The Issue The issues to determine in this matter are whether Respondent Alpha and Omega Builders of Jacksonville, Inc., failed to secure workers’ compensation coverage for its employees; and, if so, whether Petitioner Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (Department), correctly calculated the penalty assessment it imposed against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with enforcing the requirement of chapter 440 that employers in Florida secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage for their employees. See § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Respondent is a corporation located in Jacksonville, Florida, engaged in the roofing industry. Ms. Beckstrom, the Jacksonville supervisor for workers’ compensation compliance investigators, testified at the final hearing. Ms. Beckstrom largely read from the January 30, 2018, investigative report and narrative completed by Investigator Frank Odom, who did not testify at the final hearing.1/ Ms. Beckstrom did not perform the investigation of Respondent, but authorized Mr. Odom to do so. On January 30, 2018, Mr. Odom investigated the worksite at 5065 Soutel Drive, Jacksonville, Florida, which is the J. Fralin Funeral Home, a commercial business (the Soutel Drive site). Mr. Odom’s narrative stated, “[a]s I approached the site I observed 3 individuals on the roof installing shingles.” Much of the remaining portions of Mr. Odom’s narrative, which ultimately led to his determination that Respondent employed these three individuals without workers’ compensation insurance, is inadmissible hearsay. Although Ms. Beckstrom testified extensively on what Mr. Odom wrote in the investigative report and narrative, the undersigned cannot base findings of fact on inadmissible hearsay unless it explains or supplements other evidence. In contrast, Mr. Jessie, the owner of Respondent, testified at the final hearing that Mr. Odom contacted him the morning of January 30, 2018, by telephone. When Mr. Odom asked if Respondent had three individuals working on the Soutel Drive site, Mr. Jessie testified that he told Mr. Odom that these individuals were not supposed to be working.2/ Mr. Jessie stated that when he arrived at the Soutel Drive site after receiving the call from Mr. Odom, the three individuals had left. On cross-examination, Mr. Jessie did not recognize the names of Roberto Flores, Alex Alvarado, or Dagoberto Lopez, who Mr. Odom identified in the investigative report and narrative as the three individuals working on the roof at the Soutel Drive site. Mr. Jessie testified that he normally employs workers through an organization called Action Labor, who in turn secures the applicable workers’ compensation insurance for them. Mr. Jessie testified that he had arranged, through Action Labor, for three individuals to work on the Soutel Drive site, and that Action Labor had provided him a “ticket” for three individuals to work at the site. His testimony is credited. Although not crystal clear from his testimony, the undersigned understood Mr. Jessie to refer to Action Labor as an employee leasing company.3/ Mr. Jessie further testified that after meeting with Mr. Odom at the Soutel Drive site, he received a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment, as well as a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation (Request for Production). The Request for Production requested several categories of business records from Respondent, for the time period of January 31, 2016, through January 30, 2018, to determine Respondent’s payroll during that time period (audit period). The Request for Production requested that Respondent provide all payroll documents, account documents, disbursements, workers’ compensation coverage, temporary labor service and day labor service records, subcontractors, and documentation of subcontractors’ workers’ compensation insurance coverage. At the final hearing, Ms. Murcia, the Department’s penalty auditor, testified that because Respondent had not timely provided sufficient records in response to the Request for Production, the Department issued the Amended Order. Ms. Murcia testified that the Department received some records requested pursuant to the Request for Production in February 2019 (which was well after the response deadline of 10 business days), but that they were incomplete and thus not sufficient to calculate a penalty. Because Respondent failed to provide sufficient records in response to the Request for Production, the Department calculated the Amended Order based on a completely imputed payroll. Ms. Murcia explained that the Department calculates a gross payroll for an employer (who provides insufficient records) at the statewide average weekly wage multiplied by 1.5 for each employee for the period requested for the calculation of the penalty. Based on this imputation calculation, the Amended Order imposed a penalty in the amount of $166,791.18. The evidence presented at the final hearing was insufficient to establish that the three individuals observed at the Soutel Drive site on January 30, 2018, were Respondent’s employees or subcontractors on that day or at any time during the audit period. The evidence presented at the final hearing established that Respondent failed to timely present sufficient records pursuant to the Request for Production.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the undersigned recommends that the Department enter a final order dismissing the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment, and the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of April, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT J. TELFER III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of April, 2019.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent failed to secure the payment of workers' compensation insurance, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency charged with enforcing the provisions of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. Respondent is a Florida limited-liability company, organized in 2004. Salvador Rivera is one of the company's managers/officers. On or about February 27, 2009, Respondent secured workers' compensation insurance for its employees. The carrier was Guarantee Insurance Co. In a Notice of Termination of Workers' Compensation Insurance dated August 10, 2009, Guarantee Insurance Co. advised Petitioner and Respondent that Respondent's workers' compensation insurance would be cancelled on August 25, 2009. Guarantee Insurance Co. issued the notice because Respondent had not paid its insurance premium. Some time after receiving the notice from its insurer, Respondent received a check from Brantley Custom Homes. Mr. Rivera deposited the check into Respondent's bank account. Mr. Rivera then wrote a check to Guarantee Insurance Co. for the workers' compensation insurance premium. Mark Piazza is one of Petitioner's compliance investigators. On September 25, 2009, Mr. Piazza conducted a routine compliance check in the Southwood subdivision of Tallahassee, Florida. During the compliance check, Mr. Piazza noticed a new home under construction. He saw two men, Gilberto Torres and Saturino Gonzalez, doing carpentry work at the building site. Under the Scopes Manual, carpentry is identified as construction work under the class code 5645. During an interview with the two men, Mr. Piazza learned that they were employed by Respondent. Mr. Rivera confirmed by telephone that Respondent employed the two men. Mr. Rivera believed that Respondent had workers' compensation coverage on September 25, 2009. Mr. Rivera was not aware that the check from Brantley Custom Homes had bounced, resulting in insufficient funds for Respondent's bank to pay Respondent's check to Guarantee Insurance Co. Mr. Piazza then contacted Respondent's local insurance agent and checked Petitioner's Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) database to verify Mr. Rivera's claim that Respondent had workers' compensation insurance. Mr. Piazza subsequently correctly concluded that Respondent's insurance policy had been cancelled on August 25, 2009, due to the failure to pay the premium. On September 25, 2009, Mr. Piazza served Respondent with a Stop-work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment. The penalty assessment was 1.5 times the amount of the insurance premium that Respondent should have paid from August 25, 2009, to September 24, 2009. After receiving the Stop-work Order on September 25, 2009, Brantley Custom Homes gave Respondent another check. Mr. Rivera then sent Guarantee Insurance Co. a second check to cover the premium with the understanding that there would be no lapse in coverage. On September 28, 2009, Guarantee Insurance Co. provided Respondent with a notice of Reinstatement or Withdrawal of Policy Termination. The notice states as follows: Our Notice of Termination, filed with the insured and the Department of Labor and Employment Security effective 8/25/2009 and or dated 8/10/2009, is hereby voided and coverage remains in effect for the employer identified below. There is no evidence to show whether Respondent had to sign a no-loss affidavit and submit it to Guarantee Insurance Co. before the insurer would reinstate the policy with no lapse. Such an affidavit usually states that the insured had no claims during the uninsured period, On September 29, 2009, Mr. Piazza served a second copy of the Stop-work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment on Respondent. At that time, Mr. Piazza also served Respondent with a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation. Respondent subsequently provided Petitioner with the records. On October 6, 2009, Mr. Piazza served Respondent with an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. The assessed penalty was $3,566.27. The assessed penalty was based on Respondent's business records showing the following: (a) Respondent's total payroll from August 25, 2009, through September 24, 2009, was $15,280.00; (b) the total workers' compensation premium that Respondent should have paid for its employees during the relevant time period was $2,377.56; and (c) multiplying $2,377.56 by the statutory factor of 1.5 results in a penalty assessment in the amount of $3,566.37. On October 6, 2009, Petitioner and Respondent entered into a Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty. Respondent gave Petitioner $1,000 as a down payment on the assessed penalty. The balance of the penalty is to be paid in 60 monthly payments in the amount of $42.77 per month, with the exception of the last payment in the amount of $42.64 on November 1, 2014. On October 6, 2009, Petitioner issued an Order of Conditional Release from Stop-work Order. The conditional release states that it will be in place until Respondent pays the assessed penalty in full.
