The Issue Whether Fantastic Construction of Daytona, Inc. (“Respondent”), failed to secure the payment of workers’ compensation coverage for its employees; and, if so, whether the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (“Petitioner” or “Department”), correctly calculated the penalty to be assessed against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with enforcing the requirement of chapter 440, Florida Statutes, that employers in Florida secure workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Respondent is a corporation engaged in the construction industry with headquarters in Daytona Beach, Florida. On November 19, 2015, the Department’s compliance investigator, Scott Mohan, observed five individuals framing a single-family house at 173 Botefuhr Avenue in Daytona, Florida. Mr. Mohan interviewed the individuals he observed working at the jobsite and found they were working for Respondent on lease from Convergence Leasing (“Convergence”). Mr. Mohan contacted Convergence and found that all of the workers on the jobsite were employees of Convergence, except Scott Barenfanger. Mr. Mohan also confirmed that the workers’ compensation policy for Convergence employees was in effect. Mr. Mohan reviewed information in the Coverage and Compliance Automated System, or CCAS, for Respondent. CCAS indicated Respondent’s workers were covered for workers’ compensation by Convergence and that Respondent’s contract with Convergence was active. Mr. Mohan also confirmed, through CCAS, that Foster Coleman, Respondent’s president, had previously obtained an exemption from the workers’ compensation requirement, but that his exemption expired on July 18, 2015. Mr. Mohan then contacted Mr. Coleman via telephone and informed him that one of the workers on the jobsite was not on the active employee roster for Convergence, thus Respondent was not in compliance with the requirement to obtain workers’ compensation insurance for its employees. Mr. Coleman reported to the jobsite in response to Mr. Mohan’s phone call. Mr. Coleman admitted that Mr. Barenfanger was not on the Convergence employee leasing roster. Mr. Coleman subsequently obtained an application from Convergence for Mr. Barenfanger and delivered it to his residence. Mr. Mohan served Mr. Coleman at the jobsite with a Stop-Work Order and a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation (“BRR”). In response to the BRR, Respondent provided to the Department business bank statements, check stubs, copies of checks, certificates of liability insurance for various suppliers and subcontractors, and an employee leasing roster for most of the audit period from November 20, 2013, to November 19, 2015.1/ Respondent did not produce any check stubs for November and December 2013. Mr. Coleman testified, credibly, that his bookkeeper during that time period did not keep accurate records. Mr. Coleman did produce his business bank statements and other records for that time period. Based on the review of initial records received, the Department calculated a penalty of $17,119.80 and issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in that amount on February 18, 2016. On March 17, 2016, Respondent supplied the Department with additional records. Altogether, Respondent submitted over 400 pages of records to the Department. The majority of the records are copies of check stubs for checks issued on Respondent’s business bank account. The check stubs are in numerical order from 1349 to 1879, and none are missing. The check stubs were hand written by Mr. Coleman, who is 78 years old. Some of his writing on the check stubs is difficult to discern. On April 4, 2016, following review of additional records received, the Department issued a Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in the amount of $9,629.36. The Department assigned penalty auditor Sarah Beal to calculate the penalty assessed against Respondent. Identification of Employees Ms. Beal reviewed the business records produced by Respondent and identified Respondent’s uninsured employees first by filtering out payments made to compliant individuals and businesses, and payments made for non-labor costs. However, the evidence demonstrated that the Department included on its penalty calculation worksheet (“worksheet”) payments made to individuals who were not Respondent’s employees. Neal Noonan is an automobile mechanic. Mr. Noonan was neither an employee of, nor a subcontractor for, Respondent for any work performed by Respondent during the audit period. Mr. Noonan performed repairs on Mr. Coleman’s personal vehicles during the audit period. Checks issued to Mr. Noonan during the audit period were for work performed on Mr. Coleman’s personal vehicles. The Department’s worksheet included a “David Locte” with a period of noncompliance from June 19, 2014, through December 31, 2014. The basis for including Mr. Locte as an employee was a check stub written on December 10, 2014, to a business name that is almost indiscernible, but closely resembles “Liete & Locke” in the amount of $100. The memo reflects that the check was written for “architect plans.” Mr. Coleman recognized the worksheet entry of David Locte as pertaining to David Leete, an architect in Daytona. Mr. Leete has provided architectural services to Respondent off and on for roughly five years. Mr. Leete signs and seals plans for, among others, a draftsman named Dan Langley. Mr. Langley provides drawings and plans for Respondent’s projects. When Respondent submits plans to a local governing body which requires architectural drawings to accompany permit applications, Mr. Leete reviews and signs the plans. Mr. Leete was neither an employee of, nor a subcontractor for, Respondent during the audit period. The single payment made to Mr. Leete by Respondent during the audit period was for professional architectural services rendered. Mr. Langley was neither an employee of, nor a subcontractor for, Respondent during the audit period. Payments made to Mr. Langley during the audit period were for professional drafting services rendered. Among the names on the Department’s worksheet is R.W. Kicklighter. Mr. Kicklighter is an energy consultant whose office is located in the same building with Mr. Leete. Mr. Kicklighter prepares energy calculations, based on construction plans, to determine the capacity of heating and air-conditioning systems needed to serve the planned construction. Mr. Kicklighter was neither an employee of, nor a subcontractor for, Respondent during the audit period. Payments made to Mr. Kicklighter during the audit period were for professional services rendered. Respondent made a payment of $125 on September 15, 2014, to an entity known as Set Material. Set Material is a company that rents dumpsters for collection of concrete at demolition and reconstruction sites. Removal and disposal of the concrete from the jobsite is included within the rental price of the dumpster. The Department included on the worksheet an entry for “Let Malereal.” The evidence revealed the correct name is Set Material and no evidence was introduced regarding the existence of a person or entity known as Let Malereal. Set Material was neither an employee of, nor a subcontractor for, Respondent during the audit period. The single payment made to Set Material during the audit period was for dumpster rental. The Department’s worksheet contains an entry for “CTC” for the penalty period of January 1, 2014, through May 1, 2014. Respondent made a payment to “CTC” on April 11, 2014, in connection with a job referred to as “964 clubhouse.” The records show Respondent made payments to Gulfeagle Supply, Vern’s Insulation, John Wood, Bruce Bennett, and Ron Whaley in connection with the same job. At final hearing, Mr. Coleman had no recollection what CTC referred to. Mr. Coleman’s testimony was the only evidence introduced regarding identification of CTC. CTC could have been a vendor of equipment or supplies for the job, just as easily as an employee. The evidence is insufficient to support a finding that CTC was an employee of, or a subcontractor for, Respondent during the audit period. The check stub for check 1685 does not indicate to whom the $60 payment was made. The stub reads “yo for Doug.” The Department listed “Doug” as an employee on its worksheet and included the $60 as wages to “Doug” for purposes of calculating workers’ compensation premiums owed. At hearing, Mr. Coleman was unable to recall ever having employed anyone named Doug, and had no recollection regarding the January 7, 2015, payment. The evidence was insufficient to establish that “Doug” was either Respondent’s employee or subcontractor during the audit period. Ken’s Heating and Air was not an employee of, nor a subcontractor to, Respondent for any work undertaken by Respondent during the audit period. Ken’s Heating and Air conducted repairs on, and maintenance of, Mr. Coleman’s personal residence during the audit period. Checks issued to Ken’s Heating