The Issue The issue in this case is whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's contractor's license based upon the alleged violations of Sections 489.129(1)(h) and (m), Florida Statutes, set forth in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was licensed by the Construction Industry Licensing Board (the "Board") as a certified general contractor having been issued License No. CG C024612. Respondent has been a licensed contractor since 1983. On May 3, 1991, the Board filed a Final Order in Board Case Nos. 89-009986 and 89-013330 imposing a reprimand against Respondent. The Final Order was issued as part of the settlement of an amended administrative complaint filed against Respondent by Petitioner regarding certain unrelated transactions. Respondent was the qualifying agent for Willie William Construction Company, Inc. until October 1985. At that time, as a result of a corporate name change, Respondent became the qualified agent for Ashar Construction Company. On February 21, 1985, the Unsafe Structures Board of the Building and Zoning Department for Dade County advised Ruby Delancy that a hearing would be conducted on March 12, 1985 to determine whether a one story framed residence that Mrs. Delancy owned at 1005 NW 58th Street in Miami (the "House" or the "Property") should be demolished. The Notice indicated that the structure was "open, vacant, vandalized, filled with combustible materials; posing a serious fire hazard. Structure is a danger to human life and public welfare." The Notice estimated the present value of the building at $16,080 and the estimated cost of repairs at $51,120. The County's records indicate that a Notice of Violation regarding the Property had been issued to the owner on October 31, 1984. Facing imminent demolition of the House, Mrs. Delancy began to investigate possible ways to get the House repaired. She filed an application with the City of Miami for a low income, low interest loan that was funded through Federal HUD Community Development Funds. Her efforts to obtain funding to repair the House, delayed the proceedings that had been initiated to demolish the structure. In September of 1985, the City approved Mrs. Delancy for a grant of $10,000 and loan of $20,000 to repair the House. Mrs. Delancy has no other funds to pay for repairs to the Property other than the $30,000 she was obtaining through the City Program. Under the City's program, Mrs. Delancy was responsible for selecting a contractor. Mrs. Delancy contacted Respondent, who inspected the Property and prepared a construction estimate which was submitted to the City. Respondent entered into a contract (the "Contract") dated September 20, 1985 with Mrs. Delancy for home improvement work on the House. The total contract price was $29,870, which was to be paid in two installments: $10,835 on or before December 31, 1985 and a final payment of $19,035 on or before March 3, 1986. The evidence established that Respondent was initially reluctant to enter into the Contract and at least two other contractors refused to undertake the work given the limited funds available. However, Respondent agreed to take the job because of Mrs. Delancy's insistence and because of Respondent's sympathy for Mrs. Delancy's desperate situation in view of the imminent demolition of the House. The evidence also established that Mrs. Delancy requested Respondent to undertake additional work and/or services that were beyond the scope of the Contract. Among the extra items undertaken by Respondent was replacement of the floor in the family room. Additional expenses were also incurred because of unanticipated problems encountered during the renovation. For example one side of the house gave way during the renovation work. Upon investigation, it was discovered that there was no footing. Respondent was required to shore up that side of the House. In addition, the electrician was unable to get a meter because there was an outstanding electric bill for the Property. Respondent paid the old bill in order to get the meter connected. Similarly, she paid the gas company to get the stove hooked up. It does not appear Respondent received any additional compensation for the extra work. Except for $345 that Respondent paid for utilities on behalf of Mrs. Delancy, the evidence at the hearing was insufficient to place a dollar value on these extra services and expenses. The first installment under the Contract of $10,835 was paid to Respondent on or about December 31, 1985. In approximately January of 1986, Mrs. Delancy's son, Gerald Delancy, who had been living out of the state, returned to Miami and became involved in overseeing the construction on behalf of his mother. Gerald Delancy was not pleased with the quality of the construction and a great deal of tension developed between Gerald Delancy and Respondent. The final payment request form