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, issue a final order affirming the Stop- work Order and Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in the amount of $3,566.37. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of March, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of March, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Salvador Rivera Rivera Construction of North Florida, LLC 931 Rosemary Terrace Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Paige Billings Shoemaker, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Honorable Alex Sink Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Benjamin Diamond, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The issues in this proceeding are whether Respondent, Mark Dunlap, d/b/a Mark Dunlap Masonry of Central Florida, Inc., a dissolved Florida corporation, and Mark Dunlap Masonry of Central Florida, Inc. ("Respondent") failed to abide by the coverage requirements of the Workers' Compensation Law, chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by not obtaining workers' compensation insurance for its employees; and whether the Petitioner properly assessed a penalty against the Respondent pursuant to section 440.107, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement of the workers' compensation law that employers secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage for their employees and corporate officers. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Respondent operates a masonry business located in Paisley, and is therefore engaged in the construction industry. On January 8, 2010, Hector Beauchamp, the Department's investigator, received a referral alleging that Respondent was working at 1601 Tillery Drive in Deltona, in violation of the Workers' Compensation Law. Mr. Beauchamp visited the plans examiner for the City of Deltona, who confirmed that a building permit had been issued for the cited address. Mr. Beauchamp drove to 1601 Tillery Drive in Deltona, where he found four people behind the house building a block wall as part of an addition to the single-family house at that address. Mark Dunlap was on the site, and told Mr. Beauchamp that the four men worked for his business, Mark Dunlap Masonry of Central Florida, Inc. Mr. Dunlap subsequently identified the four persons working on the site as Wayne Sochocki, Kevin Copeland, Annie Blackburn, and David Allen Baxley. Mr. Beauchamp researched the database maintained by the Department of State, Division of Corporations (accessible at www.sunbiz.org) and learned that Mark Dunlap Masonry of Central Florida, Inc. had been administratively dissolved for failure to file an annual report on September 25, 2009. Mr. Beauchamp also learned that Mr. Dunlap had owned another Florida corporation, Mark Dunlap Masonry, Inc., that had been administratively dissolved for failure to file an annual report on September 16, 2005. According to the Division of Corporations' information, both Mark Dunlap Masonry of Central Florida, Inc., and Mark Dunlap Masonry, Inc., had the same Federal Employer Identification Number ("FEIN") of 030531755. Mr. Dunlap claimed to Mr. Beauchamp that he was himself exempted from carrying workers' compensation coverage, but admitted that he had not secured coverage for the four employees building the block wall at 1601 Tillery Drive. Mr. Beauchamp consulted the Department's Coverage and Compliance Automated System ("CCAS") database, which lists the workers' compensation insurance policy information for each business as provided by the insurance companies, as well as any workers' compensation exemptions for corporate officers. CCAS indicated that in previous years Respondent had secured workers' compensation insurance through a leasing arrangement with Employee Leasing Solutions ("ELS"). In an employee leasing arrangement, the leasing company hires an employer's workers and leases them back to the employer. The leasing company provides payroll services and workers' compensation insurance coverage to the leased employees in exchange for a fee paid by the employer. However, only those employees specifically placed in the leasing arrangement by the employer and accepted as employees by the leasing company are covered by the leasing company's workers' compensation insurance. Mr. Beauchamp's investigation confirmed that Respondent's workers' compensation coverage obtained through the leasing agreement with ELS had been terminated as of July 8, 2008. The CCAS database confirmed that Mr. Dunlap had an active exemption from the requirement to obtain workers' compensation coverage. It also confirmed that none of the four employees whom Mr. Beauchamp found building the block wall at 1601 Tillery Drive were exempt. Mr. Beauchamp concluded that Respondent had failed to secure workers' compensation insurance coverage that met the requirements of chapter 440. Mr. Beauchamp therefore issued an SWO to Respondent on January 8, 2010, and personally served the SWO on Mr. Dunlap on the same date. Also on January 8, 2010, Mr. Beauchamp served Respondent with the Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation. The purpose of this request was to obtain the business records necessary to determine the appropriate penalty to be assessed against Respondent for violating the coverage requirements of chapter 440. Because section 440.107(7)(d)1. provides that the Department's assessment of a penalty covers the preceding three-year period, the request for production asked for Respondent's business records from January 9, 2007, through January 8, 2010. If an employer fails to produce business records sufficient to allow for the calculation of the appropriate penalty, the Department must calculate the applicable penalty by imputing the employer's payroll using the statewide average weekly wage for the type of work performed by the employee and multiplying that payroll by 1.5. The statewide average wage is derived by use of the occupation classification codes established by the proprietary Scopes Manual developed by the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc. ("NCCI"). The Scopes Manual has been adopted by reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.031(6). For Respondent's employees, Mr. Beauchamp applied the occupation classification code 5022, for masonry. Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L- 6.031(6)(b)9. The Department's Amended Order, assessing an imputed penalty in the amount of $121,001.30 against Respondent, was issued on February 12, 2010, and served on Mr. Dunlap by process server on March 5, 2010. Following service of the Amended Order, Respondent supplied the Department with additional business records, including Respondent's payroll runs from ELS and W-2's for the year 2007. However, even these records were not sufficient to permit the Department to calculate a penalty based on Respondent's actual payroll. The additional business records produced by Respondent did show that Mark Dunlap Masonry, Inc., had a policy of workers' compensation insurance in place with Business First Insurance Company from September 9, 2004, through February 22, 2008. Mr. Beauchamp had not previously found this coverage because the FEIN number listed by the Division of Corporations for Mark Dunlap Masonry, Inc., was incorrect. The Department issued the Second Amended Order on August 18, 2010, lowering the penalty assessment to $64,315.28. Although the Business First Insurance Company policy had been issued to Mark Dunlap Masonry, Inc., and not to Respondent, the Department nonetheless concluded that the policy brought Respondent into compliance with chapter 440 until February 22, 2008, and adjusted the penalty assessment accordingly. Respondent's workers' compensation coverage through the leasing agreement with ELS became effective on March 20, 2008, and was terminated on July 7, 2008. Of the four workers whom Mr. Beauchamp found at the work site on January 8, 2010, only Wayne Sochocki was listed on the ELS employee roster. Thus, Respondent was in compliance with respect to Mr. Sochocki for the period from March 20, 2008, through July 7, 2008. However, the records indicate that Respondent was not in compliance through the ELS leasing agreement with respect to its employees Kevin Copeland, Annie Blackburn, or David Allen Baxley because they had never been tendered to ELS as leased employees. The Department correctly imputed the penalty against Respondent for the four employees found at the work site on January 8, 2010, for all periods of noncompliance. The Department correctly determined the period of noncompliance for Mr. Sochocki to run from July 8, 2008 to January 8, 2010, and for Mr. Copeland, Ms. Blackburn and Mr. Baxley to run from February 22, 2008, to January 8, 2010. The Department utilized the correct occupation classification code for the four employees. The Department correctly utilized the procedure set forth by section 440.107(7)(d) and (e), and the penalty calculation worksheet incorporated by reference into Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.027(1), to calculate the penalty assessed against Respondent by the Second Amended Order.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, assessing a penalty of $64,315.28 against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of March, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 22nd day of March, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Dunlap Mark Dunlap Masonry, Inc. 45806 Lake Street Paisley, Florida 32767 Justin H. Faulkner, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Julie Jones, Agency Clerk Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 P. K. Jameson, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Honorable Jeff Atwater Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Whether Respondent, Forgue General Contracting, Inc., violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by failing to secure the payment of workers’ compensation coverage; and, if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with enforcing workers’ compensation coverage requirements in Florida, including the requirement that employers secure the payment of workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. See § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Respondent operates a construction company in Florida, and Respondent has been in business since 2004. On October 31, 2018, Margaret Cavazos, a compliance investigator with the Department, conducted a random workers’ compensation check at a worksite located at 1172 East State Road 434 in Winter Springs, Florida. The worksite is a two-story commercial building with five individual storefronts. Investigator Cavazos arrived at the worksite at 8:30 a.m. There, she observed four individuals who she believed were preparing the exterior of the building for painting. One person was covering a window with tape and brown construction paper. Two more individuals were standing in the bucket of a boom lift approximately 15 feet above the ground next to the building. They appeared to be placing blue tape over a sign of one of the businesses in the building. A fourth person was positioned by a truck supervising the activity. Investigator Cavazos further noticed that several of the business names had already been covered with construction paper and tape. Investigator Cavazos approached the person standing by the truck and introduced herself. He identified himself as Jose Luis Chachel. Mr. Chachel informed Investigator Cavazos that he and the other three individuals at the worksite were working for a company called RC Painting Services, Inc. (“RC Painting”). Mr. Chachel further stated that they were preparing the building to be painted. The other three individuals at the worksite identified themselves to Investigator Cavazos as Juan Carlos Vasquez Garcia, Artemia Vasquez, and Jenny Araque. Investigator Cavazos watched the four individuals work at the jobsite for about an hour, then they departed. Investigator Cavazos, however, did not obtain any information from Mr. Chachel or the other individuals concerning how long they had worked for RC Painting, when they had arrived at the jobsite, their rate of pay, or whether RC Painting had actually paid them for their work. At the final hearing, Investigator Cavazos testified that her duties for the Department include inspecting businesses and worksites to determine whether a business has obtained the required workers’ compensation insurance coverage. Investigator Cavazos explained that a business that performs construction- related work must have workers’ compensation coverage. Therefore, Investigator Cavazos believed that, prior to beginning the painting activities, RC Painting should have secured sufficient workers’ compensation coverage for all four individuals identified at the worksite. After learning the name of the business that arranged for the presence of the four individuals at the jobsite, Investigator Cavazos consulted the Department’s Coverage and Compliance Automated System (“CCAS”) database for information on RC Painting. CCAS is a Department database that tracks workers’ compensation insurance coverage. CCAS contains coverage data from insurance carriers, as well as any workers’ compensation exemptions on file with the Department. Insurance providers are required to report coverage and cancellation information, which the Department uses to update CCAS. CCAS had no record that RC Painting carried any workers’ compensation coverage for the four individuals Investigator Cavazos observed at the worksite. While reviewing CCAS, Inspector Cavazos also noted that the Department did not have on file any request from RC Painting for an “exemption” from workers’ compensation coverage. An exemption is a method by which a business’s corporate officer may exempt him or herself from the requirements of chapter 440. See § 440.05, Fla. Stat. CCAS also revealed to Investigator Cavazos that on the date of her inspection, RC Painting had an active employee leasing agreement with SouthEast Personnel Leasing (“SouthEast Leasing”), an employee staffing company. At the final hearing, Inspector Cavazos explained that a business is not required to obtain workers’ compensation insurance for its employees if coverage is properly provided by or through an employee leasing company’s workers’ compensation policy. However, in order for an employee leasing company to become responsible for the workers’ compensation coverage of a particular employee, the business seeking coverage for that employee must ensure that the employee submits an application to the leasing company. Thereafter, if (and only if) the leasing company accepts the application, the leasing company becomes accountable for the workers’ compensation insurance coverage for that employee. Investigator Cavazos contacted SouthEast Leasing. SouthEast Leasing provided Investigator Cavazos an active roster of employees it leased to RC Painting. However, neither Mr. Chachel, Juan Carlos Vasquez Garcia, Artemia Vasquez, nor Jenny Araque were listed on this roster. Therefore, Investigator Cavazos concluded that none of the four individuals she identified at the worksite were covered by workers’ compensation insurance under RC Painting’s leasing arrangement with SouthEast Leasing on October 31, 2018. After determining that neither CCAS nor SouthEast Leasing recorded any workers’ compensation coverage for the persons at the worksite, Investigator Cavazos contacted RC Painting’s owner, Roberto Chavez. (Mr. Chachel provided Investigator Cavazos with his phone number during her inspection.) Investigator Cavazos testified that, during their phone call, Mr. Chavez confirmed that the four individuals worked for him. Mr. Chavez further informed Investigator Cavazos that RC Painting had been hired by Respondent to paint the building. At that point, Investigator Cavazos called Respondent to inquire about workers’ compensation coverage for Jose Luis Chachel, Juan Carlos Vasquez Garcia, Artemia Vasquez, and Jenny Araque. Investigator Cavazos spoke with one of Respondent’s employees, Anthony Gonzalez. Mr. Gonzalez confirmed that Respondent engaged RC Painting to paint the building. Continuing to search for active workers’ compensation coverage, Investigator Cavazos discovered that Respondent also had an employee