The Issue Whether Gio & Sons, Inc. (Respondent) violated Sections and 440.38, Florida Statutes, and if so, what penalty should be imposed. References to sections are to the Florida Statutes (2004).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for enforcing provisions of Florida law, specifically Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, which require that employers secure workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. Respondent, whose principal is Giovanny Martinez, Jr. (Mr. Martinez), is in the business of providing drywall installation services. At all times material to this case, Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 440.02(16)(a), Florida Statutes. At all times material to this case, Respondent was legally obligated to provide workers' compensation insurance in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, for all persons employed by Respondent to provide drywall installation services within Florida. In particular, Chapter 440 requires that the premium rates for such coverage be set pursuant to Florida law. At all times material to this case, Respondent failed to obtain workers' compensation coverage on behalf of over 150 employees. It is undisputed that Respondent had not furnished the required coverage, and that there was no valid exemption from this requirement. Accordingly, on February 26, 2004, the Stop Work Order was properly entered. Thereafter, Petitioner reviewed Respondent's payroll records, which revealed that Respondent employed the individuals referred to in paragraph 5, whose identities are not in dispute, under circumstances which obliged Respondent to provide workers' compensation coverage for their benefit. Based upon Respondent’s payroll records, Petitioner correctly calculated the penalty amount imposed by law under all the circumstances of the case, and issued the Amended Order imposing a penalty assessment in the amount of $107,885.71. Mr. Martinez does not dispute the factual or legal merits of Petitioner's case.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, enter a final order that affirms the Amended Order in the amount of $107,885.71. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of December, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of December, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Joe Thompson, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 Giovanny Martinez, Jr. Gio & Sons, Inc. 6910 Southwest 18th Court Pompano Beach, Florida 33068 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florid a 32399-0300 Pete Dunbar, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Axiom Construction Design Corporation (Axiom), failed to provide workers' compensation coverage, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the various requirements of chapter 440, Florida Statutes. Section 440.107(3) mandates, in relevant part, that employers in Florida must secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage for their employees. At all times relevant, Axiom was a small Florida corporation engaged in the construction industry, principally installing drywall. Axiom’s principal office is located at 1067 Walt Williams Road, Lakeland, Florida. Mr. Pratt is Axiom’s owner, sole corporate officer, and registered agent. On July 23, 2014, Randall Durham conducted a job site workers’ compensation compliance investigation (Compliance Investigation). Mr. Durham spoke with Mr. Pratt at a job site at 109 Cattleman Road, the new Sarasota mall. Mr. Pratt and Al Lappohn were working the job site at the new mall. Mr. Pratt had a workers’ compensation policy in place with Southeast Personnel Leasing. Mr. Lappohn did not have an exemption from workers’ compensation coverage, and he was not covered by Axiom’s Southeast Personnel Leasing policy. On July 23, 2014, Mr. Pratt, as Axiom’s representative, was hand-served a Stop-Work Order1/ and a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation (Request). This Request encompassed all of Axiom’s payroll documents, account documents, disbursements, workers’ compensation coverage policies, and professional employer organization records from January 4, 2013, through July 23, 2014. Mr. Pratt provided the certificates of liabilities, payroll and tax records for 2013, and additional business records to the Department. These records were given to Mr. Knopke to calculate the penalty. In reviewing the records, Mr. Knopke determined that Mr. Pratt, Mr. Lappohn and Frank Cutts were employees of Axiom, and that Axiom did not provide workers’ compensation coverage for them. Mr. Cutts worked for Axiom at a Family Dollar Store build-out in Orlando in early 2014. Mr. Cutts swept up after the drywall was installed in the store, and was paid $125. Axiom conceded it owed the workers’ compensation penalty based on the work Mr. Lappohn and Mr. Cutts performed. The business records provided that during the audit period Mr. Pratt had dual employment, payment being paid outside of leasing. Dual employment is when a business has a leasing policy and there is extraneous payroll that is paid outside of the leasing policy. Payments received outside of a leasing policy are considered unsecured payroll for the purposes of calculating a penalty against an employer. Mr. Knopke included Mr. Pratt’s outside distributions in the penalty calculation. The “Scopes Manual” is published by the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc. (NCCI), the nation’s most authoritative data collecting and disseminating organization for workers’ compensation. The manual contains certain codes related to the construction industry and trades considered to be within that industry. The installation of drywall, wallboard, sheetrock, plasterboard or cement board is considered to be “construction” under the relevant codes in the manual. The manual, with its codes and classifications, is relied upon in the insurance industry and has been adopted by the Department in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.021. Mr. Knopke, using the manual, determined the appropriate classification code for Respondent’s employees was 5445. Mr. Knopke applied the correct rates and used the methodology found in section 440.107(7)(d)1., and Florida Administrative Code Rules 69L-6.027 and 69L-6.028 to calculate the penalty assessment. Based upon the testimony and exhibits, the 3rd Amended Penalty Assessment in the amount of $20,221.62 is accurate and correct.
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 upholding the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and assess a penalty in the amount of $20,221.62. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of June, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of June, 2015.
The Issue Whether GMD Carpet, Inc., failed to comply with coverage requirements of the workers’ compensation law, Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for enforcing provisions of Florida law, specifically Chapter 440 of the Florida Statutes, which require that employers secure workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. Respondent, whose principal is Emmanuel Simone, Jr. (Mr. Simone), is in the business of providing carpet installation services. At all times material to this case, Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 440.02(16)(a), Florida Statutes. At all times material to this case, Respondent was legally obligated to provide workers' compensation insurance in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, for Mr. Simone and four other individuals employed by GMD. On or about May 21, 2004, Petitioner became aware that Mr. Simone and another GMD employee were working a carpet installation job in Broward County, Florida. Upon inquiry, Petitioner accurately determined that GMD had not furnished the required coverage, and that there was no valid exemption from the coverage requirement. Accordingly, on May 21, 2004, a Stop Work and Penalty Assessment Order was properly entered. Thereafter, Petitioner reviewed Respondent's payroll records, which revealed that GMD employed three other individuals under circumstances which obliged Respondent to provide workers’ compensation for these employees. Based upon Respondent's payroll records, Petitioner recalculated the penalty assessment to be imposed in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 440, and issued an Amended Order in the amount of $1,916.65 on May 25, 2004. Respondent did not intend to violate the law. Rather, he mistakenly believed that he held a valid exemption; that his wife was not an employee, but rather a helper; and that the three other carpet installers were subcontractors to whom he had no insurance-related obligations. It is undisputed that Petitioner correctly calculated the penalty prescribed by law in the amount of $1,916.65 based upon Respondent's records and applicable law.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order confirming the Stop Work Order and imposing a penalty in the amount of $1,916.65, as set forth in the Amended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of October, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of October, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Colin M. Roopnarine, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Workers’ Compensation 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 Emmanuel Simone, Jr. Debra Simone GMD Carpet, Inc. 717 North 31st Avenue Hollywood, Florida 33021 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florid a 32399-0300 Pete Dunbar, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Findings Of Fact The factual allegations contained in the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment issued on August 23, 2010, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on September 13, 2010, and the Order Closing File which are fully incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted as the Department’s Findings of Fact in this case.