and Air during the audit period were payments for work performed at Mr. Coleman’s personal residence. Barry Smith is an electrical contractor. Mr. Smith was neither an employee of, nor subcontractor to, Respondent for any work performed by Respondent during the audit period. Mr. Smith did make repairs to the electrical system at Mr. Coleman’s personal residence during the audit period. Checks issued to Mr. Smith during the audit period were payments for work performed at Mr. Coleman’s personal residence. The remaining names listed on the Department’s penalty calculation worksheet were accurately included as Respondent’s employees.2/ Calculation of Payroll Mr. Coleman’s exemption certificate expired on July 18, 2015, approximately four months shy of the end of the audit period. Payments made by Respondent to Mr. Coleman during the time period for which he did not have a valid exemption (the penalty period) were deemed by the Department as wages paid to Mr. Coleman by Respondent. Respondent’s business records show seven checks written either to Mr. Coleman or to cash during that time period in the total amount of $3,116.52. The Department included that amount on the worksheet as wages paid to Mr. Coleman. Check 1873 was written to cash, but the check stub notes that the payment of $1,035.69 was made to Compliance Matters, Respondent’s payroll company. Check 1875 was written to cash, but the check stub notes that the payment of $500 was made to Daytona Landscaping. The evidence does not support a finding that checks 1873 and 1875 represented wages paid to Mr. Coleman. The correct amount attributable as wages paid to Mr. Coleman during the penalty period is $1,796.52. Respondent’s employees Tyler Eubler, Brian Karchalla, Keith Walsh, and John Strobel, were periodically paid by Respondent during the audit period in addition to their paychecks from Convergence. Mr. Coleman testified that the payments were advances on their wages. He explained that when working on a job out of town, the crew would arrive after Convergence had closed for the day, and Mr. Coleman would pay them cash and allow them to reimburse him from their paychecks the following day. Unfortunately for Respondent, the evidence did not support a finding that these employees reimbursed Mr. Coleman for the advances made. The Department correctly determined the payroll amount attributable to these employees. The Department attributed $945 in payroll to “James Sharer.” The Department offered no evidence regarding how they arrived at the name of James Sharer as Respondent’s employee or the basis for the payroll amount. James Shores worked off-and-on for Respondent. Mr. Coleman recognized the worksheet entry of “James Sharer” as a misspelling of Mr. Shores’ name. Respondent’s records show payments totaling $535 to Mr. Shores during the audit period. The correct amount of payroll attributable to Mr. Shores from Respondent during the audit period is $535. The Department included wages totaling $10,098.84 to Mr. Barenfanger during the period of noncompliance from November 20, 2013, to December 31, 2013. The Department imputed the average weekly wage to Mr. Barenfanger for that period because, in the Department’s estimation, Respondent did not produce records sufficient to establish payroll for those two months in 2013. See § 440.107(7)(e), Fla. Stat. The voluminous records produced by Respondent evidenced not a single payment made to Mr. Barenfanger between January 2014, and November 19, 2015. Even if Mr. Coleman had not testified that he did not know or employ Mr. Barenfanger before November 19, 2015, it would be ludicrous to find that he worked weekly for Respondent during the last two months of 2013. Mr. Coleman testified, credibly, that Mr. Barenfanger worked the jobsite for Respondent on November 18 and 19, 2015, but not prior to those dates. The evidence does not support a finding that the worksheet entry for Mr. Barenfanger in the amount of $10,098.84 accurately represents wages attributable to Mr. Barenfanger during the period of noncompliance. The Department’s worksheet includes an employee by the name of Ren W. Raly for the period of noncompliance from January 1, 2014, through May 1, 2014, and a Ronnie Whaley for the period of noncompliance from June 19, 2014 through December 31, 2014. Mr. Coleman testified that he never had an employee by the name of Raly and he assumed the first entry was a misspelling of Ronnie Whaley’s name. Mr. Coleman testified that Ronnie Whaley was a concrete finisher and brick layer who did work for Respondent. Mr. Coleman testified that he submitted to the Department a copy of Mr. Whaley’s “workers’ comp exempt,” but that they must not have accepted it. The records submitted to the Department by Respondent do not contain any exemption certificate for Ronnie Whaley. However, in the records submitted to the Department from Respondent is a certificate of liability insurance dated February 25, 2014, showing workers’ compensation and liability coverage issued to Direct HR Services, Inc., from Alliance Insurance Solutions, LLC. The certificate plainly states that coverage is provided for “all leased employees, but not subcontractors, of Ronald Whaley Masonry.” The certificate shows coverage in effect from February 1, 2013, through February 1, 2015. Petitioner did not challenge the reliability of the certificate or otherwise object to its admissibility.3/ In fact, the document was moved into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit P1. Petitioner offered no testimony regarding whether the certificate was insufficient proof of coverage for Mr. Whaley during the periods of noncompliance listed on the worksheet. The evidence does not support a finding that Mr. Whaley was an uninsured individual during the periods of noncompliance. Thus, the wages attributed to Mr. Whaley by the Department were incorrect. Ms. Beal assigned the class code 5645—Carpentry to the individuals correctly identified as Respondent’s uninsured employees because this code matched the description of the job being performed by the workers on the jobsite the day of the inspection. Ms. Beal correctly utilized the corresponding approved manual rates for the carpentry classification code and the related periods of noncompliance to determine the gross payroll to the individuals correctly included as Respondent’s uninsured employees. Calculation of Penalty For the employees correctly included as uninsured employees, Ms. Beal applied the correct approved manual rates and correctly utilized the methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)1. and Florida Administrative Code Rules 69L-6.027 and 69L-6.028 to determine the penalty to be imposed. For the individuals correctly included as uninsured employees, and for whom the correct payroll was calculated, the correct penalty amount is $2,590.06. The correct penalty for payments made to Mr. Coleman during the penalty period is $571.81. The correct penalty for payments made to James Shores is $170.24. The correct total penalty to be assessed against Respondent is $3,332.11. The Department demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent was engaged in the construction industry in Florida during the audit period and that Respondent failed to carry workers’ compensation insurance for its employees at times during the audit period as required by Florida’s workers’ compensation law. The Department demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent employed the employees named on the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, with the exception of Ken’s Heating and Air, CTC, Don Langly, Ren W. Raly, R.W. Kicklighter, Dave Locte, Let Malereal, Ronnie Whaley, and “Doug.” The Department did not demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that it correctly calculated the gross payroll attributable to Mr. Coleman and Mr. Shores. The Department demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Beal correctly utilized the methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)1. to determine the appropriate penalty for each of Respondent’s uninsured employees. The Department did not demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the correct penalty is $9,629.36. The evidence demonstrated that the correct penalty to be assessed against Respondent for failure to provide workers’ compensation insurance for its employees during the audit period is $3,332.11.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, finding that Fantastic Construction of Daytona, Inc., violated the workers’ compensation insurance law and assessing a penalty of $3,332.11. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of August, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of August, 2016.