The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether the Respondent, Klenk Roofing, Inc. ("Klenk Roofing"), 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, if so, whether the Petitioner properly assessed a penalty against the Respondent pursuant to section 440.107.
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, Fla. Stat. Klenk Roofing is a corporation based in Daytona Beach. The Division of Corporations’ “Sunbiz” website indicates that Klenk Roofing was first incorporated on February 23, 2005, and remained an active corporation up to the date of the hearing. Klenk Roofing’s principal office is at 829 Pinewood Street in Daytona Beach. As the name indicates, Klenk Roofing’s primary business is the installation of new roofs and the repair of existing roofs. Klenk Roofing was actively engaged in roofing operations during the two-year audit period from July 24, 2012, through July 23, 2014. Kent Howe is a Department compliance investigator assigned to Volusia County. Mr. Howe testified that his job includes driving around the county conducting random compliance investigations of any construction sites he happens to see. On July 23, 2014, Mr. Howe was driving through a residential neighborhood when he saw a house under construction at 2027 Peninsula Drive in Daytona Beach. He saw a dumpster in the driveway with the name “Klenk Roofing” written on its side. Mr. Howe also saw a gray van with the name “Klenk Roofing” on the door. Mr. Howe saw three men working on the house. He spoke first with Vincent Ashton, who was collecting debris and placing it in the dumpster. Mr. Howe later spoke with Jonny Wheeler and Craig Saimes, both of whom were laying down adhesive tarpaper on the roof when Mr. Howe approached the site. All three men told Mr. Howe that they worked for Klenk Roofing and that the owner was Ronald Klenk. Mr. Ashton and Mr. Wheeler told Mr. Howe that they were each being paid $10 per hour. Mr. Saimes would not say how much he was being paid. After speaking with the three Klenk Roofing employees, Mr. Howe returned to his vehicle to perform computer research on Klenk Roofing. He first consulted the Sunbiz website for information about the company and its officers. His search confirmed that Klenk Roofing was an active Florida corporation and that Ronald Klenk was its registered agent. Ronald Klenk was listed as the president of the corporation and Kyle Klenk was listed as the vice president. Mr. Howe next checked the Department's Coverage and Compliance Automated System ("CCAS") database to determine whether Klenk Roofing had secured the payment of workers' compensation insurance coverage or had obtained an exemption from the requirements of chapter 440. CCAS is a database that Department investigators routinely consult during their investigations to check for compliance, exemptions, and other workers' compensation related items. CCAS revealed that Klenk Roofing had no active workers' compensation insurance coverage for its employees and that Ronald and Kyle Klenk had elected exemptions as officers of the corporation pursuant to section 440.05 and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.012. Mr. Howe’s next step was to telephone Ronald Klenk to verify the employment of the three workers at the jobsite and to inquire as to the status of Klenk Roofing's workers' compensation insurance coverage. Mr. Klenk verified that Klenk Roofing employed Mr. Wheeler, Mr. Ashton, and Mr. Saimes. Mr. Klenk also informed Mr. Howe that Klenk Roofing did not have workers' compensation insurance coverage for the three employees. Based on his jobsite interviews with the employees, his interview with Mr. Klenk, and his Sunbiz and CCAS computer searches, Mr. Howe concluded that as of July 23, 2014, Klenk Roofing had three employees working in the construction industry and that the company had failed to procure workers’ compensation coverage for these employees in violation of chapter 440. Mr. Howe consequently issued a Stop-Work Order that he personally served on Mr. Klenk on July 23, 2014. Also on July 23, 2014, Mr. Howe served Klenk Roofing with a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation, asking for documents pertaining to the identification of the employer, the employer's payroll, business accounts, disbursements, workers' compensation insurance coverage records, professional employer organization records, temporary labor service records, documentation of exemptions, documents relating to subcontractors, documents of subcontractors' workers compensation insurance coverage, and other business records to enable the Department to determine the appropriate penalty owed by Klenk Roofing. Anita Proano, penalty audit supervisor for the Department, was assigned to calculate the appropriate penalty to be assessed on Klenk Roofing. Penalties for workers' compensation insurance violations are based on doubling the amount of evaded insurance premiums over the two-year period preceding the Stop-Work Order, which, in