Conclusions THIS PROCEEDING came on for final agency action and Jeff Atwater, Chief Financial Officer of the State of Florida, or his designee, having considered the record in this case, including the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, the Petition for Request of Hearing, and the Order Closing File, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby finds that: 1. On August 23, 2010, the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (hereinafter “Department”) issued a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 10-341-1A to AN & YA CONSTRUCTION, INC. 2. On August 23, 2010, the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment was personally served on AN & YA CONSTRUCTION, INC. A copy of the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit A” and incorporated herein by reference. 3. On September 13, 2010, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 10-341-1A to AN & YA CONSTRUCTION, INC. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $75,724.80 against AN & YA CONSTRUCTION, INC. 4. On September 20, 2010, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served by certified mail on AN & YA CONSTRUCTION, INC. A copy of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit B” and incorporated herein by reference. 5. On October 8, 2010, AN & YA CONSTRUCTION, INC filed a Petition for Request of Hearing (“Petition”) with the Department in response to the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. A copy of the Petition is attached hereto as “Exhibit C” and incorporated herein by reference. 6. On November 24, 2010, the Petition was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned DOAH Case No. 10-10421. 7. On April 28, 2011, an Order Closing File was entered in Division of Administrative Hearings Case. No. 10-10421. A copy of the Order Closing File is attached hereto as “Exhibit D” and incorporated herein by reference.
The Issue Whether the Respondent, Steve Mundine Construction, Inc., timely challenged the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment and, if not, whether pursuant to the doctrine of equitable tolling Respondent’s untimely filed challenge should be accepted.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of enforcing and assuring employers meet the requirements of chapter 440, Florida Statutes. The law in Florida requires employers to maintain appropriate workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. At all times material to this case, the Respondent was doing business in Florida and was subject to the requirements of the law. On May 6, 2015, Stephanie Scarton, an investigator employed by the Petitioner, stopped at one of the Respondent’s construction sites and initiated an investigation as to whether the Respondent maintained appropriate workers’ compensation for the two employees found at the job site. After determining that the requisite documentation for workers’ compensation coverage was not produced, Ms. Scarton issued a Stop-Work Order (Petitioner’s Exhibit A). The Stop- Work Order advised the Respondent that he, Steven Mundine, d/b/a, Steve Mundine Construction, Inc., was in violation of Florida law by “failing to obtain coverage that meets the requirements of chapter 440, F.S., and the Insurance Code.” Petitioner’s Exhibit A included a Notice of Rights that provided, in part: You have a right to administrative review of this action by the Department under sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. * * * FAILURE TO FILE A PETITION WITHIN THETWENTY-ONE (21) DAYS CONSTITUTES A WAIVER OF YOUR RIGHT TO ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OF THEAGENCY ACTION. [Emphasis in original] In response to the Stop-Work Order, the Respondent met with Cathy Nunez on May 7, 2016, and executed an Agreed Order of Conditional Release from Stop-Work Order (Petitioner’s Exhibit B). In addition to signing the agreed order, the Respondent submitted an affidavit that provided: I Steve Mundine have terminated Bill Busch and Karl G. Kerr. I am no longer conducting business as Steve Mundine Const. Inc. I have opened a new company Paradigm Building, LLC but will not work til we applied and received exemptions. Including Richard Hans. Under the terms of the Agreed Order of Conditional Release from Stop-Work Order the Respondent represented that he would remit periodic payments of the remaining penalty amount pursuant to a Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty with the Department or pay the remaining penalty amount in full within 28 days after the service of the Stop-Work Order. As a condition of receiving the conditional release the Respondent remitted $1,000.00 toward the penalty amount. In order to assist the Petitioner with the accurate calculation of the penalty that would be due, the Respondent was advised that he needed to submit records. When the Respondent asked Cathy Nunez if he needed to retain a lawyer, she did not tell him that he did not need a lawyer. She advised him that a lawyer was not required to produce the records that were needed to make the penalty calculation. The Respondent did produce records to the Petitioner and in turn an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment (Petitioner’s Exhibit C) was completed that advised the Respondent that he owed a total penalty of $63,837.82. Cathy Nunez hand-delivered the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to the Respondent on July 24, 2015. Included was a second Notice of Rights that advised the Respondent of his right to challenge the assessment. Additionally, the Respondent was advised that a petition to seek administrative review of the action had to be filed within twenty-one days. After considering additional records submitted by the Respondent, the Petitioner prepared a Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment (Petitioner’s Exhibit D) to itemize the revised amount owed by the Respondent. The Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment ordered the Respondent to pay a total penalty of $47,006.28. Stephanie Scarton delivered the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to the Respondent on December 22, 2015. At the same time (December 22, 2015), Ms. Scarton presented the Respondent with a Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty (Petitioner’s Exhibit E). The payment agreement acknowledged that the Respondent had previously remitted $1,000.00 toward his penalty and allowed for the remaining $46,006.28 to be repaid over the course of 60 monthly payments. The Respondent did not agree to sign the payment agreement. Accordingly, a blank agreement was left with the Respondent, not the one providing for the payments previously described. On December 22, 2015, the Respondent disagreed with the repayment amount and believed the penalty had been incorrectly calculated. On December 22, 2015, the Respondent knew he had a limited amount of time to challenge the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. On December 22, 2015, Ms. Scarton hand-delivered to the Respondent the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment including a Notice of Rights. The only documents not left with the Respondent on December 22, 2015, were copies of the payment agreement signed by Ms. Scarton. On December 22, 2015, the Notice of Rights provided to the Respondent was identical to the Notice of Rights previously provided to him. Before leaving the Respondent on December 22, 2015, Ms. Scarton reminded the Respondent he had a limited amount of time to file a petition seeking administrative review of the agency action. The Petitioner did not misrepresent the procedural requirements to challenge the agency action, did not lull the Respondent into a false sense of security or inaction, and did not advise the Respondent as to whether he should retain a lawyer in connection with an administrative review of the penalty assessment. The weight of the credible evidence supports the finding that when the Respondent eventually filed a petition to challenge the agency action, it was beyond the 21 days allowed by law.