leasing agreement with SouthEast Leasing. Investigator Cavazos reviewed SouthEast Leasing’s roster which recorded only two covered employees for Respondent, Anthony Gonzalez and Edward Forgue (Respondent’s president). As with RC Painting’s leasing agreement, Respondent’s leasing agreement with SouthEast Leasing did not cover Jose Luis Chachel, Juan Carlos Vasquez Garcia, Artemia Vasquez, or Jenny Araque on October 31, 2018. As detailed below, under section 440.10(1), a contractor is liable for, and is required to secure, workers’ compensation coverage for all employees of a subcontractor to whom the contractor sublets work. (Section 440.10(1)(c) also directs the contractor to require a subcontractor to provide evidence of workers’ compensation insurance.) Therefore, as a contractor hiring a subcontractor for construction work, Respondent was required to exercise due diligence to ensure that all RC Painting’s employees who were painting the building were covered by workers’ compensation insurance. On October 31, 2018, based on her findings, Investigator Cavazos issued a Stop-Work Order to RC painting. Later that day, Mr. Chavez ventured to the Department’s local office to determine how his business could be released from the Stop-Work Order. There, he met with district supervisor, Salma Qureshi. Ms. Qureshi informed Mr. Chavez that, in order for his company to return to work, he needed to pay a $1,000 fine and complete an Affirmation. She explained to Mr. Chavez that on the Affirmation, he was to describe how RC Painting intended to come into full compliance with workers’ compensation coverage requirements. Mr. Chavez had, in fact, brought with him a cashier’s check for $1,000. (The amount was included on the Stop-Work Order.) Mr. Chavez then completed an Affirmation before Ms. Qureshi. On the Affirmation, Mr. Chavez wrote the names of the four individuals Investigator Cavazos identified at the jobsite. Next to each name, Mr. Chavez wrote “$20.” Below the names, he wrote “I am terminating.” Mr. Chavez then signed and dated the Affirmation. At the final hearing, Ms. Qureshi expressed that Mr. Chavez told her that he was going to pay each of the four individuals $20 for the day’s work they performed on October 31, 2018, and then he was terminating them. In addition to issuing the Stop-Work Order to RC Painting, on October 31, 2018, Investigator Cavazos issued a Stop-Work Order for Specific Worksite Only to Respondent, which was served on November 2, 2018. Investigator Cavazos also served Respondent with a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation. Through this document, the Department requested several categories of business records from Respondent for the period of November 1, 2016, through October 31, 2018. The requested documents pertained to: employer identification, payroll documents, account documents, disbursements, workers’ compensation coverage, professional employer organization records, temporary labor service, exemptions, subcontractor records, and subcontractors’ workers’ compensation coverage. Based on Investigator Cavazos’s investigation, the Department determined that Respondent failed to secure adequate workers’ compensation coverage for its employees. Therefore, the Department proceeded to calculate a penalty based on Respondent’s lack of compliance with chapter 440. The Penalty Calculation: Nathaniel Hatten, the penalty auditor who determined the penalty the Department seeks to impose on Respondent, testified regarding his computation. Mr. Hatten explained that the penalty essentially consists of the “avoided” premium amount, or the actual premium the employer would have paid in workers’ compensation insurance for the uncovered employees, multiplied by two. To calculate the appropriate penalty for Respondent’s failure to secure workers’ compensation coverage, the Department first ascertained Respondent’s period of non-compliance. To determine this time frame, the Department referred to Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.028(2), which directs that: The employer’s time period or periods of non-compliance means the time period(s) within the two years preceding the date the stop-work order was issued to the employer within which the employer failed to secure the payment of compensation pursuant to chapter 440, F.S., and must be either the same time period as set forth in the business records request for the calculation of penalty or an alternative time period or period(s) as determined by the Department, whichever is less. The employer may provide the Department with records from other sources, including, but not limited to, the Department of State, Division of Corporations, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, licensing offices, and building permitting offices to show an alternative time period or period(s) of non- compliance. Based on these instructions, the Department deduced that Respondent’s period of non-compliance ran from November 1, 2016, through October 31, 2018, which was the two-year period preceding the date of the Stop-Work Order. (This two-year period was also the time for which the Department requested business records from Respondent.) After determining Respondent’s period of non- compliance, the Department then calculated the monetary penalty it should impose upon Respondent. In accordance with section 440.107(7)(d)1., the Department must assess against an employer: a penalty equal to 2 times the amount the employer would have paid in premium when applying approved manual rates to the employer’s payroll during periods for which it failed to secure the payment of workers’ compensation required by this chapter within the preceding 2-year period or $1,000, whichever is greater. Therefore, the Department reviewed the business records Respondent provided to ascertain the amount of Respondent’s payroll during the two-year period of non-compliance. In response to the Department’s request for documents, Respondent produced its client leasing agreement with SouthEast Leasing. This leasing agreement, however, only covered Mr. Forgue and Mr. Gonzalez. Further, the leasing agreement was only in effect from February 7, 2018, through October 30, 2018, for Mr. Forgue and February 21, 2018, through October 30, 2018 for Mr. Gonzalez. No evidence establishes that Respondent made any other payments for workers’ compensation insurance coverage outside of the SouthEast Leasing agreement. Consequently, the evidence in the record establishes that Respondent had no workers’ compensation coverage for any of its employees, officers, or subcontractor employees from November 1, 2016, through February 6, 2018. And, only Mr. Forgue and Mr. Gonzalez were covered from February 2018 through October 30, 2018. Further, Respondent did not provide any payroll information to the Department per its request for business records. Consequently, the documentation was not comprehensive enough for the Department to determine all the wages Respondent paid to its employees, or the work they performed for the period of November 1, 2016, through October 31, 2018. Therefore, the Department determined that Respondent did not provide business records sufficient for it to calculate Respondent’s complete payroll or the actual employee wages it paid over the two-year period of non-compliance. Accordingly, the Department exercised its option to “impute” Respondent’s weekly payroll from November 1, 2016, through October 31, 2018. To calculate Respondent’s imputed weekly payroll, section 440.107(7)(e) directs that the gross payroll for an employer who provides insufficient business records is imputed at the statewide average weekly wage, multiplied by 1.5, for each employee who worked during the period requested for the penalty calculation. Therefore, the Department obtained the statewide average weekly wage effective at the time of the Stop- Work Order ($917.00)2/ for each identified employee, corporate officer, and subcontractor, then multiplied that number by 1.5. See § 440.107(7)(e), Fla. Stat.; and Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L- 6.028(3)(a). The Department imputed the payroll for all four individuals Investigator Cavazos observed at the worksite on October 31, 2018 (Jose Luis Chachel, Juan Carlos Vasquez Garcia, Artemia Vasquez, and Jenny Araque), for all periods of non- compliance (November 1, 2016 through October 31, 2018). No evidence established that these individuals were covered under a workers’ compensation policy either through Respondent, RC Painting, or SouthEast Leasing. The Department also included Mr. Forgue for a period of non-compliance from January 22, 2018, through February 8, 2018. The Department imputed his payroll during this period of time explaining that Respondent did not have an active workers’ compensation exemption on file for Mr. Forgue. Neither was he covered by SouthEast Leasing’s policy during this brief timeframe. Therefore, Respondent was required to carry workers’ compensation for Mr. Forgue from January 22, 2018, through February 8, 2018. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.028(3)(b). To calculate a penalty based on the imputed payroll, the Department assigned Respondent’s employees the highest rated workers’ compensation classification code. The classification code is based on either the business records submitted or the investigator’s observation of the employees’ activities. In this case, the business records Respondent provided to the Department were not sufficient to categorize the exact type of work that the identified workers performed for Respondent over the two-year period of non-compliance. However, during her investigation of the jobsite on October 31, 2018, Investigator Cavazos observed the four employees engaging in activities associated with “painting.” According to the Scopes Manual issued by the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc. (“NCCI”), class code 5475 is applied to “painting contractors engaged in painting.”3/ Consequently, the Department used class code 5474 for all Respondent’s employees and corporate officer for the penalty period. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.028(3)(b) and 69L- 6.021(2)(jj)(painting is classified as “construction activity”). Therefore, to calculate the premium amount for the workers’ compensation insurance Respondent should have paid for its “employees” (Jose Luis Chachel, Juan Carlos Vasquez Garcia, Artemia Vasquez, and Jenny Araque) and officer (Mr. Forgue), the Department applied the manual rates corresponding to class code 5474. Thereafter, based on: 1) the total periods of non- compliance, 2) Respondent’s calculated payroll for the periods of non-compliance, and 3) the estimated premium for workers’ compensation insurance, the Department issued the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment (“Penalty Assessment”) on November 30, 2018, which was served on Respondent on February 28, 2019. The Penalty Assessment seeks to impose a penalty of $129,089.60 against Respondent. At the final hearing, Respondent argued that the individuals Investigator Cavazos identified at the worksite on October 31, 2018, were never hired by Respondent’s subcontractor, RC Painting. Therefore, they are not “employees” under chapter 440, and Respondent is not an “employer” for purposes of securing workers’ compensation coverage. Consequently, Respondent argues that the penalty the Department seeks to assess against Respondent is not warranted. Mr. Chavez testified at the final hearing for Respondent describing his employment relationship with Jose Luis Chachel, Juan Carlos Vasquez Garcia, Artemia Vasquez, and Jenny Araque. Initially, Mr. Chavez confirmed that Respondent hired RC Painting to paint the exterior of the shopping plaza. Regarding the four individuals Investigator Cavazos identified at the jobsite, however, Mr. Chavez denied that they were “employees” of RC Painting on October 31, 2018. Mr. Chavez explained that he used SouthEast Leasing to “hire” his employees. Mr. Chavez asserted that before he puts someone to work, he requires them to complete an employment application with SouthEast Leasing. Only after SouthEast Leasing approved the employee would he allow the individual to work on a job. In this matter, Mr. Chavez denied that he had ever worked with Mr. Chachel before, or ever met the other three individuals that Mr. Chachel brought with him to the jobsite. Mr. Chavez maintained that he called Mr. Chachel on the evening of October 30, 2018, about the prospective painting job. He then asked Mr. Chachel to bring two other workers and meet him at the jobsite the following morning. Mr. Chavez testified that he instructed Mr. Chachel that he would need to send information to SouthEast Leasing before anyone actually started working on the project. Mr. Chavez further contended that he did not have any discussion with Mr. Chachel about wages or the rate of pay for the job. He declared that he never commits to paying any prospective employee before ascertaining what type of skills they possess. Mr. Chavez explained that, “anyone can tell you, ‘I’ve been painting all of my life,’ and they show up and don’t know how to paint, or they don’t know how to do anything.” In response to Inspector Cavazos’s testimony, Mr. Chavez exclaimed that he never told her that the four individuals were his “employees.” He merely relayed that they were “with” him. Mr. Chavez also insisted that he never authorized Mr. Chachel or his crew to start preparing the building for painting prior to meeting with him. Mr. Chavez further relayed that Respondent provided the boom lift for the job. But, he never instructed Mr. Chachel to begin using it. Mr. Chavez arrived at the shopping plaza around 9:30 a.m. However, by that time Investigator Cavazos had issued the Stop- Work Order, and only Mr. Chachel remained at the scene. Regarding the Affirmation he completed at the Department’s district office, Mr. Chavez testified that, other than Mr. Chachel, he did not know the names of individuals who Investigator Cavazos identified at the jobsite. He asserted that he wrote their names on the Affirmation only after Ms. Qureshi spelled them out for him on a sticky note. Mr. Chavez further professed that he only penned “$20” by each name because Ms. Qureshi told him that the Department would not release him from the Stop-Work Order until he added the wages he paid to each individual. Mr. Chavez claimed that Ms. Qureshi specifically instructed him to insert a number by each employee. Mr. Chavez declared that he felt like he had no choice but to include “$20” on the Affirmation if he wanted to return to work. In actuality, however, Mr. Chavez insisted that he did not pay Jose Luis Chachel, Juan Carlos Vasquez Garcia, Artemia Vasquez, or Jenny Araque anything for their activities on October 31, 2018. Ms. Qureshi testified for the Department on rebuttal. She credibly voiced that she did not write out the names of the four “employees” for Mr. Chavez to list on his Affirmation. Neither did she suggest a wage amount for their work, or force Mr. Chavez to write that he “terminated” them. On the contrary, Ms. Qureshi attested, clearly and without hesitation, that Mr. Chavez independently completed his sworn Affirmation, and he did not ask for her assistance with the specific information he wrote down. Ms. Qureshi persuasively stated that Mr. Chavez knew the names of Jose Luis Chachel, Juan Carlos Vasquez Garcia, Artemia Vasquez, and Jenny Araque when he composed the Affirmation. Further, Mr. Chavez expressly told her that he was going to pay the four individuals $20 for the day, and that he was terminating them. The competent substantial evidence in the record establishes that Jose Luis Chachel, Juan Carlos Vasquez Garcia, Artemia Vasquez, and Jenny Araque were “employees” of RC Painting under section 440.02(15) on October 31, 2018. Based on this finding, the Department demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent failed to secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage or a workers’ compensation exemption for four employees for the period of November 1, 2016, through October 31, 2018, as well as its corporate officer from January 22, 2018, through February 8, 2018. Accordingly, the Department met its burden of proving that Respondent violated chapter 440 and should be penalized.