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent is guilty of making misleading, deceptive, or fraudulent representations in or related to the practice of contracting, in violation of Section 289.129(1)(c), Florida Statutes; mismanagement or misconduct in the practice of contracting that causes financial harm to a customer, in violation of Section 489.129(1)(h)2, Florida Statutes; failing to comply with any of the provisions of Chapter 489, Part I, or a rule or lawful order of the Construction Industry Licensing Board, in violation of Section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes; abandoning a construction project, in violation of Section 489.129(1)(k), Florida Statutes; committing fraud or deceit in the practice of contracting, in violation of Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes; two counts of committing incompetency or misconduct in the practice of contracting, in violation of Section 489.129(1)(n), Florida Statutes; and failing to satisfy, within a reasonable time, a civil judgment obtained against him, or a business entity that he has qualified, and related to the practice of contracting, in violation of Section 489.129(1)(r), Florida Statutes. If Respondent is guilty of any of these violations, an additional issue is what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a certified general contractor, holding certificate number CR C016649. He has been continuously certified since 1980 and has been licensed since 1988 as the qualifier of Dunbar Development, Inc. On August 19, 1994, Carla and Vernon Prevatt entered into a contract with Dunbar Development, Inc., for the construction of a residence. The contract calls for Dunbar Development, Inc. (Dunbar), to construct the "Horizon" model home on two platted lots for the sum of $73,395 plus an additional $7400 for Addendum 2. The contract permits Dunbar to cancel the contract if the Prevatts timely apply for a mortgage, but are denied. However, in such event, the contract requires Dunbar to return to the Prevatts all of their money. The contract acknowledges that the Prevatts paid Dunbar the sum of $1500 at the time of entering into the contract. A handwritten note states: "June 06, 1995—Rec'd $17,000.00 ck no. 16655 to initiate construction application for permits & building." Although the contract was originally signed by John Danzy, as "authorized representative" for Dunbar, this handwritten note bears the initials, "WB." The contract does not contain Respondent's certificate number. The contract does not contain a completion date. The contract provides that Dunbar will "commence construction . . . after full down payment and mortgage financing is received" and "will complete the same as soon as practicable, subject to the availability of labor and supplies [and] delays not within the control of [Dunbar]." Another clause in the contract states that Dunbar shall complete construction within two years of the date of the contract. On August 30, 1994, the Prevatts applied for a construction mortgage loan with the First Bank of Clewiston. The bank processed the loan application without any delays or problems. However, there was a substantial delay not attributable to the Prevatts or Respondent in obtaining an appraisal. The appraiser completed the appraisal before March 5, 1995, but probably not much prior to that date. By letter dated March 5, 1995, from Dunbar's financial officer to the Prevatts, Dunbar acknowledged the receipt of the appraisal and proposed a draw schedule totaling $80,795. The first payment under the draw schedule was $18,500 for "applicable fees and permits, plus, the plylon engineered foundation and engineered septic field construction initiation." The policy of First Bank of Clewiston is to match the value of the work to the payments to the contractor. The first payment due under Dunbar's draw schedule called for a payment substantially in excess of the value of the goods and services rendered. However, the bank acceded to the schedule and delivered a check dated June 6, 1995, in the amount of $17,000 payable jointly to the Prevatts and Dunbar. As Dunbar had done with the $1500 down payment received at the time of the execution of the contract, Dunbar deposited the $17,000 check and received payment of these funds. On behalf of Dunbar, Respondent hired Johnson-Prewitt & Associates, Inc., in early November 1995, to prepare the engineering drawings for the septic tank and foundation. These materials are specific to the Prevatts' homesite. By invoice dated November 13, 1995, Johnson-Prewitt & Associates, Inc., invoiced Respondent at Dunbar a total of $1700 for the completed work. After a credit of $700, the outstanding balance was $1000, which remains unpaid. From 1994 through 1995, Respondent, on behalf of Dunbar, provided information to Alpha Engineering, which was retained to prepare the plans for the Horizon model that the Prevatts were building. Most of this work was for the prototype Horizon home, but the work reflected by an invoice dated March 16, 1996, was exclusively for the home to be built for the Prevatts. Respondent and Dunbar never paid this invoice and never picked up the plan revisions that were the subject of this invoice. In fact, Respondent and Dunbar never commenced construction of the Prevatts' home and refused to return any portion of the $18,500 that the Prevatts paid to Dunbar. Although the bank never made any additional disbursements, the Prevatts nevertheless owed the bank the $17,000 disbursed as the first draw and, at the time of the hearing, had paid the sum of $6522.96 in interest and closing costs on this loan. With two checks totaling $2800 that, in June 1995, Yvonne Bushnell delivered to Respondent, on behalf of Dunbar, Ms. Bushnell entered into a contract with Dunbar for the construction of a residence. After Dunbar declined to construct a house or return the money, Ms. Bushnell filed an action against Respondent and Dunbar in Lee County Court on January 31, 1997. On March 12, 1997, the court entered a default judgment against Dunbar Developing, Inc., for the sum of $2800 and costs of $79.50. Following entry of the judgment, on September 14, 1998, Ms. Bushnell and Respondent agreed to settle the matter with the payment of $1600. However, upon payment of only $800, Respondent obtained Ms. Bushnell's signature on a letter dated September 14, 1998, to Petitioner acknowledging the full settlement of the case. Respondent then proceeded to obtain court issuance of a satisfaction when Ms. Bushnell refused to sign a satisfaction, absent payment of the remaining $800. By Order to Set Aside Settlement Agreement entered November 24, 1998, the court reinstated the original judgment. The judgment remains unsatisfied.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order revoking Respondent's certificate as a general contractor and imposing an administrative fine against him of $4000. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of May, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 6th day of May, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul F. Kirsch, Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 P. Michael Villalobos Sussman Law Group, P.A. 1375 Jackson Street, Suite 201 Fort Myers, Florida 33901 William Woodyard, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Rodney Hurst, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent has been licensed as a residential contractor in the State of Florida, holding license number CR C022406, and was the licensed contractor qualifying Rothberg Homes, Inc. On or about May 21, 1986, the Respondent entered into a contract to build Mr. and Mrs. Frank Sargent a new home in Palm Harbor, Florida, for $95,670. The home was to be completed before November 15, 1986, so that the Sargents could qualify for a lower interest rate. The Respondent relied heavily on his construction superintendent, Frank Jackson, to accomplish the work in a timely and workmanlike manner. The Respondent was responsible primarily for selling contracts and for taking care of the company finances. To comply with the technical requirements of the contract, the Respondent had construction begin in July, 1986, with the clearing of the lot. But foundation footers were not dug and poured until about a month later, and construction proceeded at a slow pace (then it went on at all.) The Sargents registered numerous complaints to Jackson about the slow pace and some complaints to the Respondent about Jackson, but nothing was done to speed construction along. In October, 1986, the Sargents, who were on the job site daily, began hearing complaints from suppliers and subcontractors that the Respondent was slow paying them but was told that he eventually was coming through with the payments due. By November, the Respondent was not making payments at all in some cases. Also in October and November, Jackson was in the process of opening his own business (not construction-related) and was devoting less and less time to the Sargent job. November 15, 1986, approached, and it became obvious that the deadline would not be met. The Sargents and the Respondent met and agreed to extend the deadline one month to December 16. On December 