Recommendation Based upon 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 the Respondent’s request for administrative review of the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was not timely filed. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of May, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH 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 27th day of May, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Christopher Ivey Miller, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) John Laurance Reid, Esquire Dickens Reid PLLC 517 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Young J. Kwon, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Michael Joseph Gordon, Esquire Florida Department of Financial Services Workers Compensation Compliance 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact 12. The factual allegations in the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment issued on February 3, 2009, and the Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on November 4, 2009, which are fully incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted as the Department’s Findings of Fact in this case.
Conclusions THIS PROCEEDING came on for final agency action and Alex Sink, Chief Financial Officer of the State of Florida, or her designee, having considered the record in this case, including the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment and the Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment served in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 09-042-D4, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby finds that: 1. On February 3, 2009, the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (hereinafter “Department”) issued a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 09-042-D4 to GILLION ENTERPRISES, INC. The Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of rights wherein GILLION ENTERPRISES, INC. was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty _ Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. 2. On February 3, 2009, the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment was served via personal service on GILLION ENTERPRISES, INC. A copy of the Stop- Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit A” and incorporated herein by reference. 3. On March 10, 2009, the Department issued a Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to GILLION ENTERPRISES, INC. in Case No. 09-042-D4. The Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $24,732.08 against GILLION ENTERPRISES, INC. The Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein GILLION ENTERPRISES, INC. was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. 4. The Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served on GILLION ENTERPRISES, INC. by certified mail on March 19, 2009. A copy of the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit B” and incorporated herein by reference. | 5. On March 3, 2009, GILLION ENTERPRISES, INC. filed a timely Petition for a formal administrative hearing in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. The Petition was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned Case No. 09-1389. 6. On November 4, 2009, the Department issued a Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to GILLION ENTERPRISES, INC. in Case No. 09-042-D4. The Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $21,729.49 against GILLION ENTERPRISES, INC. The Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served on GILLION ENTERPRISES, INC. through the Division of Administrative Hearings. A copy of the Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit C” and is incorporated herein by reference. 7. On November 5, 2009, GILLION ENTERPRISES, INC. filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal in DOAH Case No. 09-1389. A copy of the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal . filed by ROYMO, INC. is attached hereto as “Exhibit D.” 8. On November 9, 2009 Administrative Law Judge Susan B. Harrell entered an Order Closing File, relinquishing jurisdiction to the Department. A copy of the November 9, 2009 Order Closing File is attached hereto as “Exhibit E.”
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent had a sufficient amount of workers’ compensation coverage during the time period in question; and, if not, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Division is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement in chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2015),1/ that employers in Florida secure workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. While an exemption can be obtained for up to three corporate officers, any employer in the construction industry with at least one employee must have workers’ compensation coverage. § 440.02(15), Fla. Stat. Kent Howe works for the Division as a compliance investigator based in Orlando, Florida. As part of his job responsibilities, Mr. Howe visits construction sites in order to verify that employers in the construction industry have obtained workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. Mr. Kehr was the owner and sole corporate officer of JNK. Mr. Howe visited a construction site in Port Orange, Florida, on the morning of December 10, 2015, and saw Mr. Kehr and two other men building the interior walls/frames of a house. Mr. Howe talked to the two men (James Hicks and James Garthwait) working with Mr. Kehr, and they reported that Mr. Kehr was paying them approximately $8.00 an hour. Mr. Kehr told Mr. Howe that Messrs. Hicks and Garthwait had been working for him for approximately two hours that morning. Mr. Kehr also stated that he had not obtained workers’ compensation coverage for Messrs. Hicks and Garthwait. Following those conversations, Mr. Howe returned to his car and accessed the Division’s Coverage and Compliance Automated System (“CCAS”) and learned that JNK had no workers’ compensation coverage. Mr. Howe also determined from CCAS that Mr. Kehr had obtained an exemption from workers’ compensation coverage that had been in effect from November 18, 2014, through November of 2016.2/ After relaying that information to his supervisor, Mr. Howe received authorization to serve Mr. Kehr with a Stop- Work Order, and he did so on December 10, 2015. That Stop-Work Order required JNK to “cease all business operations for all worksites in the State” based on the Division’s determination that JNK had failed to obtain workers’ compensation coverage. In addition, the Stop-Work Order stated that JNK would be penalized an amount “[e]qual to 2 times the amount [JNK] would have paid in premium when applying approved manual rates to the employer’s payroll during periods for which it [had] failed to secure the payment of compensation within the preceding 2-year period.” Along with the Stop-Work Order, Mr. Howe also served a “Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation” (“the BRR”) on Mr. Kehr. In order to ascertain JNK’s payroll disbursements during the relevant time period and the resulting penalty for JNK’s failure to obtain workers’ compensation coverage, the BRR requested that JNK remit several different types of business records covering the period from November 10, 2014, through December 10, 2015. Mr. Howe explained during the final hearing that the Division usually reviews business records pertaining to the two years preceding the Stop Work Order.3/ Because JNK came into existence on November 10, 2014, the Division’s review was limited to examining the period between November 10, 2014, and December 10, 2015. The business records sought by the Division included items such as time sheets, payroll summaries, check journals, certificates of exemption, and evidence that any JNK subcontractors had obtained workers’ compensation coverage. Section 