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 determining that Respondent, Forgue General Contracting, Inc., violated the requirement in chapter 440 to secure workers’ compensation coverage, and imposing a total penalty of $129,089.60. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of October, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER 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 October, 2019.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Customs Logistics Services, Inc., failed to secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage for its employees in violation of chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is the state agency charged with enforcing the requirement in chapter 440 that employers in Florida secure workers' compensation coverage for their employees. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was a corporation registered to do business in Florida. Respondent is a family-owned-and-operated customs brokerage service with its principal office located at 6940 Northwest 12th Street, Miami, Florida 33126. At the time of the inspection giving rise to this proceeding, Respondent employed seven or eight employees.2/ The Compliance Inspection On September 29, 2014, Petitioner's compliance inspector, Hector Fluriach, conducted an onsite inspection at Respondent's principal office to determine whether Respondent was in compliance with the workers' compensation coverage requirements established in chapter 440. At that time, Respondent's co-owners, Astrid Escalona and Carlos Henoa, told Fluriach that Respondent employed six employees and two corporate officers, and also paid two family members who did not work at the principal office. Upon inquiry, Escalona and Henoa informed Fluriach that Respondent did not have workers' compensation insurance coverage for its employees. Using Petitioner's Coverage and Compliance Automated System ("CCAS") and the National Council for Compensation Insurance ("NCCI") insurance coverage verification system, Fluriach confirmed that Respondent had not obtained workers' compensation insurance coverage for its employees, and that it was not in compliance with chapter 440 during certain periods within the two years preceding the inspection. Under the NCCI basic occupational classification system and Scopes Manual, six of Respondent's employees are classified as clerical (Code 8810), and one is classified as a driver (Code 7380). None of Respondent's employees is classified as employed within the construction industry. As a private entity employing four or more employees in a non-construction industry occupation, Respondent was required under chapter 440 to provide workers' compensation coverage for its employees. Respondent's corporate officers were eligible under section 440.05 to elect to be exempt from the workers' compensation coverage requirements of chapter 440; however, none had elected to be exempt. Fluriach issued Stop-Work Order No. 14-329-D5 ("Stop- Work Order"), personally served it on Respondent, and explained it to Escalona. The Stop-Work Order included an Order of Penalty Assessment, ordering assessment of a penalty against Respondent in an amount equal to two times the amount Respondent would have paid in workers' compensation coverage premiums when applying the approved manual rates to Respondent's payroll during the periods for which it had failed to secure workers' compensation coverage during the preceding two years (for convenience, hereafter referred to as the "look-back period"). Fluriach also served a business records request, requesting Respondent to provide specified business records3/ for Petitioner's use in determining the penalty. In a series of submittals, Respondent provided the requested business records to Petitioner. The evidence showed that during the two-year look- back period, Respondent did not have workers' compensation coverage for its employees during a substantial portion of the period in which it employed four or more employees, and none of its corporate officers were exempt from the workers' compensation coverage requirement. As such, Respondent violated chapter 440 and, therefore, is subject to penalty under that statute. Petitioner's Computation of Penalty Amount To calculate the applicable penalty, Petitioner must determine, from a review of the employer's business records, the employer's gross payroll for the two-year look-back period. For days during the look-back period for which records are not provided, Petitioner imputes the gross payroll based on the average weekly wage for the state of Florida. Here, the look-back period for purposes of calculating the applicable penalty commenced on September 30, 2012, and ended on September 29, 2014, the day on which the compliance inspection was conducted. Respondent's business records revealed that Respondent had fewer than four employees between January 1 and March 31, 2013, so Respondent was not required to have workers' compensation coverage for that period. Thus, Petitioner did not assess a penalty against Respondent for that period. For the rest of the look-back period, Respondent employed four or more employees, so was required to obtain workers' compensation coverage for those employees for that portion of the period. Respondent provided business records sufficient for Petitioner to determine Respondent's gross payroll for all but September 30, 2012. For that day, Petitioner imputed Respondent's gross payroll using Florida's statewide average weekly wage. On the basis of Respondent's business records submittals, Petitioner's auditor, Eric Ruzzo, recalculated the penalty to be assessed against Respondent. Petitioner issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on October 17, 2014, imposing a total penalty of $5,617.04. On November 7, 2014, following receipt of additional records, Petitioner issued a Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, reducing the penalty to $3,982.52. Finally, after receiving more records, Petitioner issued a Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on January 12, 2015, further reducing the penalty to $3,205.70. Each of these penalty assessments was served on Respondent. Petitioner seeks to impose a $3,205.70 penalty against Respondent in this proceeding. In calculating the penalty, Ruzzo examined three-month (i.e., quarterly) periods within the two-year look-back period. Ruzzo identified the occupational class code applicable to each of Respondent's employees. As stated above, all but one of Respondent's employees were classified as clerical, and one of Respondent's employees was classified as a driver. For each employee, Ruzzo determined the gross payroll paid to that employee for the specific quarter in which Respondent was non-compliant during the look-back period, divided the employee's gross payroll by 100 pursuant to Petitioner's calculation methodology, then multiplied that amount by the numeric rate set by NCCI for that employee's specific occupational class code. This calculation yielded the workers' compensation coverage premium for that specific employee for the specific quarter for which Respondent was non- compliant during the look-back period. The premium amount then was multiplied by two, as required by statute, to yield the penalty to be imposed for failure to provide workers' compensation coverage for that specific employee. As previously noted, Respondent did not provide gross payroll records covering September 30, 2012; thus, for that day, Ruzzo imputed the gross payroll for each of Respondent's employees using the statewide average weekly wage as defined in section 440.12(2)4/ multiplied by two. Ruzzo then performed the same computations to yield the penalty amount to be imposed for Respondent's failure to provide workers' compensation on September 30, 2012. Ruzzo then added each penalty amount determined for each employee using actual gross payroll and imputed payroll, to yield the total penalty amount of $5,286.70. Because Respondent had not previously been issued a stop-work order, pursuant to section 440.107(7)(d)1., Petitioner applied a credit toward the penalty in the amount of the initial premium Respondent paid for workers' compensation coverage. Here, the premium payment amount for which Respondent received credit was $2,081.00. This was subtracted from the calculated penalty of $5,286.70, yielding a total penalty of $3,205.70. Respondent's Defense At the final hearing, Escalona testified that she and the other co-owners of Respondent always have attempted to fully comply with every law applicable to Respondent's business, and have never had compliance problems. She testified that neither she nor the other co-owners of Respondent realized that Respondent was required to have workers' compensation coverage for its employees, and they did not intentionally violate the law. Petitioner apparently mailed a memorandum regarding verifying workers' compensation coverage requirements to businesses in the area before it conducted compliance inspections. The memorandum was dated October 8, 2014, and Escalona testified Respondent received it on October 13, 2014, approximately two weeks after the compliance inspection that Fluriach conducted. Escalona asserted that had Respondent received the memorandum before the compliance inspection was conducted, she would have called Petitioner to determine if Respondent needed to obtain workers' compensation coverage, would have asked how to obtain it, and would have obtained coverage for its employees and exemptions for its corporate officers. Escalona testified that the $3,205.70 penalty is a substantial amount that Respondent, a small family-owned business, cannot afford to pay. Findings of Ultimate Fact Petitioner has shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent violated chapter 440, as charged in the Stop-Work Order, by failing to secure workers' compensation coverage for its employees. Petitioner has shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that the $3,205.70 penalty proposed to be assessed against Respondent pursuant to the Third Amended Penalty Assessment is the correct amount of the penalty to be assessed in this proceeding.