was submitted on February 20, 1986. Mrs. Delancy signed a document (the "Certificate of Completeness") indicating that the work was completed and the final payment was made to Respondent by the City on March 3, 1986. Gerald Delancy was present when his mother signed the Certificate of Completeness. She signed this Certificate against the advice of her son. At the time the document was signed, Respondent agreed in principal to complete any remaining work. The City Inspection Form which was posted on the project fails to indicate that a final inspection approval was obtained from the City. In addition, the evidence established that required roof inspections were not obtained prior to the final structural inspection. Gerald Delancy prepared a punch list of items which he felt were incomplete and submitted it to Respondent. It does not appear that this list was prepared until July of 1986. Because of the dispute between Respondent and Gerald Delancy as to what was required under the Contract, a copy of the punch list was also sent to the City. The punch list prepared by Gerald Delancy included a number of items which were beyond the scope of the Contract. For example, with respect to the plumbing, the complaints included the following: the water pressure was to low on the water line, the kitchen sink was too small, and the bathroom vanity was substandard. The Contract did not provide for a bathroom vanity. There were also complaints about ants and roaches and "missing shower rods and towel racks" even though these items were not specifically included within the Contract between Respondent and Mrs. Delancy. The City sent its estimator to the House to review the punch list items. The City's estimator felt that Respondent should provide another coat of paint and should complete some other minor repair work, but the estimator did not concur in many of Gerald Delancy's complaints. The City's rehabilitation estimator met with Respondent and Gerald Delancy at the House on July 15, 1986. At that meeting, Respondent agreed to correct certain matters and asked for one month to complete the work. On August 1, 1986, the work was not completed and Respondent requested an additional 30 days. On August 13, 1986, Respondent stated that she did not have the money to complete the work. According to the City's estimator, the cost to repair the construction deficiencies he noted would be approximately $2,500 to $3,000 as of the date of the hearing. During this period in August, Respondent did send some workers back to the house to complete some additional work. A dispute arose between those workers and Gerald Delancy. The exact nature and reasons for this dispute are not clear. Ultimately, Gerald Delancy refused to allow the workers to perform any work because he did not feel he received adequate answers to his inquiries as to the nature of the work they intended to perform. After the City refused to concur in all of his complaints, Gerald Delancy hired a building inspection company. He paid that company $534 and it rendered a report dated August 4, 1986 which detailed many other deficiencies in the construction. It is not clear whether this report was ever presented to Respondent. On or about November 3, 1986, Mrs. Delancy, at the urging of her son, filed a lawsuit against Respondent. On or about August 8, 1989, Mrs. Delancy obtained a final default judgement against Respondent in the amount of $65,000 plus costs of $102.50. Respondent claims that she was unaware of the lawsuit and the default final judgement until Petitioner's investigator questioned her about it on September 25, 1990. As of the date of the hearing in this case, Respondent has not appealed the judgement nor has she attempted to have it set aside or vacated. In addition to alleged construction defects, the default judgement included claims against Respondent for allegedly mishandling certain household goods and other property owned by Mrs. Delancy. The evidence presented in this case was confusing and inconclusive as to the nature and justification for these claims by the Delancys for property which Respondent was allegedly storing for Mrs. Delancy. Apparently, Respondent agreed to assist Mrs. Delancy by moving some of the furniture out of the house and placing it in storage during construction. The contract did not require Respondent to provide any moving or storage services and there is no evidence that Respondent was paid for this work. Some or all of the property that was moved out of the house was lost, stolen or destroyed. There is a dispute between the parties as to circumstances surrounding the loss of this property. The evidence presented in this case was insufficient to establish what happened to the property, who was responsible for it and/or how much it was worth. It does appear that the default judgement against Respondent includes a very high assessment for the property involved. However, as noted above, that judgement has not been vacated or appealed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing Count I of the Administrative Complaint, finding the Respondent guilty of having violated Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint, and imposing the following disciplinary action against the Respondent: Imposition of an administrative fine of $1,000. Suspension of the Respondent's license for a period of one year, followed by two years probation under such terms as may be imposed by the Board. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 1994, at 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 22nd day of August, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 93-6438 Only Petitioner submitted a proposed recommended order. The following rulings are made with respect to the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 2. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 7 and 8. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 4, 11, and 12. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 3 through 9. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 10. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 14 through 18. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 18. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 16 through 18. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 17. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 20. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 20. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 20. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 20. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 21 and 22. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 22. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 21 and 22. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 21 and 22. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire Dept. of Bus. and Prof. Reg. 401 NW 2nd Ave., Ste N-607 Miami, FL 33128 Agnes Sangster 9925 NW 25th Ave. Miami, FL 33147 Jack McRay Acting General Counsel Dept. of Bus. and Prof. Reg. 1940 N. Monroe St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Richard Hickok, Exec. Dir. Construction Industry Licensing 7960 Arlington Expressway, Ste 300 Jacksonville, FL 32211-7467
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses as set forth in the Administrative Complaint dated June 13, 2000, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, Respondent is a licensed Certified General Contractor in the State of Florida. At all times material to this case, Respondent was the qualifying agent for Rivero Construction, Inc. On or about June 20, 1996, Respondent contracted with Manuel Chamizo (Chamizo) to construct a parking lot with drainage at 4735 Palm Avenue, Hialeah, Florida, and to repave the parking lot at 4719 Palm Avenue, Hialeah, Florida, for the total price of $7,090.00. Chamizo paid Rivero Construction, Inc., the full contract price. Respondent constructed the parking lot at 4735 Palm Avenue, but did so in a substandard manner. Specifically, the parking lot flooded and was rendered unusable because Respondent had broken a sewer pipe during construction. After being notified of the problem, Respondent failed to correct it. Respondent failed to perform any of the contracted work at 4719 Palm Avenue. Dissatisfied with Respondent's performance, Chamizo sued Rivero Construction, Inc., for damages in the County Court in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida. On or about August 24, 1998, the lawsuit was concluded in Chamizo's favor with the entry of a final judgment against Rivero Construction, Inc. Respondent has failed to satisfy the final judgment. Respondent has failed to obtain a qualified business certificate of authority. Petitioner has incurred costs of $1,669.09 in the investigation and prosecution of Respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint dated June 13, 2000; ordering that Respondent pay an administrative fine in the amount of $1,250; pay restitution to Manuel Chamizo in the amount of the Final Judgement obtained by Manuel Chamizo; and pay costs incurred in the investigation and prosecution of this proceeding in the initial amount of $1,669.09, plus costs incurred through the date of final action, which revised affidavit of costs will be submitted to the Board at final action. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of December, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of December, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Diane Snell Perera, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 401 Northwest Second Avenue Suite N-607 Miami, Florida 33128 Manuel Rivero 61 East 16th Street Hialeah, Florida 33010 Suzanne Lee, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Hardy L. Roberts, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