440.107(7)(e) provides that if an employer fails to provide business records sufficient to enable the Department to ascertain the employer’s actual payroll for the time period in question, then the Division will estimate the employer’s actual payroll for that time period by imputing the employer’s payroll based on the statewide average weekly wage. The Division then multiplies that amount by two. JNK did not provide business records typically sought by the Division. Instead, JNK responded to the BRR by producing a written statement from Mr. Kehr indicating that he founded JNK in November of 2014, but did no work until July of 2015. That initial job involved fixing a set of stairs for $200. Afterwards, Mr. Kehr performed three separate small jobs between July and November of 2015, earning approximately $550. Because the Division could not ascertain JNK’s actual payroll from the documentation provided by JNK, the Division imputed JNK’s payroll for the time period in question and issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on January 19, 2016, seeking to impose a penalty of $61,424.04. Phillip Sley calculated the aforementioned penalty amount by filling out a worksheet that has been adopted by the Division through Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.027. The first step in completing the worksheet required Mr. Sley to assign a classification code to the type of work that Mr. Howe witnessed Messrs. Kehr, Hicks and Garthwait performing at the Port Orange worksite on December 10, 2015. Classification codes come from the Scopes® Manual, which has been adopted by the Department through rule 69L-6.021. Each code within the Scopes® Manual pertains to an occupation or type of work, and each code has an approved manual rate used by insurance companies to assist in the calculation of workers’ compensation insurance premiums. The imputed weekly payroll for each employee and corporate officer “shall be assigned to the highest rated workers’ compensation classification code for an employee based upon records or the investigator’s physical observation of that employee’s activities.” See Fla. Admin. Code. R. 69L-6.028(3)(d). In the instant case, Mr. Sley determined “5645” was the appropriate classification code. According to the Scopes Manual, [w]hen all of the carpentry work in connection with the construction of residential dwellings not exceeding three stories in height is performed by employees of the same carpentry contractor or general contractor responsible for the entire dwelling construction project, the work is assigned to Code 5645. This includes the construction of the sill, rough framework, rough floor, wood or light-gauge steel studs, wood or lighted-gauge steel joists, rafters, roof deck, all types of roofing materials, sidewall sheathing, siding, doors, wallboard installation, lathing, windows, stairs, finished flooring, cabinet installation, fencing, detached structures, and all interior wood trim. Mr. Sley’s next step in calculating the penalty amount was to determine the period of non-compliance. With regard to Mr. Kehr, the Department asserted that JNK failed to have workers’ compensation coverage between the date of JNK’s inception (November 10, 2014) and the date that Mr. Kehr received an exemption from the workers’ compensation coverage requirement (November 18, 2014). Despite having no evidence that Messrs. Hicks and Garthwait worked for JNK on any day other than December 10, 2015, the Division’s penalty calculation was based on an assumption that Messrs. Hicks and Garthwait worked for JNK from November 10, 2014, through December 10, 2015. Mr. Sley’s next step was to calculate JNK’s gross payroll for the time period in question. Because JNK did not provide the Division with business records that would have enabled the Division to calculate JNK’s actual payroll, Mr. Sley based JNK’s payroll on the statewide average weekly wage determined by the Department of Economic Opportunity for the time period in question.4/ Mr. Sley then multiplied that amount by two.5/ After converting the payroll numbers into a percentage, Mr. Sley multiplied the payroll amounts by the approved manual rate. As noted above, every classification code is associated with a particular manual rate determined by the Office of Insurance Regulation, and a manual rate corresponds to the risk associated with a particular occupation or type of work. Manual rates associated with potentially dangerous activities will have higher manual rates than activities with little or no potential danger. Mr. Sley’s next step was to calculate a premium for obtaining workers compensation coverage for Messrs. Kehr, Hicks, and Garthwait. Mr. Sley then multiplied that premium by two in order to calculate the individual penalties resulting from JNK not having workers’ compensation coverage for Messrs. Kehr, Hicks, and Garthwait. The sum of those amounts was $61,424.04. The evidence produced at the final hearing established that Mr. Sley utilized the correct class code, average weekly wage, and manual rates in his calculation of the penalty set forth in the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. The Division has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that JNK was in violation of the workers’ compensation coverage requirements of chapter 440. In particular, the Division proved by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Kehr had no workers’ compensation coverage for himself and no exemption from November 10, 2014, through November 17, 2014. However, the Division did not demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that Messrs. Hicks and Garthwait were employees of JNK on any day other than December 10, 2015. Mr. Kehr testified during the final hearing that Messrs. Hicks and Garthwait were working for him on December 10, 2015. He also testified that he was paying them at a rate of $8.00 an hour. However, Mr. Kehr persuasively testified that Messrs. Hicks and Garthwait had not worked for him at any other time between November 10, 2014, and December 10, 2015. The undersigned finds Mr. Kehr’s testimony on this point to be credible. Messrs. Hicks and Garthwait did not testify during the final hearing in this matter. There is no evidence that Messrs. Hicks and Garthwait worked for JNK at any time other than December 10, 2015. Because there is no evidence indicating that Messrs. Hicks and Garthwait were employees of JNK at any time other than December 10, 2015, during the time period in question, the undersigned finds that the Department failed to carry its burden of proving that $61,424.04 is the appropriate penalty. Based on the above findings, the undersigned finds that the correct penalty resulting from Mr. Kehr’s lack of coverage is $627.48. The worksheet completed by Mr. Sley indicates that is the amount of the $61,424.04 penalty associated with Mr. Kehr’s lack of coverage. As for the penalties associated with the lack of coverage for Messrs. Hicks and Garthwait on December 10, 2015, the undersigned multiplied the average weekly wage utilized by the Division ($841.57) by two. That results in a weekly gross payroll amount of $1,683.14. Dividing $1,683.14 by five results in a daily gross payroll amount of $336.63. Dividing $336.63 by 100 and then multiplying the result by 15.91 (the approved manual rate utilized by the Division for the period from January 1, 2015, through December 10, 2015) yields a daily premium of $53.62. Multiplying $53.62 by two results in a penalty of $107.23. Multiplying $107.23 by two yields $214.46, JNK’s penalty for not having workers’ compensation coverage for Messrs. Hicks and Garthwait on December 10, 2015. JNK’s total penalty is $841.94. Because section 440.107(7)(d)1. mandates a minimum penalty of $1,000, the undersigned finds that $1,000 is the correct penalty for the instant case.