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 determining that Respondent, Customs Logistics Services, Inc., violated the requirement in chapter 440 to secure workers' compensation coverage and imposing a total penalty of $3,205.70. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of August, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida S CATHY M. SELLERS 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 11th day of August, 2015.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2014),1/ by failing to secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage as alleged in the Stop-work Order and 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and if so, the amount of the penalty that should be assessed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement in chapter 440 that employers in the state of Florida secure the payment of workers' compensation insurance covering their employees. Respondent, Bargain Bob's Carpets, Inc., is a corporation registered to do business in Florida. Its principal business address is 3954 Byron Drive, Riviera Beach, Florida. The Compliance Investigation As the result of an anonymous referral, Petitioner's compliance investigator, Peter Sileo, investigated Respondent to determine whether it had secured workers' compensation coverage for its employees as required by chapter 440. Before Sileo visited Respondent's business location, he checked the State of Florida Coverage and Compliance Automated System ("CCAS") computer database, which contains information regarding workers' compensation insurance policies that have been obtained by employers. The CCAS database showed no record of any workers' compensation policies covering Respondent's employees having been issued. On Sileo's first visit to Respondent's business location, he observed a man loading carpeting into a van. Upon being questioned, the man identified himself as Gary Persad. He told Sileo that he was a carpet installation subcontractor for Respondent. Sileo checked CCAS and determined that Persad was covered by workers' compensation insurance. On January 23, 2015, Sileo again visited Respondent's business location, which is a warehouse housing large rolls of carpeting and other flooring materials. There, Sileo met John Charles, an owner and corporate officer of Respondent. Charles claimed that he did not know that Respondent was required to have workers' compensation coverage for its employees. Charles told Sileo that Respondent sold flooring but did not install it and that all installation was performed by subcontractors. At the time of the inspection, Sileo determined that Respondent employed five employees: Charles and Calideen, each of whom own more than ten percent of Respondent's business; Alex Stark; Peter Phelps; and Anthony Frenchak. Sileo served a Stop-work Order, ordering Respondent to cease all business operations in the state pending demonstrating compliance with the workers' compensation coverage requirement. Sileo also served a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation. Respondent subsequently demonstrated compliance with the workers' compensation coverage requirement, and Petitioner lifted the Stop-work Order.2/ Respondent also produced business records consisting of spreadsheets showing quarterly payroll, transaction listings, affidavits, insurance coverage documents, and other records. The Penalty Assessment Eric Ruzzo, a penalty auditor with Petitioner, used these records to calculate the penalty to be assessed against Respondent. The $31,061.68 penalty is reflected in the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, issued April 23, 2015, that is the subject of this proceeding. To calculate the applicable penalty, Petitioner determines the employer's gross payroll for the two-year period preceding the noncompliance determination——the so-called "penalty period"——from a review of the employer's business records. For days during the penalty period for which records are not provided, Petitioner imputes the gross payroll based on the average weekly wage for the state of Florida. Here, the penalty period commenced on January 24, 2013, and ended on January 23, 2015, the day on which the compliance inspection was conducted, and Respondent was determined to not be in compliance with the workers' compensation coverage requirement. Initially, Respondent produced payroll records that did not identify the subcontractors Respondent hired to install the carpeting. Ruzzo identified the subcontractors using Respondent's transaction records. Respondent subsequently provided information, including affidavits and certificates of exemption regarding the subcontractors it had hired during the penalty period. At all times during the penalty period, Respondent employed four or more non-construction employees, including Charles and Calideen.3/ Based on the business records produced, Ruzzo compiled a list of the persons, including the subcontractors and non-construction employees who were on Respondent's payroll, but not covered by workers' compensation insurance during the penalty period. This list of employees and the penalty computation for each is set forth on the Penalty Calculation Worksheet attached to the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. Using the National Council on Compensation Insurance ("NCCI") workers' compensation insurance occupation class codes set forth in the NCCI Scopes Manual, Ruzzo determined the occupation class code applicable to each employee listed on the Penalty Calculation Worksheet. Respondent's subcontractors were classified in NCCI class code 5478, which is the class code for the flooring installation industry. This is consistent with Florida's construction industry class code rule, Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.021(2)(kk), which identifies the installation of carpet and other floor covering as NCCI class code 5478. Alex Stark, Amber Krembs, Jacquelyn Skwarek, and Monica Stahl were classified in NCCI class code 8018, which applies to workers engaged in selling merchandise, including carpeting and linoleum, at the wholesale level. Calideen, Frenchak, and Phelps were classified in NCCI class code 8742, which applies to outside salespersons primarily engaged in sales off of the employer's premises. Charles was classified in NCCI class code 8810, which applies to clerical office employees. Ruzzo then determined the period of Respondent's noncompliance for each employee listed on the Penalty Calculation Worksheet. For each of these employees, Ruzzo determined the gross payroll paid to that employee for the period during which Respondent was noncompliant, divided the employee's gross payroll by 100 pursuant to Petitioner's calculation methodology, then multiplied that amount by the numeric rate set by NCCI for that employee's specific occupation class code. This calculation yielded the workers' compensation coverage premium for that specific employee for which Respondent was noncompliant during the penalty period. The premium amount then was multiplied by two, as required by statute, to yield the penalty to be imposed for failure to provide workers' compensation coverage for that specific employee. Respondent did not provide records covering Charles, Calideen, Stark, Frenchak, or Phelps for the period between January 1, 2015, and January 23, 2015. For this period, Ruzzo imputed the gross payroll for each of these employees using the statewide average weekly wage as defined in section 440.12(2),4/ multiplied by two. Ruzzo then performed the same computations discussed above to determine the penalty amount to be imposed for Respondent's failure to provide workers' compensation for those employees during this time period. Ruzzo added the penalty determined for each employee using actual gross payroll and imputed payroll, as applicable, to arrive at the total penalty assessment amount of $31,061.68. Respondent's Defense Respondent is engaged in the retail sale of various types of flooring, such as carpeting, and hires subcontractors to install the flooring. The evidence did not establish that Respondent engaged in wholesale sales of flooring. Charles testified that Respondent had attempted to operate its business as a "cash and carry" operation in which Respondent would sell the flooring to retail customers, who would take the purchased flooring from Respondent's premises and would be solely responsible for securing their own installation services. In Charles' words, "[t]hat didn't work. The public demanded that we provide them, as part of the sale, installers—— I might be saying it wrong legally, but they demanded that it all be done in one shot." Thus, Respondent began hiring subcontractors to do the installation work. Charles explained that Respondent makes retail sales of flooring to customers, either on Respondent's premises or at the customer's premises through its outside sales people. The flooring is then cut from the roll on Respondent's premises and placed in the installer's vehicle. The installer transports the purchased flooring to, and installs it at, the customer's premises. Charles estimated that Respondent currently does approximately five percent of its business as "cash and carry" sales, and the remaining 95 percent consists of sales requiring installation. Charles testified that he and Calideen, as corporate officers of Respondent, previously had obtained exemptions from the workers' compensation coverage requirements for themselves; however, they were unaware that the exemptions had to be renewed, so their exemptions had expired. As of the date of the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, neither Charles nor Calideen possessed valid certificates of exemption from the workers' compensation coverage requirement. Charles testified that Respondent always had tried to operate in compliance with the law. He was of the view that because he and Calideen were exempt from the worker's compensation coverage requirement, Respondent effectively employed only three employees——one fewer than the workers' compensation coverage requirement threshold of four employees applicable to non-construction industry businesses. Charles and Calideen testified that when Respondent initially hired subcontractors, they required copies of their insurance policies, including proof of workers' compensation coverage or exemption therefrom. Calideen testified that thereafter, he and Charles assumed that the subcontractors were in compliance with the workers' compensation laws, and they did not know that they needed to obtain updated certificates of workers' compensation exemption or coverage from the subcontractors. On that basis, Charles asserted that Respondent should not be required to "babysit" its subcontractors to ensure that they are in compliance with the workers' compensation law. Respondent thus asserts that it should not be responsible for securing workers' compensation coverage for subcontractors whose workers' compensation policies or exemptions had expired during the penalty period. The undisputed evidence establishes that Charles' employment entails clerical work. Calideen testified, credibly, that Stark's employment duties entail selling flooring on Respondent's business premises, and that he does not engage in sales off the premises. Calideen testified, credibly, that Frenchak and Phelps primarily are engaged in outside sales off of Respondent's premises. Calideen testified, credibly, that he performs clerical duties rather than sales duties. Calideen and Charles both testified, credibly, that employees Krembs, Skwarek, and Stahl performed computer-related duties for Respondent, such as entering business information into Respondent's computer databases, and that they did not work on Respondent's business premises. Calideen testified, credibly, that subcontractor Mike Smith was hired on a one-time basis to paint parking place stripes at the newly-repaved parking lot behind Respondent's business premises. Findings of Ultimate Fact The credible, persuasive evidence establishes that Respondent is engaged in the retail sale of carpeting and other flooring materials and that Respondent itself does not install the flooring. The credible, persuasive evidence establishes, and the parties stipulated, that Respondent is not a member of the construction industry. The credible, persuasive evidence establishes that at all times during the penalty period, Respondent employed more than four employees who were engaged in non-construction employment. Accordingly, Respondent was required to secure workers' compensation coverage for its employees, including Charles and Calideen, whose previously-issued certificates of exemption had expired and were not in effect during the penalty period. The undisputed evidence establishes that at certain times during the penalty period, Respondent employed subcontractors who performed floor installation. The evidence clearly establishes that the subcontractors, in installing the flooring, perform a service that is integral to Respondent's business and that they work specifically at Respondent's direction for each particular installation job. Even though Respondent is not classified as a member of the construction industry, it nonetheless is a "statutory employer" of its subcontractors, who are members of the construction industry. Thus, Respondent is responsible for securing workers' compensation coverage for its subcontractors who failed to secure an exemption or coverage for themselves.5/ The credible, persuasive evidence establishes that Petitioner correctly calculated the penalty attributable to flooring installation subcontractors for which Respondent was noncompliant during the penalty period. However, the unrebutted evidence establishes that subcontractor Mike Smith was hired on a one-time basis to paint parking lot stripes in Respondent's parking lot. Thus, Petitioner's classification of Smith in NCCI class code 5478—— which is a construction industry code that applies to workers engaged in flooring installation——obviously is incorrect, and no evidence was presented showing the correct NCCI class code in which Smith should be classified. Accordingly, Smith should not be included in Petitioner's calculation of the penalty to be assessed against Respondent. The credible, persuasive evidence establishes that Petitioner correctly calculated the penalty attributable to Respondent's noncompliance with respect to Charles, Frenchak, and Phelps during the penalty period. The credible, persuasive evidence establishes that Stark is engaged in retail sales on Respondent's business premises. However, in calculating the penalty, Petitioner classified Stark in NCCI class code 8018, which applies to salespersons engaged in selling merchandise at the wholesale level, rather than at the retail level. Thus, Petitioner incorrectly classified Stark in NCCI class code 8018. There is no evidence in the record identifying the correct NCCI class code in which Stark should be classified. Accordingly, Stark should not be included in Petitioner's calculation of the penalty to be assessed against Respondent. The credible, persuasive evidence establishes that Calideen performs clerical employment duties and does not perform sales duties, so he should be classified in NCCI class code 8810, rather than in class code 8742. Accordingly, Petitioner should recalculate the portion of the penalty attributable to Respondent's noncompliance for Calideen using NCCI class code 8810. The credible, persuasive evidence establishes that Krembs, Skwarek, and Stahl are not employed as salespersons at the wholesale level. Thus, Petitioner incorrectly classified these employees in NCCI class code 8018. In its Proposed Recommended Order, Petitioner contends that because Respondent disputes the classification of these employees in class code 8018, Respondent is responsible for identifying the correct applicable class code, which it has not done. This position disregards that in this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proof, by clear and convincing evidence, to show that its proposed penalty assessment against Respondent is accurate. Thus, Petitioner——not Respondent——is responsible for correctly identifying the NCCI class codes applicable to Respondent's employees. Here, the credible, persuasive evidence establishes that in calculating the penalty, Petitioner incorrectly classified Krembs, Skwarek, and Stahl in class code 8018,6/ and no evidence was presented showing the correct NCCI class code applicable to these employees. Accordingly, Krembs, Skwarek, and Stahl should not be included in Petitioner's calculation of the penalty to be assessed against Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, issue a final order amending the penalty to be assessed against Respondent as follows: Subtracting the penalty assessed for subcontractor Mike Smith, as shown on the Penalty Calculation Worksheet; and Subtracting the penalties assessed for Respondent's alleged noncompliance with respect to employees Amber Krembs, Jacquelyn Skwarek, and Monica Stahl, as shown on the Penalty Calculation Worksheet; and Reclassifying employee Andy Calideen in NCCI class code 8810 and recalculating the portion of the penalty attributable to Respondent's noncompliance for Calideen using this class code; and Reclassifying employee Alexander Stark in NCCI class code 5784 and recalculating the portion of the penalty attributable to Respondent's noncompliance for Stark using this class code. DONE AND ENTERED this 22 day of January, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS 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 22 day of January, 2016.
