Mr. Randall.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order assessing Respondent the penalty in the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, less any amount owed for Mr. Randall. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of November, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER 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 21st day of November, 2016.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Jack Michael Schwartz, held a life and health agent and ordinary combination life including health agent license issued by petitioner, Department of Insurance and Treasurer. Respondent presently resides at 2027 Northeast 172nd Street, North Miami Beach, Florida. On November 30, 1981 respondent submitted an application to petitioner for licensure as an ordinary life including disability agent. Question 15 on the application asked the following: "Have you ever been charged with or convicted of a felony?" Respondent answered "No." The application was subsequently approved by petitioner in February, 1982 after respondent successfully completed a written examination. On June 18, 1985 respondent submitted an application to petitioner for licensure as a general lines agent. Question 11 on the application asked the following question: "Have you ever been charged with or convicted of a felony?" Respondent answered "No." During the course of a routine background check of Schwartz, petitioner later learned that respondent had pled guilty to grand larceny by fraudulent representation on August 3, 1977 in circuit court in and for Broward County, Florida. The offense is a felony. Schwartz was thereafter placed on probation for five years under the direct supervision of the Department of Offender Rehabilitation. He was released from probation after two and one-half years. Schwartz acknowledged that he had pled guilty to a felony. However, after his probation was ended, Schwartz interpreted advice from his probation officer to mean he did not have to acknowledge on job or licensure applications that he had been convicted of a felony. He had no further explanation for his answers.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the license and eligibility for licensure of respondent be REVOKED. DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of September, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of September, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 86-1809 PETITIONER: Covered in finding of fact 4. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 3. Covered in finding of fact 3. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bill Gunter Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Wilbur W. Anderson, Esquire 413-B Larson Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jack Michael Schwartz 2027 N.E. 172nd Street North Miami Beach, Florida 33162
The Issue The issue is whether The Department of Financial Services properly imposed a Stop Work Order and Amended Order of Penalty Assessment pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Division is charged with the regulation of workers' compensation insurance in the State of Florida. Petitioner Kenny Nolan, d/b/a/ Great Southern Tree Service, is a sole proprietor located in Jacksonville, Florida, and is engaged in the business of cutting trees, which is not a construction activity. Michael Robinson is an investigator employed by the Division. His duties include making site visits at locations where work is being conducted and determining whether the employers in the state are in compliance with the requirements of the workers' compensation law and related rules. On June 6, 2006, Mr. Robinson visited a job site in a subdivision in Jacksonville, Florida, and observed five individuals at the residential work site. Mr. Robinson interviewed the individuals and, based upon these interviews, determined that four of the individuals worked for Mr. Nolan: Chad Pasanen, David Soloman, Michael Walton, and Eric Kane. None of these workers had a workers' compensation exemption. Mr. Robinson also completed a Field Interview Worksheet on June 6, 2006, when interviewing the four workers. Mr. Robinson wrote on the interview worksheet that Mr. Pasanen worked for Mr. Nolan for three weeks with a daily basis of pay and that Mr. Walton worked for Mr. Nolan for two weeks with a daily basis of pay. The interview worksheet has no entry for the length of time Mr. Solomon worked for Mr. Nolan but does indicate he was paid by the job. The portion of the interview worksheet regarding Mr. Kane is not in evidence. Mr. Robinson checked the database in the Coverage and Compliance Automated System and found no proof of coverage nor an exemption for Mr. Nolan. After conferring with his supervisor, Mr. Robinson issued a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment to Petitioner on June 6, 2006, along with a request for business records for the purpose of calculating a penalty for lack of coverage for the period June 6, 2003 through June 6, 2006. The request for business records instructed Mr. Nolan to produce business records within five days. Mr. Nolan did not produce business records as requested. On June 27, 2006, Mr. Robinson issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to Petitioner for $272,948.96. Attached to the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is a penalty worksheet with a list of names under the heading, "Employee Name," listing the names of Chad Pasanen, David Solomon, Michael Walton and Eric Kane. The amount of the penalty was imputed using the statewide weekly average wage that was in effect at the time of the issuance of the stop-work order. Through imputation of payroll for the four employees, the Department calculated a penalty for the time period of October 1, 2003 through June 6, 2006. Using rates from an approved manual, Mr. Robinson assigned a class code to the type of work performed by Petitioner and multiplied the approved manual rate with the imputed payroll per one hundred dollars, then multiplied all by 1.5. Penalties are calculated by determining the premium amount the employer would have paid based on his or her Florida payroll and multiplying by a factor of 1.5. The payroll was imputed back to October 1, 2003. For the period prior to October 1, 2003, Mr. Robinson assessed a penalty of $100 per day for each calendar day of noncompliance. The portion of the penalty attributable to the period June 6, 2003 through September 30, 2003, is $11,600.00. Respondent's Business Mr. Nolan started the business, Great Southern Tree Service, in February or March 2005, as a sole proprietor. Mr. Nolan was not in business prior to early 2005 and did not employ anyone in 2003 or 2004. At the inception of his tree trimming business, Mr. Nolan's brother worked for Mr. Nolan for two to three months until his brother's health rendered him unable to continue working for Mr. Nolan. Mr. Nolan subsequently worked with Christopher Wilcox until December 2005, when Mr. Wilcox was in an automobile accident and became unable to work. After Wilcox was injured in December 2005, Mr. Nolan did not have any employees for the remainder of the winter. Only Mr. Nolan's brother and Christopher Wilcox worked with Mr. Nolan in 2005. The nature of the tree trimming business is seasonal. Mr. Nolan obtained work sporadically. Typically, he had jobs two or three times a week. It is busiest in the spring and summer and slowest during the fall and winter months. In March 2006, Mr. Nolan was approached by David Solomon who was looking for work. Mr. Solomon worked for Mr. Nolan "maybe twice a week" and possibly three times a week when he was "lucky." Mr. Nolan worked exclusively for residential customers. He obtained business by knocking on doors and handing out business cards. When he was paid by his customers, he immediately paid the men who were helping him. He was usually paid in cash. In the instances when he was paid by a check, he would take his employees to the bank, where he would cash the check and pay off his workers. Eric Kane also began working for Nolan in March 2006. Like Mr. Soloman, he also worked two to three days a week for Mr. Nolan. Kane was at the jobsite on the day Mr. Robinson made the site visit, but was not working that day. He was sitting off to the side and was "just hanging out" with the other men. According to Mr. Kane, Mr. Robinson did not ask him any questions. In May 2006, a storm or small tornado hit an area of Jacksonville called Ortega. The resulting tree damage temporarily enabled Mr. Nolan to get more work. At that point, Mr. Nolan hired Chad Pasanen. Mr. Nolan estimates that Mr. Pasanen worked for him for about three weeks before the site visit by Mr. Robinson. Mr. Pasanen previously worked for Asplundh Tree Expert Company. One of his paycheck stubs establishes that he worked for Asplundh as late as April 8, 2006. Mr. Nolan also hired Michael Walton in May 2006. Mr. Walton previously worked for Seaborn Construction Company. A paycheck stub establishes that he worked for Seaborn as late as April 26, 2006. Mr. Walton sporadically worked for Mr. Nolan for about two weeks prior to the site visit. The Division did not count Mr. Nolan as an employee for purposes of calculating the penalty assessment.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it RECOMMENDED: That the Division of Workers' Compensation enter a Final Order rescinding the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued June 27, 2006, and the Stop Work Order issued to Petitioner on June 6, 2006. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of November, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of November, 2006.