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.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Daniel F. Acevedo, committed the offenses alleged in a four-count Administrative Complaint filed with Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, on July 11, 2008, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility for, among other things, the licensure of individuals who wish to engage in contracting in the State of Florida; and the investigation and prosecution of complaints against individuals who have been so licensed. See Chs. 455 and 489, Fla. Stat. Respondent, Daniel F. Acevedo, is and has been at all times material hereto a certified general contractor in Florida, having been issued license number CGC 1506071. Mr. Acevedo is also a Certified Roofing Contractor, having been issued license number CCC 1326888. Both licenses were issued by the Construction Industry Licensing Board (hereinafter referred to as the “Board) and are in “current active” status. At all times material, Mr. Acevedo was the primary qualifying agent for All Design Systems, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “All Design”). All Design is a Florida corporation. Mr. Acevedo is an officer of the corporation. All Design’s certificate of authority, License Number QB 26737, was issued on September 4, 2003. The license expired on August 31, 2007, and was in delinquent status from September 1, 2007, to May 14, 2008. Mr. Acevedo remained the qualifying agent during the delinquent period. All Design employed three to four sales agents who “sold” construction projects to commercial and residential property owners on behalf of All Design. All Design utilized these individuals because it believed they had experience in the construction industry and that they held licenses or certifications which would allow them to perform estimates on construction projects and make appropriate bids. The sales agents were to find customers for All Design and enter into contracts with them on behalf and in the name of All Design. In August of 2005, Mr. Acevedo was approached by Eduardo Rodriguez. Mr. Rodriguez offered to locate potential home remodeling customers for All Design in exchange for a percentage commission. Mr. Acevedo agreed. At no time relevant to this matter was Mr. Rodriguez licensed in Florida to engage in contracting as a state certified or registered contractor. Nor was Mr. Rodriguez’s business entity, Eduardo’s Construction, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “Eduardo’s Construction”), licensed with a certificate of authority as a contractor qualified business. Mr. Rodriguez was the president and sole officer of Eduardo’s Construction. Eduardo’s Construction was not incorporated in Florida. Some time during 2005, Grace Esposito obtained a business card for Eduardo’s Construction. She obtained the card after discussing with a neighbor construction work that was being performed by Eduardo’s Construction on the neighbor’s residence. The neighbor informed her that Mr. Rodriguez was the contractor performing the work. The business card incorrectly represented that Mr. Rodriguez was licensed and insured. Ms. Esposito called the number listed for Eduardo’s Construction and spoke with a man who identified himself as Eduardo Rodriguez. In August 2005, Mr. Rodriguez met with Ms. Esposito at her condominium residence, located at 20301 West Country Club Drive, Aventura, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the “Subject Property”). Ms. Esposito discussed with Mr. Rodriguez the work which she desired. Based upon representations from Mr. Rodriguez, Ms. Esposito believed that he was licensed to perform the work being discussed. The evidence failed to prove, as suggested by Mr. Acevedo, that Mr. Rodriguez “bid on the Esposito job, [and] orally agreed to essential terms with Esposito on behalf of All Design Systems, Inc., Respondent’s Firm.” Mr. Acevedo’s testimony in this regard was uncorroborated hearsay and was contradicted by the credible testimony of Ms. Esposito. On September 5, 2005, Ms. Esposito entered into a written contract with Mr. Rodriguez, doing business as Eduardo’s Construction, for the remodeling of the Subject Property (hereinafter referred to as the “Contract”). Ms. Esposito agreed in the Contract to pay $24,000.00 for the remodeling. Upon execution of the Contract, Ms. Esposito paid Eduardo’s Construction with three checks totaling $12,000.00 for the remodeling. Mr. Rodriguez informed Mr. Acevedo of the project in September 2005. At that time, without reviewing the Contract, Mr. Acevedo executed a building permit application which Mr. Rodriguez provided him for the project. The permit application had not been signed by Ms. Esposito. In October 2005, Mr. Rodriguez presented the building permit application to Ms. Esposito for