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 imposing impose a $1,000 penalty on Donald Kehr, d/b/a JNK Framing Inc., a Dissolved Florida Corporation. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of August, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S G. W. CHISENHALL 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 10th day of August, 2016.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent complied with coverage requirements of the workers' compensation law, Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. A determination of whether Respondent functioned as an employer is a preliminary issue to be resolved.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency of state government currently responsible for enforcing the requirement of Section 440.107, Florida Statutes, that employers secure the payment of compensation for their employees. Respondent works in the fence construction industry and employs four people. Petitioner's investigator identified three people preparing a worksite for the erection of a privacy fence at 3000 Majestic Oaks Lane South in Jacksonville, Florida. The investigator then contacted Respondent and confirmed that the three identified individuals in addition to Respondent, were employed by Respondent for a total of four employees. The investigator determined none of the employees had workers’ compensation exemptions nor had Respondent secured the payment of workers’ compensation to his employees. On April 27, 2005, the investigator served a SWO on Respondent. The SWO required Respondent to cease all business operations in Florida. At the same time, the investigator served a Request for Business Records for Penalty Calculation on Respondent, requesting payroll records from Respondent for the period April 27, 2002, through April 27, 2005 (the audit period for penalty calculation). Respondent provided no records to the investigator. On May 23, 2005, the investigator determined 520 days had passed between the beginning of the audit period and September 30, 2003, and the penalty for noncompliance during this period was $52,000.00. The investigator also determined that during the period October 1, 2003, through the end of the audit period, the statewide average weekly wage paid by employers was $651.38; Respondent had four (4) employees; the imputed weekly payroll for Respondent’s employees was $320,848.00; using approved manual rates Respondent should have paid $97,969.40 in workers’ compensation premium; and the penalty for noncompliance during this period was calculated to be $146,954.12. On May 26, 2005, Investigator Bowman served the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on Respondent. The Amended Order assessed Respondent with a penalty for the entire audit period in the amount of $198,954.12. The investigator obtained records created by Respondent demonstrating Respondent placed a bid on a job on June 1, 2005, and Respondent completed the job on July 1, 2005. On July 19, 2005, the investigator served a Corrected Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on Respondent, which assessed a penalty in the amount of $3,000.00 for violating the terms of the SWO. Respondent violated the SWO on two separate days, the day of the bid and the day the work was completed. No competent substantial evidence was presented regarding intervening business operations.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order affirming the Stop Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment, Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and Corrected Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, requiring Respondent to pay a penalty in the amount of $200,594.12 to Petitioner, and requiring Respondent to cease all business operations in Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of September, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of September, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: John M. Iriye, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Workers Compensation 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-422 Martin D. Snyder 10367 Allene Road Jacksonville, Florida 32219 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Carols G. Muniz, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issues are whether, under section 440.107, Florida Statutes, Petitioner may calculate a penalty assessment for a failure to secure the payment of workers' compensation for one day as though the failure persisted over two years and whether Petitioner may calculate a penalty assessment based on double the statewide average weekly wage (AWW) when the lone uncovered employee earned $10 per hour.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was incorporated in 2008 by Ineido Soler, Sr., and his son, Ineido Soler, Jr. Since the corporation began operations, the wife of Mr. Soler, Jr., Idalmis Pedrero, has served as the office manager of this family-owned company. At all material times, Respondent has contracted with a personnel leasing company to handle employee matters, such as securing the payment of workers' compensation. Ms. Pedrero's responsibilities include informing the employee leasing company of new hires, so the company can obtain workers' compensation coverage, which typically starts the day following notification. On the afternoon of November 22, 2015, Mr. Soler, Jr., telephoned his wife and told her that he and his father had hired, at the rate of $10 per hour, a new employee, Geony Borrego Lee, who would start work the following morning. Customarily, Ms. Pedrero would immediately inform the employee leasing company. However, Ms. Pedrero was working at home because, six days earlier, she had delivered a baby by caesarian section, and she was still recuperating and tending to her newborn. A fatigued Ms. Pedrero did not notify the employee leasing company that day of the new hire. Late the next morning, Ms. Pedrero was awakened by a call from her husband, who asked her if she had faxed the necessary information to the employee leasing company. Ms. Pedrero admitted that she had not done so, but would do so right away. She faxed the information immediately, so that the employee leasing company could add Mr. Lee to the workers' compensation policy, effective the next day, November 24. Uncovered for November 23, Mr. Lee joined three other employees of Respondent and performed roofing work at a worksite. Late in the afternoon of November 23, one of Petitioner's investigators conducted a random inspection of Respondent's worksite and determined that Respondent had secured the payment of workers' compensation for the three other employees, but not for Mr. Lee. The investigator issued an SWO on the day of the inspection, November 23. The SWO contains three parts. First, the SWO orders Respondent to cease work anywhere in the state of Florida. Second, the SWO includes an Order of Penalty Assessment, which does not contain a specific penalty, but instead sets forth the formula by which Petitioner determines the amount of the penalty to assess. Tracking the statute discussed below, the formula included in the SWO is two times the premium that the employer would have paid when applying approved manual rates to the employer's payroll "during periods for which it has failed to secure the payment of compensation within the preceding 2-year period." Third, the SWO includes a Notice of Rights, which advises Respondent that it may request a chapter 120 hearing. On November 24, Petitioner released the SWO after Respondent had secured the payment of workers' compensation for Mr. Lee. On November 25, the investigator hand delivered to Respondent a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation (Request). The Request covers November 24, 2013, through November 23, 2015, and demands records in eight categories: identification of employer, occupational licenses, payroll documents, account documents, disbursements, contracts for work, identification of subcontractors, and documentation of subcontractors' workers' compensation coverage. The Request identifies "payroll documents" as: all documents that reflect