11th, the Sargents again reminded the Respondent of the deadline and its importance to them, but the December 16 deadline also came and went with the house only about 70 percent complete. In December, Jackson quit altogether. The Sargents complained to the Respondent, who promised to replace Jackson but never did. Because the Respondent had stopped paying subs and suppliers, they refused to do any more work, and the Sargents wound up having to pay some of them out of their own pockets in order for work to continue. In March 1987, some of the subs and suppliers also filed claims of liens for unpaid work which the Sargents had to clear out of their own pockets in order to close the purchase of the house. Mr. Sargent himself did some of the work, some of which would have been warranty work if the Respondent had paid his bills on time, to save some additional expense caused by the Respondent's failure to keep current on his accounts with the subs and suppliers and to avoid some of the additional hassle of trying to persuade an unpaid sub or supplier to do warranty work. On March 16, 1987, the Sargents met with the Respondent to arrive at an accounting for purposes of the upcoming closing. They agreed that the Sargents should receive the last construction loan draw of about $9,500 to compensate them for payments they made that should have been made by the Respondent and that the Respondent still owed them $6,000, which the parties agreed would be the subject of a promissory note from the Respondent to the Sargents. (This does not even account for the Sargents being shortchanged when a three-foot roof overhang for which they had contracted turned out to be only a two-foot overhang.) The Respondent has paid the promissory note.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order finding the Respondent, Daniel S. Rothberg, guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(h) and (m), Florida Statutes (1987), and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,500. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of December, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of December, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth R. Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Daniel S. Rothberg 624 Charisma Drive Tarpon Springs, Florida 34689 Daniel S. Rothberg 196 Mayfair Circle Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 Warren A. Wilson, III, Esquire 2101 U.S. Highway 19 North Suite 201 Palm Harbor, Florida 33563 Fred Seely, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Mark O. Holland, is a licensed registered building contractor holding license number RB 0039443. Respondent was licensed at all times material to this action. Sometime around June 19, 1986, Respondent entered into a contract with Mrs. Mary Sue Thames. Ms. Thames resided in Tennessee. The contract covered Ms. Thames' partially burned out home located at 528 Dement Circle, Panama City, Florida. Respondent was to rebuild the damaged portions of the home and to build an addition onto the home. The contract improvements were to be completed within sixty days of the contract date. The contract contemplated installment payments by Mrs. Thames, by September 5, 1986, she had paid $15,000.00 of the total contract price of $17,300.00 to Respondent. The remaining $2,300.00 was to be paid upon completion of the job. Mrs. Thames became concerned that the job was not progressing in a reasonably timely manner in September 1986 when she visited the job site from Tennessee. She observed that "nothing was done" even though the sixty day contract period had expired. Suppliers were removing items from the job that Respondent had not paid for under the contract. Mrs. Thames throughout the job had telephoned the Respondent weekly to check on the progress. Respondent would assure Mrs. Thames that he would "get right on it" and finish the job. Due to Respondent's assurances, Mrs. Thames elected to stay with Respondent so that he could complete the contract. Respondent never substantially performed the job although he did perform part of the contract. Between September 1986 and January 1987, Mrs. Thames in an effort to get the job finished, paid for supplies and materials that Respondent was contractually obligated to purchase. She paid for sheet rock, vinyl, carpet and doors. Respondent had told Mrs. Thames that he had no money to finish the job and that if she would purchase those materials he could finish the job. Mrs. Thames knew the contract obligated the Respondent to furnish the materials she purchased but was trying to work with the Respondent. The effort did not pay off. Respondent had in effect abandoned the job. As stated earlier, Respondent did not complete Mrs. Thames' job. In March 1987, Mrs. Thames' family assisted her in obtaining other subcontractors and suppliers to complete the job. She incurred costs of $8,000.00 to these subcontractors and suppliers, an amount less than the amount already paid to Respondent. Mrs. Thames testified that at least two subcontractors have not been paid by the Respondent those being Stephens Heating and Air Conditioning and M.D. Stewart Plumbing Company. Mr. Lester Stephens, owner of Stephens Heating and Air Conditioning subcontracted with the Respondent. Stephens' company roughed in the central ducts system valued at $700.00 on September 1, 1986 and as of September 27, 1988, had not been paid by Respondent. Coastal Insulation of Northwest Florida, Inc. filed a lien against Mrs. Thames' property as a result of Respondent not paying for supplies. The lien was apparently discharged by Respondent. Mr. Richard Dodson confirmed the testimony of Mrs. Thames. Mr. Dodson added that in addition to the $8,000.00 Mrs. Thames paid to complete the job, she also incurred hotel and travel bills. She also lost approximately 1 - 1/2 years worth of rental income on the house because of Respondent's misconduct and abandonment of the job. Respondent was disciplined by the Panama City Beach Board of Examiners on September 10, 1987 for misconduct and violations of the Building Regulations and Ordinances of the City of Panama City Beach during the Thames job. Respondent's competency card was revoked by the Board. Respondent has never refunded any of the contract price to Mrs. Thames.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00 be levied against Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of November, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of November, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-2489 The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, in so far as material. The facts contained in paragraph 2 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are subordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth R. Alsobrook, Esquire Tectonics Section Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Mark O. Holland Route A, Box 366 Youngstown, Florida 32466 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Lawrence A. Gonzalez, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue The issue is whether the Stop-Work Order and Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued by Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation (Division), on March 15, 2015, and June 3, 2015, respectively, should be upheld.
Findings Of Fact The Division is the state agency responsible for enforcing the various requirements of chapter 440. Respondent is a small Florida corporation with offices located at Suite 7, 1011 West Lancaster Road, Orlando, Florida. Among other things, it is engaged in the business of installing, repairing, and maintaining signs. Each of these activities falls within the statutory definition of "construction industry." See § 440.02(8), Fla. Stat. The office consists of an enclosed area and warehouse area where sign-making machinery is kept. On March 17, 2015, while driving on Simpson Road in Kissimmee, Kirk Glover, a Division compliance inspector, observed a truck with a hydraulic lift in front of a Metro PCS store. Respondent's name and telephone number were embossed on the hood of the truck. The use of a truck with a hydraulic lift for installing signs is considered a construction activity in the context of workers' compensation insurance. Mr. Glover observed one individual in the bucket of the lift "working on a sign" that was affixed to the building. A second individual was standing on the ground "directing the individual in the bucket." The individual on the ground (who is identified in the record as "Pinaida" but whose name is Pineda)2/ did not identify himself, but acknowledged that he worked for Respondent. The individual in the bucket identified himself as Marcos Escoto and confirmed that he also worked for Respondent. Mr. Glover contacted Respondent's owners who told him that they build and install signs, the truck had been purchased approximately one year earlier, and they used Escoto and Pineda "to install signs." An employer engaged in construction