her signature. The permit application was then submitted to the building department. The building permit was subsequently approved and issued under Mr. Acevedo’s license and in the name of All Design. Ms. Esposito had been told that part of the work would be completed in October. When this representation proved untrue, she began contacting Mr. Rodriguez. Mr. Rodriguez told her that it was taking time to get the permit due to delays at the building department. Eventually, when she was no longer able to contact Mr. Rodriguez, Ms. Esposito went directly to the building department where she learned that All Design was the contactor of record and not Eduardo’s Construction. On or about October 31, 2005, Ms. Esposito telephoned All Design and spoke with Mr. Acevedo. She informed Mr. Acevedo about the Contract. Mr. Acevedo agreed to meet with her. On November 1, 2005, Mr. Acevedo visited Ms. Esposito at the Subject Property. She showed him the work that had been performed and explained the details of the Contract and what had transpired with Mr. Rodriguez. Mr. Acevedo told Ms. Esposito that his relationship with Mr. Rodriguez was that he merely allowed Mr. Rodriguez to use his license to pull permits in exchange for $150.00. Mr. Acevedo told Ms. Esposito that he would attempt to get Mr. Rodriguez to complete the job. This meeting was memorialized in a letter to Mr. Acevedo written by Ms. Esposito. At some time in November, work recommenced on the project. Within approximately three days, however, work stopped. Ms. Esposito sent four emails to Mr. Acevedo describing the work performed and the cessation of the project. Ms. Esposito made a final request that the project be completed. Mr. Acevedo did not respond to the emails. On or about November 17, 2005, Ms. Esposito sent a letter to Mr. Acevedo outlining the events, requesting termination of the Contract, and the removal of Mr. Acevedo from the building permit. Mr. Acevedo did not respond to this letter. The building permit was cancelled by Mr. Acevedo in December 2005. The total investigation costs incurred by the Department, excluding those costs associated with any attorney’s time, was $381.83. Mr. Acevedo has not previously been disciplined by the Board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Daniel F. Acevedo violated the provisions of Section 489.129(1)(d), (i), and (m), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Counts I, II, III, and IV of the Administrative Complaint; imposing fines of $250.00 for Count I, $1,000.00 for Count II, and $2,000.00 for Count III; requiring that Mr. Acevedo pay the costs incurred by the Department in investigating and prosecuting this matter; placing Mr. Acevedo’s licenses on probation for a period of two years, conditioned upon his payment of the fines, payment of the costs incurred by the Department; and any other conditions determined to be necessary by the Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of March, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 11th day of March, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Brian P. Coats, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2022 Daniel Acevedo All Designs Systems, Inc. 2813 Executive Drive Weston, Florida 32388 Kenneth Stein, Esquire 8436 West Oakland Park Boulevard Sunrise, Florida 33351 G. W. Harrell, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes,1/ by failing to secure the payment of workers’ compensation, as alleged in the Stop-Work Order and Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and if so, what is the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure workers’ compensation coverage for the benefit of their employees. Respondent is a Florida, for-profit corporation with its principal office located at 3539 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 3-204, Tallahassee, Florida 32311. Respondent was incorporated on October 26, 2012, and has been engaged in the construction industry in Florida as a roofing company since October 31, 2012. From Respondent’s inception, Richard Paul Morejon has been Respondent’s president, secretary, and treasurer, and has received compensation from Respondent’s roofing contract proceeds. In July or August 2013, the Department received a complaint alleging that Respondent was not in compliance with Florida's Workers' Compensation Law. The Department assigned investigation of the complaint to then-Department investigator Carey Horn. Based upon materials apparently gathered and reports purportedly authored by Investigator Horn, the Department issued a stop-work order dated September 23, 2013, to Respondent alleging that Respondent did not secure workers’ compensation coverage for its employees as required. The Department, however, did not call Investigator Horn as a witness, and, despite Mr. Morejon’s attempt to subpoena her to testify in this case, Investigator