the payroll of the employer . . . including . . . time sheets, time cards, attendance records, earning records, check stubs and payroll summaries for both individual employees and aggregate records; [and] federal income tax documents and other documents reflecting the . . . remuneration paid or payable to each employee . . . . The Request adds: The employer may present for consideration in lieu of the requested records, proof of compliance with F.S. 440 by a workers' compensation policy or coverage through employee leasing for all periods of this request where such coverage existed. If the proof of compliance is verified by the Department the requested records for that time period will not be required. The Request warns: If the employer fails to provide the required business records sufficient to enable the . . . Division of Workers' Compensation to determine the employer's payroll for the period requested for the calculation of the penalty provided in section 440.107(7)(d), F.S., the imputed weekly payroll for each employee shall be the statewide average weekly wage as defined in section 440.12(2), F.S., multiplied by 2. The Department shall impute the employer's payroll at any time after ten, but before the expiration of twenty eight business days after receipt by the employer of [the Request]. (FAC 69L-6.028) . . . . On December 11, 2015, Respondent provided the following documents to Petitioner: itemized invoices, including for workers' compensation premiums, from the employee leasing company to Respondent and checks confirming payment, but the invoices and checks are from December 2011; an employee leasing agreement signed by Respondent on August 1, 2014, and signed by the employee leasing company on August 5, 2014; an employee leasing application for Mr. Lee dated November 23, 2015, showing his date of birth as November 20, 1996, his hourly pay as $10, and his hire date as November 23, 2015; and an employee census dated December 1, 2015, showing, for each employee, a date of hire and, if applicable, date of termination. Partially compliant with the Request, this production omitted any documentation of workers' compensation coverage prior to August 1, 2014, and any documentation of payroll except for Mr. Lee's rate of pay. On December 14, 2015, Respondent filed with Petitioner its request for a chapter 120 hearing. On December 30, 2016, Petitioner issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment (Amended Assessment), which proposes to assess a penalty of $63,434.48. On the same date, Petitioner transmitted the file to DOAH. Petitioner issued a Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on February 16, 2016, which is mentioned in, but not attached to, the Prehearing Stipulation that was filed on April 26, 2016, but the second amended assessment reportedly leaves the assessed penalty unchanged from the Amended Assessment. In determining the penalty assessment, Petitioner assigned class code 5551 from the National Council on Compensation Insurance because Mr. Lee was performing roofing work; determined that the entire two-year period covered in the Request was applicable; identified the AWW as $841.57 based on information provided by the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity for all employers subject to the Florida Reemployment Assistance Program Law, sections 443.01 et seq., Florida Statutes, for the four calendar quarters ending June 30, 2014; applied the appropriate manual rates for class code 5551 to $841.57, doubled, and divided the result by 100--all of which yielded a result of $31,717.24, which, doubled, results in a total penalty assessment of $63,434.48. There is no dispute that the classification code for Mr. Lee is code 5551, the AWW is $841.57, and the manual rates are 18.03 as of July 1, 2013, 18.62 as of January 1, 2014, and 17.48 as of January 1, 2015. Because Petitioner determined that Respondent had failed to provide sufficient evidence of its payroll, Petitioner calculated the penalty assessment by using the AWW of $841.57, doubled, instead of Mr. Lee's actual rate of $10 per hour. Petitioner's calculations are mathematically correct. For the 5.27 weeks of 2013, the penalty assessment is $3198.58 based on multiplying the AWW, doubled, by the manual rate of 18.03 divided by 100 multiplied by 2 and multiplied by 5.27. For the 52 weeks of 2014, the penalty assessment is $32,593.67 based on multiplying the AWW, doubled, by the manual rate of 18.62 divided by 100 multiplied by 2 and multiplied by 52. For the 46.44 weeks of 2015, the penalty assessment is $27,326.48 based on multiplying the AWW, doubled, by the manual rate of 17.48 divided by 100 multiplied by 2 and multiplied by 46.44. Adding these sums yields a total penalty assessment of $63,118.73, which approximates Petitioner's penalty assessment calculation of $63,434.48. (Mistranscription of difficult-to- read manual rates or a different rule for handling partial weeks may account for the small difference.) Respondent challenges two factors in the imputation formula: the two-year period of noncompliance for Mr. Lee instead of one day's noncompliance and the AWW, doubled, instead of Mr. Lee's $10 per hour rate of pay. Underscoring the differences between the two-year period of noncompliance and double the AWW and the actual period of noncompliance and Mr. Lee's real pay rate, at the start of the two-year period, Mr. Lee was three days past his 16th birthday and residing in Cuba, and Mr. Lee continues to earn $10 per hour as of the date of the hearing. The impact of Petitioner's use of the two-year period of noncompliance and double the AWW is significant. If the calculation were based on a single day, rather than two years, the assessed penalty would be less than the statutory minimum of $1000, which is described below, even if double the AWW were used. One day is 0.14 weeks, so the penalty assessment would be $82.38 based on multiplying the AWW, doubled, by the manual rate of 17.48 divided by 100 multiplied by 2 and multiplied by 0.14. If the calculation were based on the entire two years, rather than a single day, the assessed penalty would be about one-quarter of the proposed assessed penalty, if Mr. Lee's actual weekly rate of pay were used instead of double the AWW. Substituting $400 for twice the AWW in the calculations set forth in paragraph 15 above, the penalty would be $760.14 for 2013, $7746.92 for 2014, and $6494.17 for 2015 for a total of $15,001.23. Explaining why Petitioner treated one day of noncompliance as two years of noncompliance, one of Petitioner's witnesses referred to Mr. Lee as a "placeholder" because the real focus of the imputation formula is the employer. The same witness characterized the imputation formula as a "legal fiction," implying that the formula obviously and, in this case, dramatically departs from the much-smaller penalty that would result from calculating exactly how much premium that Respondent avoided by not covering the modestly paid Mr. Lee on his first day of work. Regardless of how Petitioner characterizes the imputation formula, the statutory mandate, as discussed below, is to determine the "periods" during which Respondent failed to secure workers' compensation insurance within the two-year period covered by the Request. The focus is necessarily on the employee found by the investigator to be uncovered and any other uncovered employees. Petitioner must calculate a penalty based on how long the employee found by the investigator on his inspection has been uncovered, determining how many other employees, if any, in the preceding two years have been uncovered, and calculating a penalty based on how long they were uncovered. There is evidence of one or two gaps in coverage during the relevant two years, but Petitioner has failed to prove such gaps by clear and convincing evidence. One of Petitioner's witnesses testified to a gap of one month "probably" from late January to late February 2015. This witness relied on Petitioner Exhibit 2, but it is completely illegible. Ms. Pedrero testified that Respondent had workers' compensation coverage since 2011, except for a gap, which she