activities is required to obtain workers' compensation insurance coverage for the benefit of its employees unless exempted or otherwise excluded under chapter 440. The firm had no exemptions during the audit period. A follow-up investigation by Mr. Glover confirmed that Respondent did not have workers' compensation insurance for any employee during the audit period from February 5, 2014, through March 17, 2015. (An older policy was canceled on February 5, 2014.) Because Respondent had no insurance, a Stop-Work Order was issued on March 17, 2015. The Division later issued an initial penalty assessment, as twice amended. The latest assessment is $9,389.94. The penalty assessment is an amount equal to two times the amount Respondent would have paid in premiums when applying the approved manual rates to Respondent's payroll during the periods for which it failed to secure insurance coverage within the preceding two-year period. Before preparing its penalty assessment, the Division requested various business and payroll records from Respondent, which does not contest the authenticity or accuracy of the records. After the records were produced, the Division calculated a penalty assessment that identified each worker during the audit period and assigned the worker a class code, depending on the type of work performed. Respondent disputes only three items in the latest 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 code 9554 applies to employees engaged in the "installation, maintenance, repair, removal or replacement of signs that are not otherwise classified." The code is all-inclusive in its scope and contemplates "all operations related to the erection, maintenance and repair of this type of advertising media provided that this activity takes place away from a shop." It includes the pulling of permits for work on new signs. Code 3064 is assigned to employees who are engaged in the production of sheet metal signs, including the manufacturing of electronic signs. At issue here is the assignment of code 9554 to Marcos Escoto and an entity identified in the assessment as JLS Construction, and the assignment of code 3064 to another employee, Edgar Del Valle. Although the record in this case is somewhat sketchy, Respondent contends that Edgar Del Valle is a vinyl installer in the shop and does not work on outdoor signs. It argues that his classification code should be 4299, a code with a lower rate that is assigned, among other things, to certain aspects of vinyl sign manufacturing operations. It also contends that Marcos Escoto, who was observed by Mr. Glover installing a sign on March 17, 2015, should be assigned a classification code of 8810, as he was merely "checking" the sign and not doing actual installation work. Code 8810 is assigned to clerical office employees and carries a lower rate than 9554. Finally, Respondent points out that the employee identified as "JLS Construction" is actually named "JAL Construction." Respondent contends that because its only task is to pull permits before outdoor work on new signs is performed, it should be treated as a vendor, rather than an employee, and removed from the penalty assessment. If an employee performs work that deals with more than one class code, the employee is assigned the highest class code. In this case, even if Mr. Escoto sometimes performs non- construction activities, he was observed working on a sign. Code 9554 includes work that relates to the installation, removal, repair, or replacement of any sign that hangs outside a building. Therefore, the assignment of code 9554 was correct. At hearing, a Division auditor testified that she "received additional records from the employer who stated that Edgar conducts wrap installation," work that is considered a construction activity in the Manual. See Pet'r Ex. 10, p. 92. This was not disputed by Respondent. Therefore, even though Edgar Del Valle may be engaged in other vinyl sign production activities, the assignment of code 3064 was correct. The Division agrees that the correct name of the corporation that pulls permits is JAL Construction, and not JLS Construction. In its PRO, it also agreed that JAL Construction has an exemption from coverage requirements. Accordingly, the assessment should be reduced by $74.04. Finally, at hearing the Division agreed that the penalty assessment should be adjusted downward by $285.26 because employee Lucy Cordova was assigned an incorrect code. As amended herein, the final assessment should be $9,030.64.
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 with a penalty of $9,030.64. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of October, 2015, 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 14th day of October, 2015.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondents violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2013),1/ by failing to secure the payment of workers’ compensation as alleged in the Stop-Work Order and Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and, if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (the Department), is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure the payment of workers’ compensation for the benefit of their employees and corporate officers. Ms. Angelia Brown has been a compliance investigator with the Department since 2007. On July 25, 2013, Investigator Brown conducted a site visit to a residential structure at 606 Orby Street, Pensacola, Florida. She observed three men performing roofing work on a detached two-car garage. One of the men showed her a job “ticket” indicating he was a “leased” laborer from Action Labor, an employee leasing company specializing in daily labor. Neither of the other men showed her tickets. Investigator Brown said that Mr. Robert Reed told her he was working for Mr. Michael Cribbs and that he had been on the site for a couple of days, but did not have a job ticket from Action Labor at that time. She testified that Mr. James Kingry told her he had not discussed pay with Mr. Cribbs, but that he did expect to be paid. Investigator Brown examined the information on the permit board at the job site and determined that a permit had been issued to Michael Cribbs Construction of Pensacola, Inc., and that the permit was active. Based upon the information provided by the three men, Investigator Brown checked workers’ compensation information by accessing the Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) maintained by the Department. The database indicated no workers’ compensation coverage in effect for Mr. Cribbs or for Michael Cribbs Construction of Pensacola, Inc. CCAS further showed that Mr. Cribbs, as president of Michael Cribbs Construction of Pensacola, Inc., had an exemption on file, but that this exemption had lapsed from March 8, 2012, through July 15, 2012. Investigator Brown called Action Labor and was informed that only Mr. Louis Sampson was “on ticket” for the day; that there was no active or current ticket for Mr. Reed, although he had been on ticket in the past; and that there were no records at all on Mr. Kingry. There was clear and convincing evidence that Respondents had periodically “leased” employees from Action Labor, including evidence that Mr. Sampson was employed by Action Labor and was working at the Orby Street site on July 25, 2013. Investigator Brown next contacted Mr. Cribbs. She told him that she was at the Orby Street site and explained the reason she was there. Mr. Cribbs told her that Mr. Sampson and Mr. Reed were “covered” and that Mr. Kingry was his former business partner of 20 years and was not being paid. Investigator Brown told Mr. Cribbs that Mr. Reed was not on an Action Labor ticket. Mr. Cribbs replied that he had a ticket for Mr. Reed and that he would look for it. Investigator Brown accessed the Department of State, Division of Corporations’ website. That database indicated that Michael Cribbs Construction of Pensacola, Inc., was inactive, and that it had been dissolved on September 28, 2012, for failure to file an annual report. Based upon her investigation, Investigator Brown concluded that Mr. Reed and Mr. Kingry were employees of Michael Cribbs, d/b/a Michael Cribbs Construction of Pensacola, Inc., a dissolved Florida corporation, and were not covered by workers’ compensation. She contacted her supervisor. Respondents received a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment from the Department on July 25, 2013. Respondents received a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation from the Department on July 25, 2013. It requested records for the three- year period from July 26, 2010, through July 25, 2013. In response to the Request for Production of Business Records, Mr. Cribbs provided some records to the Department’s Pensacola Office. He did not provide business records sufficient to enable the Department to determine payroll for the calculation of a penalty, however. There was clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Cribbs