Horn could not be found. The Department’s delay in referring this case for a final hearing either caused or contributed to Investigator Horn’s unavailability as a witness in this proceeding. The reports and conclusions of Investigator Horn were prepared in anticipation of litigation and are hearsay.2/ Therefore, they have not been used to support factual findings in this Recommended Order unless corroborative of non-hearsay evidence.3/ In addition, on October 20, 2014, the Department filed a document entitled "Joint Prehearing Stipulation" signed by the Department’s counsel and Mr. Morejon purporting to contain a number of stipulated facts and factual admissions by Mr. Morejon on behalf of Respondent. However, at the final hearing, the manner in which the Joint Prehearing Stipulation was procured was brought into question when Mr. Morejon advised that he was told to sign it and that the stipulation would be “ironed out” at the final hearing. The Department’s counsel confirmed that the conversation occurred regarding the correct classification code to be utilized in calculating the penalty against Respondent. Accordingly, it was ruled at the final hearing that the Joint Stipulation would not be used to support a finding regarding the classification. Upon further consideration of Mr. Morejon’s comments and the Department’s counsel’s admission as to the manner in which at least one of the stipulated facts was secured, the undersigned has not utilized and otherwise rejects as untrustworthy the document entitled "Joint Prehearing Stipulation" filed in this case on October 20, 2014, finding that it does not represent any bona fide stipulations or admissions. Nevertheless, in his testimony during his deposition and at the final hearing in this case, Mr. Morejon admitted a number of factual matters demonstrating that Respondent was not in compliance with Florida’s Workers’ Compensation Law on September 23, 2013. The factual findings in this Recommended Order are derived from Mr. Morejon’s testimony, non-hearsay evidence, and corroborative hearsay submitted during the final hearing. On September 23, 2013, Investigator Horn visited a jobsite at a residence located at 5747 Sioux Drive, Tallahassee, Florida (Jobsite), where Respondent, through employees, was performing roofing and related activities. On that date, Mr. Morejon was on the ground supervising two men on the roof engaged in roofing activities and two men on the ground picking up debris, for a total of five men, including Mr. Morejon, at the Jobsite working for Respondent. There was another man sitting in a vehicle at the Jobsite that day who never did any work for Respondent. There is no evidence that Respondent provided workers’ compensation coverage for any of the men working at the Jobsite that day. The two men working on the roof were Guadalupe Perez- Martinez and Hermilo Perez-Martinez. At the time, Guadalupe Perez-Martinez had an exemption from the requirements for workers’ compensation through his company, Lupe Builders, LLC. Although Hermilo Perez-Martinez previously had an exemption from the requirements of workers’ compensation through Perez Builders, LLC, that exemption expired the previous month, on August 3, 2013. There is no evidence that the two men picking up debris, Hermilo Pantaleon Paz and Timotio Aguilar, qualified for an exemption from workers’ compensation coverage that day. Although Mr. Morejon had an exemption from the requirements of Florida's Workers' Compensation Law for a separate and unaffiliated company, Comerxio, Mr. Morejon did not have an exemption from the coverage requirements of Florida's Workers' Compensation Law for Respondent on September 23, 2013, or during the relative time periods of this case. According to Mr. Morejon, other than Guadalupe Perez- Martinez, none of the other workers at the Jobsite that day had ever performed work for Respondent. Mr. Morejon also recalled that another person on the Jobsite that day, David Amaro- Rodriguez, just sat in a car and performed no work. Mr. Morejon’s recollections are unrefuted. The Department’s delay in referring this case undoubtedly affected the ability of either party to call other witnesses, including a number of the workers or the investigator, who were at the Jobsite that day. During the relevant time periods, Respondent did not maintain a bank account to pay its employees and it did not directly pay Mr. Morejon or other employees. Rather, historically, proceeds from roofing contracts performed by Respondent were deposited into a bank account held by another corporation named "A 2 Z Roofing, Inc." After paying various expenses, including permit fees, materials, and other costs associated with the roofing contracts, A 2 Z Roofing, Inc., paid Mr. Morejon, and any others performing work under the contracts, by check. On September 23, 2013, the Department personally