thought had occurred prior to August 2014, which is the start date of the current policy. This conflicting evidence does not establish by clear and convincing evidence any gap, and, even if a gap had been proved, no evidence establishes the number of uncovered employees, if any, during such a gap, nor would such a gap justify enlarging the period of noncompliance for Mr. Lee. Ms. Pedrero testified that her mother-in-law, Teresa Marquez cleaned the office and warehouse on an occasional basis, last having worked sometime in 2015. Respondent never secured workers' compensation coverage for Ms. Marquez, but she did no roofing work and appears to have been a casual worker, so her periods of employment during the two-year period covered by the Request would not constitute additional periods for which Respondent failed to secure workers' compensation insurance. Based on the foregoing, Petitioner has proved by clear and convincing evidence only a single day of noncompliance, November 23, concerning one employee, Mr. Lee, within the relevant two-year period for the purpose of calculating the penalty assessment. Likewise, Petitioner has proved by clear and convincing evidence a rate of pay of only $10 per hour for the purpose of calculating the penalty assessment. At no time has Respondent provided payroll records of all its employees for November 23, 2015. Respondent Exhibit E covers payroll for Respondent's employees for a two-week period commencing shortly after November 23, 2015. But the evidence establishes that Mr. Lee's rate of pay was $80 for the day, which, as discussed below, rebuts the statutory presumption of double the AWW.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order determining that Respondent has failed to secure the payment of workers' compensation for one employee for one day within the two-year period covered by the Request and imposing an administrative penalty of $1000. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of July, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of July, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Jonathan Anthony Martin, Esquire Trevor S. Suter, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 (eServed) Daniel R. Vega, Esquire Robert Paul Washington, Esquire Taylor Espino Vega & Touron, P.A. 2555 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 220 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 (eServed) Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 (eServed)
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent materially understated payroll in violation of Section 440.107, Florida Statutes (2003), and, if so, what penalty, if any, should be imposed against Respondent; and whether Respondent's workers are not employees defined in Section 440.02, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure the payment of workers' compensation for the benefit of their employees. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. (2002). Respondent is a corporation domiciled in Florida and engaged in the business of stucco and plastering. On March 2, 2004, Petitioner's compliance officer conducted a random site inspection of a single-family residence under construction at 12061 Cypress Links Drive, Fort Myers, Florida. Two work crews were present on the construction site. One crew was finishing drywall seams inside the house. The other crew was applying stucco to the outside of the house. The compliance officer is the only employee for Petitioner who investigated and developed the substantive information that forms the basis of Petitioner's proposed agency action. Other employees calculated the actual amounts of the proposed penalties. On March 3, 2004, the compliance officer conducted a conference in his office with Ms. Sandra Gomez and Mr. Francesco Zuniga; and Mr. Juan Rivera and Ms. Licia Rivera. Mr. and Mrs. Rivera are the principal officers for Respondent. The compliance officer determined that the crew working inside the house worked for Mr. Zuniga and that the crew working outside the house worked for Ms. Gomez. The compliance officer further determined that Ms. Gomez and Mr. Zuniga were subcontractors for Respondent and that neither Ms. Gomez nor Mr. Zuniga had workers compensation insurance. The compliance officer issued stop work orders against Ms. Gomez and Mr. Zuniga that are not within the purview of this proceeding. The compliance officer determined that Respondent maintained workers' compensation insurance through the Hartford Insurance Company (Hartford) and took no action against Respondent except to issue an order for Respondent to produce its business records for the preceding three years (the business records) for audit by Petitioner. The compliance officer reported to Hartford that Respondent had uninsured subcontractors working for Respondent. The compliance officer also requested and received from Hartford a copy of the last premium audit report for Respondent (the audit report). On March 10, 2004, Respondent produced the business records previously requested by the compliance officer. The production of records fully satisfied the request issued by the compliance officer. The compliance officer determined there was a discrepancy between the audit report's description of employee duties and related information in the business records. The compliance officer determined that Respondent had materially understated or concealed payroll and had materially misrepresented or concealed employee duties by representing that Respondent was in the drywall business and not in the stucco business. On March 10, 2004, Petitioner issued Stop Work and Penalty Assessment Order Number 04-94-D6 (the Initial Order). The Initial Order alleged that Respondent violated Subsection 440.107(2), Florida Statutes (2003), by materially understating or concealing payroll and proposed a penalty equal to the greater of 1.5 times the premiums Respondent would have paid over the preceding three years or $1,000. Petitioner subsequently amended the Initial Order to charge Respondent with materially misrepresenting or concealing employee duties. Petitioner issued the Initial Order without conducting any further review of Respondent or its principals. The compliance officer told Mr. Rivera that it would not be helpful for Respondent to retain counsel and that counsel would only further delay release of the stop work order. The compliance officer did not provide Respondent with any information concerning methods of avoiding the penalty except for Respondent to provide proof of an exemption or proof of insurance for Respondent's subcontractors. The compliance officer did not advise Respondent that proving independent contractor status for some or all of Respondent's subcontractors before the effective date of statutory amendments on October 1, 2003, would reduce the proposed penalty against Respondent. The compliance officer did not interview the Hartford employee who prepared the audit report. The audit report was limited to the period from December 17, 2002, through December 17, 2003. The audit report stated that Hartford had not provided a copy to Respondent and had not audited Respondent's general ledger. The compliance officer did not identify or interview the Hartford employee who had responsibility for Respondent's account, the Hartford agent responsible for Respondent, or the Hartford underwriter. The compliance officer did not request Hartford's complete file for Respondent. The audit report included a copy of an exemption for a person identified in the record as Mr. Stinnett who was included in Petitioner's penalty calculation. The audit report and penalty calculation each identified Mr. Stinnett by the same social security number. On March 16, 2003, Petitioner amended the amount of the proposed fine to $526,593.44 pursuant to Amended Order of Penalty Assessment Number 04-094-D7-2 (the Amended Order). Petitioner issued a Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment Number 04-094-D7-3 (the Second Amended Order) on March 23, 2004. The Second Amended Order reduced the proposed penalty to $90,131.51. Petitioner reduced the $526,593.44 fine proposed