had operated in the construction industry as a corporate officer of Michael Cribbs Construction of Pensacola, Inc. Mr. Phillip Sley is a penalty calculator employed by the Department. He reviewed the business records that had been provided by Respondents, including insurance policies, bank statements, exemption documents, and some payroll documents, and calculated a penalty. Respondents received an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment from the Department on August 6, 2013. It assessed a penalty for failure to secure workers’ compensation coverage based upon imputed wages for Mr. Reed and Mr. Kingry for almost all of the three-year period and imputed wages for Mr. Cribbs for the period of March 8, 2012, through July 15, 2012, when his exemption had lapsed. Mr. Cribbs subsequently provided some additional documents, including tax returns and bank images, but these were still insufficient to fully determine the payroll. Mr. Sley re- calculated a penalty based in part upon documents that were provided and in part on imputed information. Records provided by Respondents indicate that Michael Cribbs Construction of Pensacola, Inc., was an employer for periods from July 26, 2010, until its dissolution on September 28, 2012. Mr. Cribbs, as a sole proprietor, was an employer from September 29, 2012, until the site visit on July 25, 2013. The assessed penalty amount was reduced for Mr. Reed and Mr. Kingry, but additional penalties were assessed for six other individuals, based upon payments to them on various dates from September 2, 2010, through December 31, 2012. There was clear and convincing evidence at hearing that these six individuals were employees of Michael Cribbs Construction of Pensacola, Inc., and Mr. Cribbs. The new assessment represented a net reduction in the overall penalty. Respondents requested an administrative hearing, which was conducted on July 2, 2014. A motion to adopt the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, consistent with the Department’s latest calculations, was granted. At hearing, Mr. Cribbs testified that the owners of the house at the Orby Street site had been paying a framing crew, but when he checked on them they had framed the garage roof incorrectly, so he fired them. The framing work being done on the detached garage at the Orby Street site was for-profit activity involving building and substantial improvement in the size and use of the residential structures at that location. There was clear and convincing evidence that the work was activity within the construction industry. Mr. Cribbs testified that, after firing the framing crew, he asked Mr. Reed to come to the job because he had worked with Mr. Reed before through Action Labor and that Mr. Reed “seemed to know what he was doing.” He testified that he told Mr. Reed to call in to Action Labor. He also testified that he had a ticket for Mr. Reed and that he considered Mr. Reed to be an employee of Action Labor. He acknowledged that Mr. Reed failed to call in to Action Labor. Mr. Reed was an employee of Respondents, as defined in section 440.02, Florida Statutes, on July 25, 2013. Mr. Cribbs testified that Mr. Kingry was a good friend he had known since they met in 1979 while doing framing work. He testified that they had been partners through the years, that their wives were best friends, and that they fished together. He said that he had used Mr. Kingry--who earlier had his own company and exemption--as a subcontractor on a few jobs when construction was booming after hurricane Ivan in 2004. He testified that they had not worked together at all since that time. Mr. Cribbs testified that his mother had been in and out of the emergency room and hospital with lung and brain cancer. He said he called Mr. Kingry from the hospital and asked him to go by the Orby Street job just to make sure that Mr. Reed knew what he was doing in cutting in the roof. He said he wasn’t expecting Mr. Kingry to do any work because he knew that Mr. Kingry had an injured knee, and only expected him to be at the site for “maybe 30 minutes.” Mr. Cribbs testified that there was no expectation that Mr. Kingry was going to be paid for going out there and that Mr. Kingry never asked him about pay. Mr. Kingry was engaged in construction activity on the roof on July 25, 2013. There was insufficient evidence at hearing to refute Mr. Cribbs’s testimony or otherwise demonstrate that Mr. Kingry was paid for his work, however. There was insufficient evidence to show that Mr. Kingry had been an employee of Mr. Cribbs or Michael Cribbs Construction of Pensacola, Inc., on July 25, 2013, or at any time during the preceding three years. Mr. Cribbs further testified at hearing that he had maintained all of the records he was required to have, but that most of them had been destroyed. He testified that, when he was married, he had kept the records in his house, but that, after he was divorced, he moved into a rental property and kept the records in some filing cabinets in a shed out back. Mr. Cribbs testified that about two years ago someone broke the lock on the shed, stole the filing cabinets, and left the papers strewn on the dirt floor of the shed. Mr. Cribbs said that shortly afterwards it rained heavily and flooded. He said that none of the records could be salvaged. This would have been about July 2012, near the time when Mr. Cribbs renewed his expired exemption. Mr. Cribbs admitted that he did not file a police report on the stolen file cabinets. Mr. Cribbs said he went to his bank to get copies of some records, but that, for portions of the three-year period, he did not have a bank account. Investigator Brown testified that she had checked job sites of Mr. Cribbs or Michael Cribbs Construction of Pensacola, Inc., on two earlier occasions and that no violations were found. The first time, it was determined that workers at the site were being paid directly by the homeowners and that Mr. Cribbs’s exemption was in place, so everything was in compliance. The second time, the Department received a complaint. There was an active permit, but, at the time of the site visit, all work had been completed. Respondents were engaged in construction industry business operations in the state of Florida during the periods of September 2, 2010, through December 31, 2010, and August 17, 2012, through December 31, 2012. Mr. Cribbs was engaged in construction industry business operations at the Orby Street site on July 25, 2013. Mr. Reed was an “employee” of Mr. Cribbs, as defined in section 440.02, on July 25, 2013. Respondents did not secure the payment of workers’ compensation insurance coverage for Mr. Reed on July 25, 2013. Neither Mr. Reed nor Mr. Kingry held valid workers’ compensation exemptions during the period of July 26, 2010, through July 25, 2013. Mr. Cribbs did not possess an exemption during the period of March 8, 2012, through July 15, 2012. None of the employees listed in the penalty worksheet of the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment can be classified as an independent contractor, as defined in section 440.02(15)(d)1. The class codes, manual rates, and average weekly wages identified on the penalty worksheet of the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment are correct to the extent a penalty is due.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, enter a final order determining that Respondents violated the requirement in chapter 440, Florida Statutes, to secure workers’ compensation coverage, and imposing a total penalty assessment of $30,529.96. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD 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 22nd day of August, 2014.
Findings Of Fact 13. The factual allegations contained in the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment issued on December 15, 2009, the Amended Stop-Work Order issued on January 5, 2010, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on January 8, 2010, the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on March 11, 2010, and the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on March 31, 2010, attached as “Exhibit A”, “Exhibit C”, “Exhibit D“, “Exhibit E”, and “Exhibit F”, respectively, and fully incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted as the Department’s Findings of Fact in this case.