The Issue Whether Respondent, John H. Woods, d/b/a Woods Construction, conducted operations in the State of Florida without obtaining workers’ compensation coverage which meets the requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2008)1, in violation of Subsection 440.107(2), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Amended Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment and Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. If so, what penalty should be assessed by Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, pursuant to Section 440.107, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of enforcing the requirement of Section 440.107, Florida Statutes, that employers in Florida secure the payment of workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Workers’ compensation coverage is required if a business entity is engaged in the construction industry in Florida. Securing the payment of workers’ compensation coverage can be achieved via three different methods: purchase a workers’ compensation insurance policy; ensure that workers are paid and workers’ compensation coverage is provided by a third party entity called a Professional Employment Organization (PEO); or apply for a Certificate of Exemption from Workers’ Compensation Coverage (Exemption Certificate) assuming certain statutorily mandated criteria are met. These methods are not mutually exclusive of each other. On August 14, 2008, a workers’ compensation compliance investigator employed by Petitioner, visited a construction site in Lee County, Florida. On the site, she observed several groups of men conducting various construction activities including the laying of a sidewalk along Lexington Street in Fort Myers. The work performed involved construction activities as contemplated under the applicable agency rule. Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.021. By a preponderance of evidence, it is determined that among the entities on the worksite was a group of three laborers who worked for Woods Construction. There was no proof of coverage for workers’ compensation for the Woods Construction Company, neither an insurance policy, nor any exemption certificate for the individuals encountered on the worksite. Woods Construction assumed that the three laborers were covered by Able Body Labor, a PEO. The evidence confirmed that two of the three laborers were covered. However, the third laborer, Filberto Castro, was unable to be included on the work roster due to his lack of corresponding documentation necessary for employment in the United States. Therefore, Castro was working without coverage. An SWO was issued and a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Calculation (BRR) was served on J. Woods Construction, Corp. [sic] on August 14, 2008. The SWO was later amended to conform to the correct name of the company, which is not a corporation. The amended SWO was served on John H. Woods on August 22, 2008, via certified mail. Pursuant to the BRR, Respondent provided business records to Petitioner. Petitioner’s Penalty Calculator’s duties are to receive records from the employer, and organize, identify, and audit those records which indicate payroll activities, while delineating other business activities, which may be related to the non-payroll activities of the business such as purchasing supplies, maintaining a place of business, etc. The characterization of the voluminous records received from Respondent were categorized into three distinct categories: reliable, somewhat reliable, and unreliable records. The records were characterized as “reliable” if they were records from an independent third party or the bank with whom Respondent conducted business, and were thus extremely difficult to alter without a high level of expertise. They are considered “source documentation.” The bank records capture the transactions as they occurred, to whom money was paid, and for what amount. The next category of records deemed “somewhat reliable” were those records which, on their face appear to be legitimate records, such as copies of the checks with corresponding amounts and dates to those in the “reliable” category. However, certain inconsistencies in these records demonstrated that they were less than reliable. These records were only used in select instances when there was corresponding source documentation supporting their veracity. A prime example, among many, is check number 1078 for $100.00 indicating a payment for a credit card; the corresponding checkstub indicates that the payment went to “Whitney,” a grand-child of John H. Woods. In toto, the documents illustrated that Respondent failed to follow generally accepted accounting principles by mislabeling or mischaracterizing funds on a regular basis. The third category of records were records which were considered “unreliable” as these records lacked any corresponding source documentation and they could not be considered in assessing the payroll activities of the firm. In the construction industry, there are instruments called “draw requests.” The draw request is an item that a subcontractor or builder will utilize to show partial completion of a project and concurrently request more funds (the draw) to complete the remaining portion of the project. The draw requests are often utilized at pre-measured stages of the project, e.g.: 25 percent completion, 50 percent completion, etc. The draw requests would have attached source documentation such as receipts from suppliers, servicers, and other miscellanea to show that the project is worked upon as opposed to the funds being siphoned off elsewhere. Nowhere, in the box full of records produced, was a proper draw request found with attached receipts. Therefore, none of the records produced could be considered as reliable documents. Many irregularities in Respondent’s methodology of accounting were also noted; as an example, there were numerous times that company checks from Respondent were deposited by an entity known as “Hendry Contracting,” without explanation. Respondent personally held the license as a General Contractor, and would utilize Hendry Contracting as a subcontractor. Hendry Contracting did not have any license whatsoever. It utilized Respondent’s license while performing construction activities. Brad Hendry, the principal of Hendry Contracting, is married to Janice Hendry, the daughter of John H. Woods, the owner of Respondent, Woods Construction. Janice Hendry administered Respondent’s company account and the company account of Hendry Contracting. The evidence is clear that no separation of duties was attempted. Furthermore, Hendry admitted that she did not exercise any sense of separation between the two different accounts (Woods Construction and/or Hendry Contracting). The two businesses were “commingled,” and the ability to retain any form of standard accounting requirement of checks and balances has been nullified. Numerous irregularities that defied “generally accepted accounting principles” appeared, including personal loans to family members, wholesale transfers of monies from Respondent to Hendry Contracting without explanation, and checks drafted to Brad Hendry (personally). Further, Woods testified that he exercised little or no control over his company in the last ten years. Hendry also confirmed the haphazard method of managing the two firms’ different accounts by writing checks from one firm to another, when the other firm’s account was running low. Hendry’s testimony regarding the financial cooperation of Respondent and Hendry Contracting is indicative of the commingling of accounts, as well. Hendry testified that each entity would draw on each other’s accounts depending on the cash levels within each respective account. Hendry also testified that Hendry Contracting was utilized for obtaining bank loans and utilizing Hendry’s name to purchase materials when the other accounts were depleted. By utilizing only the bank records, a general ledger for Respondent was constructed which derived the amounts that came into the business and the amounts paid out for labor. The fact that Respondent had no general ledger meant that some items would never be accounted for, such as building supply costs. Based on that caveat, Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L- 6.035(i) was applied to the total payroll derived from the bank records. This had the effect of reducing total payroll by twenty percent to account for building supplies (which were never accounted for due to the non-existent business ledger of Respondent). The amount of money flowing and commingling between the two firms (Respondent and Hendry Contracting) and among family members, numbered in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. The commingled money was utilized for all manners of payments: loans (not expected to be paid back) to family members, inflated wages to family members for de minimis services, or payment for services/goods for family members’ personal residences. A proposed penalty in the amount of $365,876.82 was originally assessed, as reflected in the AOPA, and served on Respondent on August 26, 2008. Based on further records produced and the understanding that Respondent was a construction firm but was unable to show any receipts of building supplies, the proposed penalty, utilizing Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L- 6.035(i), decreased the payroll by 20 percent to account for building supplies that were not documented. After consideration of the documents provided and application of the rule, a Second AOPA was prepared showing an assessment in the amount of $306,876.82. With Hendry as the sole financial officer of Respondent, approximately $351,632.43 of payroll was allocated to various family members. There was unambiguous testimony from Woods and Hendry that family members were employed in various roles, most notably the grand-daughters who were earning wages while conducting secretarial duties. A further $472,292.94 was paid to Hendry Contracting during the three-year audit time- period. Hendry Contracting never had any discernible workers’ compensation coverage for this amount of payroll, rendering Respondent liable for failure to secure workers’ compensation coverage for the monies paid. The remainder of the unsecured payroll assessed to Respondent was for various non-family workers for whom no proof of workers’ compensation coverage could be ascertained. The Second AOPA was computed by calculating Respondent’s payroll for the past three years using the business records Respondent provided. The payroll was then divided for each year by 100 and that figure was multiplied by an approved manual rate assigned to the classification codes (class codes) found in the National Council on Compensation Insurance’s Scope of Trade Manual (Scopes Manual). Class codes were assigned to the individuals listed on the penalty worksheet according to their historical duties. The grand-daughters and other female employees of Respondent were listed as clerical employees (classification code 8810), while the remaining names were listed as general carpentry workers (classification code 5645). Next, the product of the approved manual rate and the payroll for each year divided by 100 was then multiplied by 1.5, pursuant to statute, to derive the penalty for each year or part of a year. The penalties for each employee and year or part of a year were then added together to come up with a total penalty of $306,213.78. Based on the assessment of the financial records in conjunction with the documents admitted into evidence, the grand total of $306,213.78 is a true and correct penalty amount for Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Chief Financial Officer of the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, enter a final order: Finding that Respondent failed to secure the payment of workers’ compensation insurance coverage for its employees in violation of Subsections 440.10(1)(a) and 440.38(1), Florida Statutes; and Assessing a penalty against Respondent in the amount of $306,213.78, which is equal to 1.5 times the evaded premium based on the payroll records provided by Respondent and on the applicable approved manual rates and classification codes for the period extending from August 15, 2005, through August 14, 2008, as provided in Subsection 440.107(7), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of July, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 17th day of July, 2009.