in the Amended Order by $426,461.91. The latter sum pertained to penalties assessed for the period preceding October 1, 2003, and for the period following December 31, 2003. The parties agree that statutory amendments authorizing Petitioner to issue a stop work order to an employer that materially misrepresents employee duties or materially understates or conceals payroll became effective on October 1, 2003, and cannot be applied to Petitioner retroactively. In addition, the parties agree that Hartford's audit report for Petitioner did not cover the period after December 31, 2003. Respondent paid the proposed fine of $90,131.51. On March 23, 2004, Petitioner issued a Release of Stop Work Order (the Release) that removed the Stop Work Order issued on March 10, 2004. In a Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment Number 04-094-D7-4 (the Third Amended Order) dated May 26, 2004, Petitioner reduced the proposed penalty by $21,679.28 to $68,432.23. Petitioner discovered errors totaling $16,261.42 that occurred when employees input numbers to calculate the proposed penalties against Respondent. The remaining portion of the reduction in the amount of $5,417.86 was attributable to the deletion of Mr. Sinnett from the penalty calculation. In a Fourth Amended Order of Penalty Assessment Number 04-094-D7-5 (the Fourth Amended Order) dated June 1, 2004, Petitioner further reduced the proposed penalty by $1,531.97 to $66,926.00. Respondent provided additional information concerning exemptions for a few workers. On June 7, 2004, Petitioner issued a Fifth Amended Order of Penalty Assessment Number 04-094-D7-5 (the Fifth Amended Order) deleting the charge that Respondent materially misrepresented or concealed employee duties. Petitioner admits that Hartford committed errors in the audit report and in recording the description of duties that Respondent reported to Hartford. Mr. Rivera personally reported to the appropriate Hartford employee that Respondent's primary business was stucco and that Respondent hired subcontractors to perform drywall plastering. The Fourth Amended Order dated June 1, 2004, as amended by the Fifth Amended Order, remain at issue in this proceeding. The Fourth Amended Order proposes a penalty in the amount of $66,920.26. The Fifth Amended Order limits the grounds for the proposed penalty to the charge that Respondent materially understated or concealed payroll by excluding subcontractors from Respondent's payroll from October 1 through December 31, 2003 (the relevant period), and by excluding either subcontractors or independent contractors thereafter. If a worker included in the penalty calculation were an independent contractor, within the meaning of former Subsection 440.02(15)(d)1, Florida Statutes (2003), the worker should be excluded from the penalty calculation during the relevant period. Effective January 1, 2004, however, Subsection 440.02(15)(d)1, Florida Statutes (2003), no longer excluded independent contractors in the construction industry from the definition of an employee. Thus, a determination of whether a worker was an independent contractor is not probative of that portion of the proposed penalty covering any period after December 31, 2003. Prior to January 1, 2004, former Subsection 440.02(15), Florida Statues (2003), did not except subcontractors from the definition of an employee unless the subcontractor satisfied the definition of an independent contractor. Effective January 1, 2004, Subsection 440.02(15)(c)2, Florida Statutes (2003), excluded from the definition of an employee those subcontractors that did not satisfy the definition of an independent contractor if a subcontractor either executed a valid exemption election or otherwise secured payment of compensation coverage as a subcontractor. There is insufficient evidence to support a finding that subcontractors included in that part of the penalty assessment attributable to the period after December 31, 2003, either elected a valid exemption or otherwise secured payment for compensation coverage. These subcontractors would not be excluded from the definition of an employee after December 31, 2004, even if they were independent contractors. Except for constitutional arguments raised by Respondent over which DOAH has no jurisdiction, Respondent owes that part of the penalty attributable to any period after December 31, 2003. It is undisputed that the workers included in that part of the penalty assessment attributable to the relevant period were subcontractors. Respondent's ledger clearly treated those workers as subcontractors and reported their earnings on Form 1099 for purposes of the federal income tax. Petitioner treated those workers as subcontractors in the penalty calculation. The Workers' Compensation Law in effect during the relevant period did not expressly exclude from the definition of an employee those subcontractors who executed a valid exemption election or otherwise secured payment of compensation coverage as a subcontractor. Rather, former Subsection 440.02(15)(c), Florida Statutes (2003), required a subcontractor to be an independent contractor to escape the definition of an employee. Former Subsection 440.02(15)(c), Florida Statutes (2003), required a subcontractor to satisfy all of the following requirements in former Subsection 440.02(15)(d)1, Florida Statutes (2003), in order for the subcontractor to be classified as an independent contractor: The independent contractor maintains a separate business with his or her own work facility, truck, equipment, materials, or similar accommodations; The independent contractor holds or has applied for a federal employer identification number, unless the independent contractor is a sole proprietor who is not required to obtain a federal employer identification number under state or federal requirements; The independent contractor performs or agrees to perform specific services or work for specific amounts of money and controls the means of performing the services or work; The independent contractor incurs the principal expenses related to the service or work that he or she performs or agrees to perform; The independent contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of work or services that he or she performs or agrees to perform and is or could be held liable for a failure to complete the work or services; The independent contractor receives compensation for work or services performed for a commission or on a per-job or competitive-bid basis and not on any other basis; The independent contractor may realize a profit or suffer a loss in connection with performing work or services; The independent contractor has continuing or recurring business liabilities or obligations; and The success or failure of the independent contractor's business depends on the relationship of business receipts to expenditures. There is insufficient evidence to find that the workers included in that part of the penalty assessment attributable to the relevant period were independent contractors within the meaning of former Subsection 440.02(15)(d)1.a.-i., Florida Statutes (2003). Petitioner did not exceed its statutory authority by proposing a penalty of $66,920.26 in accordance with the Fourth Amended Order and Fifth Amended Order. Respondent previously paid a fine in excess of that proposed by Petitioner and is entitled to a refund of the excess penalty that Respondent paid.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order sustaining the allegations and penalties in the Fourth Amended Order and the Fifth Amended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of August, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 13th day of August, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Colin M. Roopnarine, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Workers' Compensation 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 Susan McLaughlin, Esquire Law Offices of Michael F. Tew Building 800, Suite 2 6150 Diamond Center Court Fort Myers, Florida 33912 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Pete Dunbar, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