Conclusions THIS PROCEEDING came on for final agency action and 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 KALT CONSTRUCTION, INC., the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment, the Amended Stop-Work Order, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby finds that: 1. On December 15, 2009, the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (hereinafter “Department”) issued a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 09-507-D3 to KALT CONSTRUCTION, INC. The Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein KALT CONSTRUCTION, 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 December 15, 2009, the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment was personally served on KALT CONSTRUCTION, 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 December 31, 2009, KALT CONSTRUCTION, INC. filed a petition for administrative review (“Petition”) with the Department which was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned DOAH Case No. 10-0353. A copy of the Petition is attached hereto as “Exhibit B”. 4. On January 5, 2010, the Department issued an Amended Stop-Work Order to KALT CONSTRUCTION, INC. 5. On January 9, 2010, the Amended Stop-Work Order was served by certified mail on KALT CONSTRUCTION, INC. A copy of the Amended Stop-Work Order is attached hereto as “Exhibit C” and incorporated herein by reference. 6. On January 8, 2010, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to KALT CONSTRUCTION, INC. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $173,448.64 against KALT CONSTRUCTION, INC. 7. On January 25, 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 D” and incorporated herein by reference. 8. On March 11, 2010, the Department issued a 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to KALT CONSTRUCTION, INC. The 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $70,939.06 against KALT CONSTRUCTION, INC. 9. On March 18, 2010, the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings. A copy of the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit E” and incorporated herein by reference. 10. On March 31, 2010, the Department issued a 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to KALT CONSTRUCTION, INC. The 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $66,864.41 against KALT CONSTRUCTION, INC. 11. On April 5, 2010, the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings. A copy of the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit F” and incorporated herein by reference. 12. On April 12, 2010, counsel for KALT CONSTRUCTION, INC. filed a Voluntary Dismissal of KALT CONSTRUCTION, INC.’s Petition with the Division of Administrative Hearings. As a result, Administrative Law Judge Carolyn S. Holifield 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 G”.
The Issue The issues are whether Petitioner has proved that Respondent failed to secure workers' compensation insurance, as required by section 440.10, Florida Statutes, and, if so, the amount of the penalty, pursuant to section 440.107.
Findings Of Fact On September 18, 2013, the owner and Jesus Rodriguez, representing Respondent, signed a permit application for reroofing of a single-family residence located at 4311 Southwest 15th Street, Miami. An official of the Miami-Dade County Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources approved the plans on September 27, 2013. The record does not disclose when work commenced. However, at about 9:00 a.m. on September 25, 2013, an investigator of the Division of Workers' Compensation was randomly canvassing the area, noticed roofing work at the subject address, and conducted an inspection. The investigator observed three persons on the roof engaged in roofing work. When the investigator asked the three workers for whom they worked, one of them replied, "Oval Construction," and added that it was owned by Pedro Alfaro and Jesus R. Rodriguez (Mr. J. Rodriguez). When asked for a phone number for the owners, the worker gave the investigator a cell number for Mr. Alfaro. Prior to calling Mr. Alfaro, while still at the work site, the investigator researched Oval Construction and learned that it was an active corporation with two corporate officers: Mr. Alfaro and Mr. J. Rodriguez. The investigator learned that the corporation showed no workers' compensation exemptions for the officers or any workers' compensation coverage. While still at the worksite, the investigator then called Mr. Alfaro and asked him if Oval Construction had workers' compensation insurance. Mr. Alfaro said that Mr. J. Rodriguez handled such matters, so the investigator told Mr. Alfaro to have Mr. J. Rodriguez call the investigator immediately. Mr. J. Rodriguez did so and informed the investigator that the three workers worked for him, but not under Oval Construction; they worked for Respondent, and Respondent had workers' compensation insurance. Mr. J. Rodriguez stated that he did not have the insurance information at the moment, but would call back with the information. In the meantime, the investigator researched Respondent and learned that it was an active corporation with two officers: Mr. J. Rodriguez and Mr. Alberto Rodriguez (Mr. A. Rodriguez), who were not related. (Mr. J. Rodriguez is deceased.) Both officers had current workers' compensation exemptions, and the database indicated that Respondent leased its employees from South East Personnel Leasing Company. The investigator contacted South East Personnel Leasing and learned that the leasing contract had terminated on July 24, 2013, and Respondent had no current workers' compensation coverage through South East Personnel Leasing. At this point, the investigator called Mr. J. Rodriguez, who repeated that the workers were employed by Respondent, not Oval Construction. Subsequently, the investigator tried unsuccessfully several times to speak to Mr. J. Rodriguez. A few days after the inspection, Mr. A. Rodriguez called the investigator and arranged for a meeting between the investigator and Mr. J. Rodriguez for October 1, 2013. On October 1, 2013, the investigator and Mr. J. Rodriguez met, and the investigator served on him, in the name of Respondent, a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation for the three-year period ending on September 25, 2013. Respondent never produced any business records to Petitioner. On October 2, 2013, Mr. J. Rodriguez caused the transfer of the building permit for the roofing work from Respondent to Blue Panther Roofing. On October 1, 2013, Mr. J. Rodriguez signed a Hold Harmless agreement holding Miami-Dade County harmless and assuming responsibility for any work already performed under the building permit issued to Respondent. Mr. A. Rodriguez testified that he knew nothing about the subject job. But Mr. J. Rodriguez was the qualifying general contractor of Respondent, was an officer of Respondent, and owned 20% of Respondent. In fact, Mr. J. Rodriguez was the only licensed or certified contractor employed by Respondent and was the sole person who could obtain building permits for work to be performed by Respondent. Mr. A. Rodriguez's lack of knowledge of the subject job is therefore not dispositive because Mr. J. Rodriguez had the authority to, and did, apply for the building permit in the name of Respondent, and he had the authority to, and did, obligate Respondent to do the subject reroofing work. During the above-described three-year period, according to Petitioner Exhibit 6, page 20, Respondent had workers' compensation insurance from October 4, 2010, through January 1, 2013. Additionally, according to Petitioner Exhibit 6, page 23, Respondent had workers' compensation insurance through South East Personnel Leasing from October 18, 2012, through February 20, 2013, and March 7, 2013, through July 24, 2013. This is borne out by the testimony of the investigator. (Tr., pp. 99-101.) Respondent thus did not have workers' compensation coverage for a total of 85 days during the three years at issue, during which time Respondent actively performed construction work in Florida. The three periods of noncoverage during the three years at issue are September 26 through October 3, 2010, for a total of 8 days; February 21, 2013, through March 6, 2013, for a total of 14 days; and July 25, 2013, through September 25, 2013, for a total of 63 days. A conflict in the evidence prevented Petitioner from proving by clear and convincing evidence a fourth period of noncoverage: October 4 through 17, 2012. Additionally, Mr. J. Rodriguez was listed as secretary of Respondent and exempt from workers' compensation insurance from March 1, 2013, through March 1, 2015, so he would be counted as an employee during the noncoverage periods of September 26, through October 3, 2010, and February 21, 2013, through February 28, 2013. Mr. A. Rodriguez was listed as president of Respondent and exempt from workers' compensation insurance from October 22, 2012, through October 22, 2014, so he would be counted as an employee during the noncoverage period of September 26, 2010, through October 3, 2010. Mr. A. Rodriguez's wife, Yubanis Ibarra, was also a corporate officer and was not exempt during one week of one noncoverage period: September 26 to October 3, 2010. On October 30, 2013, Petitioner issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessing a penalty of $15,594.34 pursuant to section 440.107(7)(d). The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is supported by a Penalty Calculation Worksheet, which based the penalty on the three employees found on the job on the day of the inspection as employees