The Issue Whether David Cooper’s Construction, Inc. (“Respondent”), failed to secure the payment of workers’ compensation insurance coverage for its employees; and, if so, whether the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (“Petitioner” or “Department”), correctly calculated the penalty to be assessed against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with enforcing the statutory requirement that employers in Florida secure workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. See § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Respondent is a Florida corporation engaged in the business of residential construction in Port St. Joe, Florida. At all times relevant hereto, Carl Woodall was a workers’ compensation compliance investigator employed by the Department. Employers may comply with the workers’ compensation coverage requirement by obtaining a workers’ compensation insurance policy or an employee leasing agreement. Corporate officers and members of limited liability companies can elect an exemption from workers’ compensation coverage. See § 440.05, Fla. Stat. On August 12, 2016, Mr. Woodall made an unannounced, random inspection of a worksite at 2912 Garrison Avenue in Port St. Joe, Florida. Mr. Woodall observed two men on the roof of an existing structure at that address who appeared to be framing an addition to the structure. At Mr. Woodall’s request, the two men identified themselves as David Cooper and Macon Stewart. Mr. Cooper identified himself as Respondent’s owner and stated that Mr. Stewart was working for him. Mr. Cooper informed Mr. Woodall that he paid Mr. Stewart by check at the rate of $10 per hour. While at the worksite, Mr. Woodall checked the Coverage and Compliance Automated System (“CCAS”) database, which tracks workers’ compensation insurance coverage and exemption data for employers in Florida. Mr. Woodall’s search of CCAS revealed that Respondent did not have a workers’ compensation insurance policy to cover its employees nor an employee leasing agreement. The search also revealed that Mr. Stewart did not have an active workers’ compensation exemption. Mr. Woodall personally served Mr. Cooper with a Stop-Work Order (“SWO”) and Order of Penalty Assessment on August 12, 2016. Respondent complied with the SWO by making a $1,000 down payment toward the penalty assessment (which had yet to be calculated) and agreeing not to allow Mr. Stewart to work for Respondent until such time as Mr. Stewart obtained an exemption. The Order of Penalty Assessment includes a Request for Production of Business Records (“Request”) which could be used to calculate the amount of the penalty. In response to the Request, Mr. Cooper provided the Department with billing statements, handwritten time sheets, and certificates of exemption for certain employees. Lynne Murcia is a Department penalty auditor. She is tasked with reviewing business records provided by employers and calculating penalties for employers who have been notified they are in violation of workers’ compensation coverage requirements. Ms. Murcia was assigned to calculate the penalty to be assessed against Respondent. Ms. Murcia began by reviewing Respondent’s business records for the audit period, which is the two-year period immediately preceding the date of the SWO. See § 440.107(7)(d), Fla. Stat. The audit period in this case is from February 1, 2015, through January 31, 2017. The Department’s penalty is based on the employer’s payroll to employees during any periods during the audit period in which the employer did not provide workers’ compensation insurance coverage for its employees (“the period of non-compliance”). In this case, the period of non-compliance is the same as the audit period. An employer’s payroll is the amount of wages or other compensation made to employees during the period of non-compliance. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.035. Transactions that are considered payroll include direct payment for services rendered, as well as outstanding loans, reimbursements, bonuses, and profit-sharing. Id. Based upon the records received from Respondent, Ms. Murcia identified Respondent’s employees during the period of non-compliance as Joseph Turner, Linda Cooper, and Macon Stewart.2 Compensation paid to those employees during the period of non- compliance was as follows: Joseph Turner, $11,740; Linda Cooper, $2,178; and Macon Stewart, $60. Thus, Respondent’s gross payroll for the period of non-compliance was $13,978. Next, Ms. Murcia consulted the Scopes Manual published by the National Council on Compensation Insurance (“NCCI”) to assign a class code to each employee. The class codes correspond with the type of work performed by an employee and establish the manual rate for workers’ compensation insurance for that type of work. Based upon Mr. Woodall’s observations of the work being performed at the worksite, Ms. Murcia assigned NCCI class code 5645, Carpentry, to Mr. Stewart. 2 Ms. Murcia initially identified additional employees whose wages were included in the Second and Third Amended Orders of Penalty Assessment. For purposes of this Recommended Order, the relevant payroll is that identified in the Fourth Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. Based on Ms. Cooper’s description of her job duties, Ms. Murcia assigned NCCI class code 8810, Clerical, to Ms. Cooper. Respondent’s records did not identify the type of work performed by Mr. Turner. When the business records do not identify the type of work performed by an employee, the Department must apply to the employee the highest manual rate associated with any employee’s activities based on the investigator’s personal observation of work activities. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.035(4). Ms. Murcia assigned class code 5645, Carpentry, to Mr. Turner because that class code corresponds with a higher manual rate than 8810, Clerical. Using the gross payroll to each employee, multiplied by the applicable manual rate, Respondent would have paid $1,897.51 in workers’ compensation insurance premiums to cover its employees during the period of non-compliance (“the avoided premium”). The statutory penalty to be assessed is twice the avoided premium. See § 440.107(7)(d)1., Fla. Stat. Ms. Murcia calculated the penalty to be assessed as $3,795. Ms. Murcia applied the correct approved manual rates and correctly utilized the methodology specified in section 440.107(7) and Florida Administrative Code Rules 69L-6.027 and 69L-6.035 to determine the penalty to be imposed.
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 David Cooper’s Construction, Inc., violated the workers’ compensation insurance statute and assessing a penalty of $3,795. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of January, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge 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 26th day of January, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: David Cooper David Cooper’s Construction, Inc. 2449 Hayes Avenue Port St. Joe, Florida 32456 Diane Wint, Agency Clerk Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Service Room 612.14, Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 Rean Knopke, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Whether Millenium Homes, Inc. (Petitioner) conducted operations in the State of Florida without obtaining workers’ compensation coverage which meets the requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2008), in violation of Subsection 440.107(2), Florida Statutes (2008)1, as alleged in the Stop-Work Order and Order and Penalty Assessment and the Fifth Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. If so, what penalty should be assessed by the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (Respondent), pursuant to Section 440.107, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency charged with the responsibility of enforcing the requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, that employers in Florida secure the payment of workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Workers’ compensation coverage is required if a business entity has one or more employees and is engaged in the construction industry in Florida. The payment of workers’ compensation coverage may be secured via three non-mutually exclusive methods: 1) the purchase of a workers’ compensation insurance policy; 2) arranging for the payment of wages and workers’ compensation coverage through an employee leasing company; and 3) applying for and receiving a certificate of exemption from workers’ compensation coverage if certain statutorily mandated criteria are met. On September 4, 2008, Maria Seidler, a compliance investigator employed by Respondent, was making random site visits at the Bella Vida development in North Fort Myers. Seidler observed eight workers unloading a truck, taking measurements, and performing various tasks on new homes under construction. All eight of the men were engaged in some type of activity on the job site. None were merely standing around, sitting in a truck, or otherwise idle. Seidler had all eight men stand in front of her, spoke to them in Spanish, and recorded their names on her field interview worksheet. All eight men advised Seidler, in Spanish, that they worked for Millenium Homes. None of the men advised Seidler that they did not work for Petitioner, nor that they were present in hopes of applying for a job. The individual apparently in charge at the job site, did not advise Seidler that not all of the men present were working for Petitioner. The evidence demonstrated that D.R. Horton was the general contractor for the project, and that D.R. Horton had contracted with Petitioner to frame out the housing units at the project. The eight men, who were present on the job site and who identified themselves as employees of Petitioner, confirmed that they were present on September 4, 2008, to perform framing. Framing is a construction activity as contemplated by Subsection 440.02(8), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.021. James Loubert, president and sole shareholder of Petitioner, was not on the job site at the time of Seidler’s arrival, and she initially spoke with him by telephone. Loubert arrived at the job site a short time later. Loubert advised Seidler that Petitioner had secured workers’ compensation coverage for its employees through an employee leasing arrangement with Employee Leasing Solutions (ELS). This coverage was later confirmed by Seidler. However, of the eight workers found on the job site, three workers, Alejandro Osorio, Josue Sanchez Bautista, and Luis Aguilar, were not named on the ELS list of Petitioner’s active, covered employees. Seidler was very definite and precise in her testimony that she observed Alejandro Osorio, Josue Sanchez Bautista, and Luis Aguilar wearing hard hats and engaging in work activities upon her arrival at the job site. Her testimony is found to be credible. When Loubert arrived at the job site, he informed Seidler that two of the workers, not listed on Petitioner’s active employee roster, were to have been sent home to pick up their Social Security cards, and that he had called in the third worker, Josue Sanchez Bautista, to ELS. Loubert did not inform Seidler that Osorio, Bautista, and Aguilar were not employees of Petitioner and were merely present at the job site in hopes of applying for a job. The Pre-hearing Stipulation signed by counsel for the parties and filed with the DOAH clerk on December 8, 2009, contained the following statements of admitted facts in section E: Respondent’s [sic] employees Josue Sanchez Bautista, Luis Aguilar, and Juan Perez had not been called into and accepted as employees by ELS as of September 4, 2008. Respondent [sic] was not in compliance with the coverage requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, as of September 4, 2008.2 At the hearing, both Javier Perez and Loubert testified that Osorio, Bautista, and Aguilar were not employees of Petitioner, but rather were waiting on site for Loubert to arrive, so that they could ask for jobs. However, they were all wearing hard hats. The testimony of Perez and Loubert is inconsistent with the observations of Seidler, as well as the statements made to Seidler by Loubert at the job site on September 8, 2008, and is, therefore, not credible. Petitioner had no workers’ compensation coverage other than that provided though ELS, and no active exemptions. James Loubert is the only officer of Petitioner, and did not have an exemption from coverage as of September 4, 2008. At the work-site, a Stop-Work Order 08-234-D7 was issued and personally served upon James Loubert based upon Petitioner’s failure to secure the payment of workers’ compensation for its employees Josue Sanchez Bautista, Luis Aguilar, and Alejandro Osorio. A business records request was also served on Loubert in order to obtain the records necessary to calculate and assess a penalty on Petitioner based upon its failure to comply with the coverage requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to Section 440.107(5), Florida Statutes, Petitioner’s business records were requested back to September 5, 2005, or three years prior to the issuance of the Stop-Work Order. Petitioner produced the register for its primary checking account to Respondent on September 4, 2008, in response to Respondent’s request for business records. Lynne Murcia is a compliance specialist for Respondent. She reviews business records produced by employers to determine the amount of payroll on which workers’ compensation premium was not paid, in order to calculate an appropriate penalty for violations of the coverage requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. Upon review of the business records initially produced by Petitioner, it was determined that the register from one of Petitioner’s two business checking accounts was missing. The records initially produced by Petitioner were, therefore, insufficient for the calculation of an appropriate penalty. It was requested that Petitioner produce the register for the second checking account, and those records were quickly produced. Thereafter, a 45-page summary of all transactions potentially meeting the definitions of payroll set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.035 (the Rule), was prepared and an Order of Penalty Assessment issued. In determining which payments should potentially be considered payroll, pursuant to the Rule, all payments made by Petitioner directly to its employees that did not pass through ELS were included. To the extent that those direct payments meet the definition of payroll, they were subject to workers’ compensation premium and would be properly included in an assessed penalty. Petitioner also made direct “per diem” payments to reimburse its employees for the cost of meals and lodging which they incurred during the times that they were required to travel away from home to perform their jobs. The per diem rates were calculated pursuant to Internal Revenue Service guidelines, and were deducted as a business expense on Petitioner’s income tax returns for the years 2005-2007. The Rule requires that expense reimbursements by an employer to employees be included as payroll subject to workers’ compensation premium to the extent that