served the Respondent with a stop work order (Stop Work Order) and a request for production of business records for penalty assessment calculation (Records Request). The Records Request requested Respondent’s corporate records, licenses, payroll documents, account documents, disbursements, contracts for work, employee leasing information, subcontractors, and workers' compensation coverage or exemptions "for the period from 10/31/2012 through 09/23/2013 [the Non- Compliance Period]." The Records Request further stated, in part: The employer should scan and email the records requested herein to the investigator with the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation for examination within 5 business days after receipt of this Request for Production of Business Records. If the employer fails to provide the required business records sufficient to enable the Department of Financial Services, 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, corporate officer, sole proprietor, or partner shall be the statewide average weekly wage as defined in section 440.12(2), F.S. multiplied by 1.5. The Department shall impute the employer’s payroll at any time after ten, but before the expiration of twenty business days after receipt by the employer of a written request to produce such business records. (FAC 69L-6.028) If the employer is unable to scan and email these documents, please mail or deliver copies to our office located at 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL, 32399-4228. The next day, September 24, 2013, Mr. Morejon hand delivered Respondent’s business records to the Department in response to the Records Request. The business records delivered by Mr. Morejon included roofing permit applications; roofing permits issued to A to Z Roofing, Inc.; several contracts between homeowners and A to Z Roofing, Inc., identifying Mr. Morejon as project manager; five checks from A 2 Z Roofing, Inc. (not Respondent), payable to the City of Tallahassee; and 24 checks from A 2 Z Roofing, Inc., payable to "Mr. Morejon – Petty Cash." The 24 checks from A 2 Z Roofing, Inc., to Mr. Morejon totaled $55,955.4/ The checks, dated from November 17, 2012, to August 23, 2013, constitute all of the money paid to Mr. Morejon from Respondent’s roofing contract proceeds during the Non- Compliance Period. In addition to the 24 checks payable to Mr. Morejon, it is evident that the Department also received other checks from A 2 Z Roofing, Inc., from the records requests made in this case and in DOAH Case No. 14-2829, made payable to Lupe Builders, LLC, Gene Pfund, and perhaps others, during the Non- Compliance Period. The Department, however, did not utilize those records in its determinations in this case. In fact, the Department’s penalty auditor did not utilize payments made by A 2 Z Roofing, Inc., in calculating the penalty because, in the Department’s penalty auditor’s opinion, Respondent was not compliant because it did not have a bank account. Final Hearing Transcript, pp. 232-233. The determination of payroll, however, is not dependent on whether an employer has a bank account or whether the employer is the entity that pays its employees. Rather, the Department’s own rule defining payroll considers "[p]ayments, including cash payments, made to employees by or on behalf of the employer" in determining payroll. See Fla. Admin. Code Rule 69L-6.035(1)(b)(emphasis added). During the hearing, the Department, through counsel, stated that the payments from A 2 Z Roofing to Lupe Builders, LLC, or Gene Pfund were not considered because those entities had valid exemptions from the requirements of workers’ compensation. In addition, the Department complained that their receipt of bank records from A 2 Z Roofing, Inc., had been delayed and took the position that bank records from A 2 Z Roofing, Inc., would not be utilized in this case. The Department’s own discovery tactics, however, were responsible for delays in responses to its requests for records from A 2 Z Roofing, Inc.5/ Considering the records produced by Respondent introduced into evidence in this case, the testimony of Mr. Morejon regarding the checks payable to him from A 2 Z Roofing, Inc., the Department’s unwillingness to utilize other records from A 2 Z Roofing, Inc., in its possession, and evidence of the total payments to Mr. Morejon during the Non- Compliance Period, it is found that the Department’s decision to impute payroll is unfounded. Imputation of payroll would improperly allow the Department to benefit from its own lack of analysis. The imputed payroll determined by the Department in the amount of $347,334.69 exceeds Respondent’s total revenue for the Non- Compliance Period by more than $100,0006/ and is based, at least in part, upon hearsay evidence prepared by a witness whose unavailability was likely caused by the Department’s undue delay in referring