during all periods of noncoverage and the three above-identified corporate officers during their respective periods of nonexemption that occurred while they served as officers. Subject to two exceptions, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment correctly calculates the gross payroll based on the statewide average weekly wage multiplied by 1.5, applies the correct manual rates to the gross payroll, determines the correct evaded premium, and determines the correct penalty based on the premium multiplied by 1.5. The first exception is that Petitioner failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence a lack of coverage for the above-described 13 days in October 2012. This failure of proof noted in the preceding paragraph concerns four employees who generated total penalties of $2510.88, so the corrected total penalty would be $13,084.46. The second exception concerns the proof of the duration of employment of the three employees working on the roof at the time of the inspection on September 25, 2013. Petitioner has proved by clear and convincing evidence their employment only during the noncoverage period of July 24, 2013, through September 25, 2013, as discussed in the Conclusions of Law. For the two other noncoverage periods--three, if the period noted in paragraph 15 already had not been rejected--the penalty of $3220.05 has not been established, leaving a net penalty of $9864.41.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of not securing workers' compensation and imposing a penalty of $9864.41. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of November, 2015, 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 13th day of November, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: Leon Melnicoff, Qualified Representative Thomas Nemecek, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 (eServed) Mariem Josefina Paez, Esquire The Law Offices of Mariem J. Paez, PLLC 300 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 304 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 Whether Respondents violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by failing to secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage, as alleged in the Stop-Work Orders, and, if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with enforcing the requirement of chapter 440, Florida Statutes, that employers in Florida secure workers' compensation coverage for their employees. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Respondents are gas station/convenience stores located in South Florida. Northlake was created by Nazma Akter on May 6, 2014. MB was created by Ms. Akter on March 23, 2010. Congress Valero was created by Muhammad Saadat on July 21, 2011. Hena was created by Ms. Akter and Abu Ahsan on December 14, 2011. Hayma was created by Ms. Akter on December 14, 2011. Blue Heron was created by Ms. Akter on August 4, 2009. At all times relevant hereto, Respondents were duly-licensed to conduct business in the state of Florida. On February 2, 2015, the Department's Compliance Investigator Robert Feehrer, began a workers' compensation compliance investigation of Gardenia, LLC. Investigator Feehrer called the number listed for Gardenia, LLC, and was provided with a corporate office address. On February 10, 2015, upon arrival at Gardenia, LLC's, corporate office located at 165 US Highway 1, North Palm Beach, Florida, 33408, Investigator Feehrer spoke with Operations Manager Mohammad Hossain. Mr. Hossain stated that Gardenia, LLC, was a paper corporation and existed only for the purpose of paying unemployment taxes on the "six stores." Mr. Hossain went on to provide Investigator Feehrer with a list of Respondents and names of the employees that worked at each store. As an employee of Gardenia, LLC, and Respondents, Mr. Hossain's statements are party opponent admissions and bind Respondents. Lee v. Dep't of Health & Rehab. Servs., 698 So. 2d 1194, 1200 (Fla. 1997). With Mr. Hossain's statements and the list of Respondents' employees, Investigator Feehrer then consulted the Division of Corporations website, www.sunbiz.org, and confirmed that Respondents were current, active Florida companies. Investigator Feehrer then consulted the Department's Coverage and Compliance Automated System ("CCAS") for proof of workers' compensation coverage and exemptions associated with Respondents. Investigator Feehrer's CCAS search revealed that Respondents had no workers' compensation policies and no exemptions. On February 24, 2015, Investigator Feehrer conducted site visits at each of the six stores. Ms. Akter and Mr. Hossain accompanied Investigator Feehrer during these site visits. At all times material hereto, Ms. Akter was a corporate officer or managing member of each of the six Respondents. Muhammed Saadat and Abu Ahsan were corporate officers or managing members of Congress Valero, Hena, and Blue Heron. Kazi Ahamed was a corporate officer or managing member of Congress Valero and Hayma. Kazi Haider and Mohammed Haque were managing members of Hayma. All received compensation from the companies with which they were involved. Although Investigator Feehrer only personally observed one employee working at each location during his site visits, the payroll records revealed that at least four employees (including corporate officers or managing members without exemptions) received compensation for work at each location during the relevant period. Investigator Feehrer required additional information to determine compliance, and with Respondents' permission, contacted Respondents' accountant. Investigator Feehrer met with the accountant at least two times to obtain relevant information prior to March 30, 2015. Upon Ms. Akter's authorization, the accountant provided tax returns and payroll information for Respondents' employees. Information from Ms. Akter and Mr. Hossain also confirmed the specific employees at each of the six stores during the period of March 30, 2013, through March 30, 2015. On March 30, 2015, based on his findings, Investigator Feehrer served six Stop-Work Orders and Orders of Penalty Assessment. The Stop-Work Orders were personally served on Ms. Akter. Mr. Hossain was present as well and confirmed the lists of employees for each of the six stores were accurate. In April 2015, the Department assigned Penalty Auditor Christopher Richardson to calculate the six penalties assessed against Respondents. Respondent provided tax returns for the audit period and payroll transaction details were provided, as well as general ledgers/breakdowns, noting the employees for each Respondent company. Based on Investigator Feehrer's observations of the six stores on February 24, 2015, Auditor Richardson used the classification code 8061 listed in the Scopes® Manual, which has been adopted by the Department through Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.021(1). Classification code 8061 applies to employees of gasoline stations with convenience stores. Classification codes are four-digit codes assigned to various occupations by the National Council on Compensation Insurance to assist in the calculation of workers' compensation insurance premiums. In the penalty assessment, Auditor Richardson applied the corresponding approved manual rate for classification code 8061 for the related periods of non-compliance. The corresponding approved manual rate was correctly utilized using the methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)1. and rule 69L-6.027 to determine the final penalties. The Department correctly determined Respondents' gross payroll pursuant to the procedures required by section 440.107(7)(d) and rule 69L-6.027. On January 14, 2016, the Department served the six Amended Orders of Penalty Assessment on Respondents, assessing penalties of $1,367.06 for Northlake, $9,687.00 for MB, $12,651.42 for Congress Valero, $18,508.88 for Hena, $7,257.48 for Hayma, and $4,031.60 for Blue Heron. The Department has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Respondents were engaged in the gasoline station, self-service/convenience store industry in Florida during the periods of noncompliance; that Respondents failed to secure the payment of workers' compensation for their employees, as required by Florida's Workers' Compensation Law; and that the Department correctly utilized the methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)1. to determine the appropriate penalties.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a consolidated final order upholding the Stop-Work Orders and the Amended Orders of Penalty Assessment in the amounts of $1,367.06 for Northlake Mobile Enterprises, Inc.; $9,687.00 for MB Food and Beverage, Inc.; $12,651.42 for Congress Valero, Inc.; $18,508.88 for Hena Enterprises, Inc.; $7,257.48 for Hayma Enterprises, Inc.; and $4,031.60 for Blue Heron BP, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of June, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of June, 2016.