the business records of the employer do not confirm that the expenses were incurred as valid business expenses. All per diem payments made by Petitioner to its employees were included in the calculations, because Petitioner did not produce the receipts reflecting that its employees had actually incurred meal and lodging expenses in those amounts. However, following the December 15, 2009, hearing, Respondent examined the issue further and concluded that Petitioner’s per diem payments to its employees were properly documented as business expenses on Petitioner’s income tax returns. Respondent thereafter sought leave to file its Fifth Amended Order of Penalty Assessment deleting all per diem payments from the assessed penalty. Petitioner made numerous payments to third parties who provided construction, maintenance, or janitorial services at the homes of James Loubert, his father, Adrian Loubert, and his wife, April White, or who provided child care services for the Loubert family. For example, Petitioner paid $1,500.00 for tile work performed at James Loubert’s residence; $478.00 to Alex Ortiz, Antonio Elias, and Candy Ortiz for pressure-washing the homes of James Loubert and April White; $2,548.14 to Pedro Delgano for building cabinets for the homes of James Loubert and his father; $11,326.40 to Rick Wilson for painting the houses of James and Adrian Loubert; and beginning August 23, 2007, through December 20, 2007, $1,433.66 to Diane Berger for cleaning James Loubert’s home. Petitioner also paid $3,402.00 to Cinta Smollis for babysitting services provided to Loubert. These individuals do not appear on the penalty work sheet of the Fifth Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, since they do not meet the statutory definition of employees. Petitioner also paid large sums of money to Adrian Loubert for the purchase of a farm in Canada. In addition, James Loubert testified that some of the payments to his father represented expense reimbursements, suggesting that, at some point, Adrian Loubert had been an employee of Petitioner. Petitioner did not introduce any exhibits into evidence reflecting the nature or amount of the reimbursements allegedly being made to Adrian Loubert. James Loubert was actively involved in the carpentry work performed by Petitioner, on the project on which the stop- work order was issued as well as on prior projects. Nevertheless, he received only a minimal salary through Petitioner’s employee leasing company, ELS. In 2007, Loubert received a total salary of $11,000.00 through ELS. In 2008, he received a total salary through ELS of only $7,200.00. Any payments that James Loubert received directly from Petitioner, that meet the definition of payroll set forth in the Rule, were subject to workers’ compensation premium, and are therefore subject to penalty. During the three-year penalty period specified by the statute, Petitioner made many cash payments to, or for the benefit of, James Loubert. The business records produced by Petitioner indicate that these cash payments were made to payees such as Blockbuster Video, Toys-R-Us, and PetsMart, as well as for vacation expenses. In addition, James Loubert took large amounts of cash from Petitioner to facilitate his hobby of racing cars. Throughout the penalty period, Petitioner also made numerous payments to Loubert’s wife, April White, and to his daughter, Alexa Seagate. Petitioner also made numerous payments to Gary White, his father-in-law and one of Petitioner’s employees. James Loubert testified that the payments made to, or on behalf of, family members, the payments made to third- party payees, and the cash payments which he took from Petitioner reflected shareholder distributions. However, the memo lines on those payment entries do not indicate that those payments were intended to be shareholder distributions. Petitioner’s business records reflect that the memo line on a check would indicate that it was a shareholder distribution, if that was what it was intended to be. This was the practice on other transactions. In addition, James Loubert testified that the memos for his Quick Books entries reflect “exactly what” each payment was for. Presumably those memo entries are the same as the memo entries on the corresponding checks. The payments made by Petitioner to third parties from which it appears that Petitioner did not receive services or a benefit, including but not limited to the payments made to family members of James Loubert, and the cash payments made by Petitioner to finance James Loubert’s auto racing hobby, do not constitute legitimate business expenses. Petitioner frequently made loans or wage advances to its employees. Although Loubert testified that those loans were repaid to him, he later acknowledged that a $2,000.00 loan to employee Rachel Broulet was never paid back, and that a $975.00 loan to Nicholas Susa was never repaid. Petitioner did not produce business records or documentary evidence at the hearing that indicates that any of the loans which it made to employees were repaid. The State of Florida has adopted a classification code developed by the National Council of Compensation Insurance (NCCI), which assigns individual four digit codes to various classes of labor. This classification code is utilized to segregate different categories of labor by risk and to determine appropriate workers’ compensation premiums for those classes of labor in Florida. Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.021. As noted above, Petitioner was performing framing work at the time of the September 4, 2008, inspection. Because Petitioner’s employees were observed at work constructing residential homes, classification code 5645, detached one or two family dwellings, was correctly applied to Petitioner’s employees directly engaged in construction activities. This includes Javier Perez, as he was working along with and directly supervising the other seven carpenters who were working on site when the inspection took place. Classification code 8742, outside sales, has been applied to James Loubert, as he was not observed working on September 4, 2008. However, Loubert did testify at his deposition that he usually performed construction work along side Petitioner’s other employees, but Respondent did not apply the construction code to him in the Fifth Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. Classification code 8810 was correctly applied to those employees of Petitioner who performed clerical work in the office. The appropriate manual rates for each year of the penalty period of September 5, 2005, through September 4, 2008, was applied for each classification code assigned to Petitioner’s employees. In preparing the Fifth Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, the amount of unsecured payroll attributable to each employee of Petitioner listed on the penalty worksheet was correctly calculated. From the evidence, Luis Aguilar and Alejandro Osorio were to be paid $10.00 per hour. There was no evidence that Aguilar and Osorio had worked prior to the issuance of the Stop-Work Order, and therefore, earnings of $80.00 assigned, reflecting eight hours at $10.00 per hour for September 4, 2008, was correct. Petitioner failed to provide any business records or other information concerning the rate of pay for Josue Sanchez Bautista, the third non-compliant worker. Bautista’s wages for September 4, 2008, can be imputed utilizing the statewide average wage pursuant to Subsection 440.107(7)(e), Florida Statutes.
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 finding that Millenium Homes, Inc., failed to secure the payment of workers’ compensation insurance coverage for its employees, in violation of Section 440.38(1), Florida Statutes, and that a penalty in the amount of $66,099.37 should be imposed for the failure to provide the required workers’ compensation insurance coverage. DONE AND ORDERED this 28th day of May, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 28th day of May, 2010.
The Issue The issues to be determined in this case are whether Respondent Lockhart Builders, Inc., violated state laws applicable to workers’ compensation insurance coverage by failing to secure coverage for three employees and failing to produce records requested by Petitioner Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (Department) and, if so, what penalty should be assessed for the violations.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for the enforcement of the workers’ compensation insurance coverage requirements established in Chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2007).1 Respondent is a Florida corporation with its office in Bradenton. William Lockhart is Respondent’s president. Respondent is licensed to engage in construction activity in Florida. Respondent was engaged to construct a two-story duplex at 2315 Gulf Drive in Bradenton. Respondent began work at the job site on or about February 21, 2007. On August 22, 2007, Lockhart received a proposal from Burak Yavalar, owner of BY Construction, to do the exterior stucco work on the duplex building for a flat fee of $10,750. The proposal was accepted by Respondent on August 23, 2007. Yavalar presented Lockhart with a certificate of liability insurance which indicated that he had obtained workers’ compensation coverage for his employees. The certificate was issued by Employee Leasing Solutions, Inc. (ELS), a professional leasing company in Bradenton. ELS provides mainly payroll services and workers’ compensation insurance coverage for its clients. Lockhart did not ask for, and Yavalar did not provide Lockhart with, a list of the names of the BY Construction employees who were covered by the insurance. Lockhart made a call to ELS to verify that BY Construction had workers’ compensation insurance coverage, but he did not ask for a list of BY Construction employees covered by its insurance policy. BY Construction began work at Respondent’s job site on or about September 10 or 11, 2007. On September 12, 2007, BY Construction had eight employees at the job site. One employee, Justin Ormes, had previously worked for BY Construction, had quit for a while, and had just returned. Two other employees, Carlos Lopez and Jaime Alcatar, had been working on a nearby job site and were asked by Yavalar to come to work at Respondent’s job site. Yavalar claims that on the morning of September 12, 2007, Ormes, Lopez, and Alcatar had not yet been employed or authorized to start work for BY Construction. On September 12, 2007, Petitioner’s investigators Germaine Green and Colleen Wharton performed a random compliance check at Respondent’s job site. Without being specific about what particular work was being performed at the site by Ormes, Lopez, and Alcatar, the investigators testified that when they arrived at the job site they observed all eight men performing stucco work. The investigators spoke to Yavalar, Lockhart and the workers at the job site to determine their identities and employment status. Yavalar told the investigators his eight employees had workers’ compensation insurance coverage through ELS. However, upon checking relevant records, the investigators determined that insurance coverage for Ormes, Lopez, and Alcatar had not been secured by either BY Construction or Respondent. Wharton issued a statewide stop-work order to BY Construction for its failure to obtain workers’ compensation coverage for the three employees. After the stop work order was issued, Yavalar left the job site with Lopez and Alcatar to complete their paperwork to obtain insurance coverage through ELS. Yavalar’s wife was able to re-activate Ormes’ insurance coverage with ELS over the telephone. By the end of the day on September 12, 2007, insurance coverage was secured by BY Construction for Ormes, Lopez, and Alcatar. The business records of BY Construction produced for the Department indicated that Ormes had been paid by BY Construction in the period from March to July 2007, and then on September 12, 2007; Lopez had been paid on August 24, 2007, and then on September 12, 2007; Alcatar had been paid on September 12, 2007. All three men were paid only $28 on September 12, 2007. This evidence supports the testimony of Yavalar that these three had arrived at Respondent’s job site for the first time on September 12, 2008. BY Construction was later served with an amended order of penalty for its failure to obtain workers’ compensation coverage for the three employees. It arranged with the Department to pay the penalty through installments and was conditionally released from the stop-work order. When the Department's investigators were at the job site on September 12, 2007, they informed Lockhart about the stop-work order being issued to BY Construction and gave Lockhart a Request for Production of Business Records for the purpose of determining whether Respondent had obtained proof of workers’ compensation insurance coverage from BY Construction before BY Construction commenced work at Respondent’s job site. Respondent produced the requested records. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law, Florida law charges a contractor with the duty to secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage for any uninsured employees of its subcontractors. On this basis, the Department served Respondent with a Stop-Work Order and an Order of Penalty Assessment on September 21, 2007, for failing to secure coverage for Ormes, Lopez, and Alcatar. On September 21, 2007, the Department served a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation to Respondent. The Department’s request asked Respondent to produce records for the preceding three years, including payroll records, tax returns, and proof of insurance. Respondent produced some records in response to this second request, which the Department deemed insufficient to calculate a penalty. However, the evidence shows Respondent produced the only records that it possessed regarding its association with BY Construction. The Department’s proposed penalty does not include an assessment based solely on Respondent’s failure to produce requested records. When an employer fails to provide requested business records within 15 days of the request, the Department is authorized to assess a penalty by imputing the employer's payroll using "the statewide average weekly wage as defined in Section 440.12(2), multiplied by l.5." § 440.107(7)(e), Fla. Stat., and Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.028. Imputing the gross payroll for Ormes, Lopez and Alcatar for the years 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007, by using the average weekly wage for the type of work, the Department assessed Respondent with a penalty of $138,596.67 and issued an Order of Penalty Assessment to Respondent on October 31, 2007. Petitioner later amended the penalty to $70,272.51, based on the fact that BY Construction was not incorporated until January 1, 2006, and issued a Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on December 20, 2007.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department enter a final order that amends its penalty assessment to reflect one day of non-compliance by Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BRAM D. E. CANTER 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 31st day of March, 2008.