Respondent’s Request for Hearing. Furthermore, the records produced by Respondent and the evidence in this case are sufficient to determine Respondent's payroll for use in the calculation of a penalty pursuant to section 440.107(7)(d)l. The evidence demonstrated that the $55,955 reflected in checks payable to Mr. Morejon from A 2 Z Roofing, Inc., represent all of the payments to Respondent’s employees who were not covered by workers’ compensation while performing services for roofing contracts during the Non-Compliance Period, other than payments reflected in records the Department may have in its possession but did not present at the final hearing. It was also shown, however, that the $55,955 was paid to Mr. Morejon without the maintenance of a cash log or cash journal and without securing the payment of workers' compensation coverage for Mr. Morejon or others receiving cash payments from those funds. And, there is no evidence that any of those employees were exempt from the requirements of workers’ compensation. Respondent was required to secure workers' compensation coverage and failed to secure that coverage under Florida’s Workers’ Compensation Law for its employees who were paid $55,955.00 during the Non-Compliance Period. Therefore, the Department was justified in issuing the Stop Work Order delivered to Mr. Morejon on September 23, 2013. Although the Department failed to show that Respondent’s payroll should be imputed, the evidence adduced at the final hearing demonstrated that a penalty should be imposed against Respondent for failure to pay workers’ compensation for its employees who were paid a total of $55,955 during the Non- Compliance Period. For determining the appropriate penalty, the Department has adopted a penalty calculation worksheet to aid in calculating penalties against employers pursuant to section 440.107, Florida Statutes. See Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.027. The classification codes listed in the National Council on Compensation Insurance ("NCCI") Scopes® Manual have been adopted by the Department through Florida Administrative Code Rules 69L-6.021 and 69L-6.031. Classification codes are four-digit codes assigned to occupations by NCCI to assist in the calculation of workers' compensation insurance premiums. Under the descriptions listed in the NCCI Scopes® Manual, the proper classification code for Respondent’s employees is 5551, which corresponds to "Roofing - All Kinds and Drivers." The Department has adopted the approved manual rates in the Florida Administrative Code, as authorized by section 440.107(7). Rule 69L-6.027 adopts form number DFS-F4-1595, the Penalty Calculation Worksheet, which specifically incorporates approved manual rates. As accurately set forth in the Penalty Calculation Worksheets attached to the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, the approved manual rates for the following periods of Non- Compliance were: From 10/31/2012 to 12/31/2012 the rate was 17.10; From 01/01/2013 to 06/30/2013 the rate was 18.17; From 07/01/2013 to 09/23/2013 the rate was 18.03. A breakdown of Respondent’s total payroll of $55,955 based upon check dates corresponding to the manual rates in effect during the Non-Compliance Period, is as follows: From 10/31/2012 to 12/31/2012 payroll totaled $6,300; From 01/01/2013 to 06/30/2013 payroll totaled $33,655; From 07/01/2013 to 09/23/2013 payroll totaled $16,000. Calculation of the penalty, using the Penalty Calculation Worksheet and Respondent’s payroll based on records (as opposed to imputed) during the Non-Compliance Period, results in a total penalty of $15,116.12, as follows: Calculation Method (a) Class Code (b) Non-Compliance period (c) Gross Payroll (d) /100 (e) Approved Rates (f) Premium (d)X(e) (g) Penalty (f)X 1.5 Records 5551 10/31/12 12/31/12 6,300 63 17.10 1,077.30 1,616.25 Records 5551 01/01/13 06/30/13 33,655 336.55 18.17 6,115.11 9,172.67 Records 5551 07/01/13 09/23/13 16,000 160 18.03 2,884.80 4,327.20 Totals: $55,955.00 $15,116.12 The clear and convincing evidence in this proceeding demonstrated that Respondent was in violation of Florida’s Workers’ Compensation law because it employed one or more uninsured employees in the construction industry throughout the Non-Compliance Penalty, and that the appropriate penalty, based upon Respondent’s payroll, is in the amount of $15,116.12.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department enter a Final Order consistent with this Recommended Order upholding the Stop Work Order, and reducing the penalty set forth in the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to $15,116.12 by recalculating the penalty based upon Respondent’s payroll of $55,955.00 during the Non-Compliance Period. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of February, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of February, 2015.