this case was the period from July 24, 2012, through July 23, 2014. § 440.107(7)(d), Fla. Stat. At the time Ms. Proano was assigned, Klenk Roofing had not provided the Department with sufficient business records to enable Ms. Proano to determine the company’s actual gross payroll. Section 440.107(7)(e) provides that where an employer fails to provide business records sufficient to enable the Department to determine the employer’s actual payroll for the penalty period, the Department will impute the weekly payroll at the statewide average weekly wage as defined in section 440.12(2), multiplied by two.1/ In the penalty assessment calculation, the Department consulted the classification codes and definitions set forth in the SCOPES of Basic Manual Classifications (“Scopes Manual”) published by the National Council on Compensation Insurance (“NCCI”). The Scopes Manual has been adopted by reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.021. Classification codes are four-digit codes assigned to occupations by the NCCI to assist in the calculation of workers' compensation insurance premiums. Rule 69L-6.028(3)(d) provides that “[t]he imputed weekly payroll for each employee . . . 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.” Ms. Proano applied NCCI Class Code 5551, titled “Roofing — All Kinds and Drivers,” which “applies to the installation of new roofs and the repair of existing roofs.” The corresponding rule provision is rule 69L-6.021(2)(uu). Ms. Proano used the approved manual rates corresponding to Class Code 5551 for the periods of non-compliance to calculate the penalty. On September 17, 2014, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in the amount of $214,335.58, based upon an imputation of wages for the employees known to the Department at that time. After Klenk Roofing provided further business records, the Department on December 16, 2014, was able to issue a Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in the amount of $87,159.20, based on a mixture of actual payroll information and imputation. The Department eventually received records sufficient to determine Klenk Roofing's payroll for the time period of July 24, 2012, through July 23, 2014. The additional records enabled Ms. Proano to calculate a Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in the amount of $19.818.04. The evidence produced at the hearing established that Ms. Proano utilized the correct class codes, average weekly wages, and manual rates in her calculation of the Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. The Department has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Klenk Roofing was in violation of the workers' compensation coverage requirements of chapter 440. Jonny Wheeler, Vincent Ashton, and Craig Saimes were employees of Klenk Roofing performing services in the construction industry without valid workers' compensation insurance coverage. The Department has also demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the penalty was correctly calculated by Ms. Proano, through the use of the approved manual rates, business records provided by Klenk Roofing, and the penalty calculation worksheet adopted by the Department in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.027. Klenk Roofing could point to no exemption, insurance policy, or employee leasing arrangement that would operate to lessen or extinguish the assessed penalty. At the hearing, Ronald Klenk testified he was unable to obtain workers’ compensation coverage during the penalty period because it was prohibitively expensive to carry coverage for fewer than four employees. He stated that the insurers demanded a minimum of $1,500 per week in premiums, which wiped out his profits when the payroll was low. Mr. Klenk presented a sympathetic picture of a small business squeezed by high premiums, but such equitable considerations have no effect on the operation of chapter 440 or the imposition of the penalty assessed pursuant thereto.
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 $19,818.04 against Klenk Roofing, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of April, 2015, 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 28th day of April, 2015.
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 The issues are whether Respondent, Almirola Building Services, Inc. (“Respondent”), failed to secure workers’ compensation coverage for its employees; and, if so, whether the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (“Petitioner” or “Department”), correctly calculated the penalty assessment imposed against Respondent.
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 pursuant to section 440.107. Respondent is a Florida corporation established on May 8, 2016. Respondent has operated since 2007, providing roofing, repairs, and painting services, primarily on residential structures. According to the 2018 Annual Report filed with the Florida Secretary of State, no officers are indicated, but Juan Carlos Almirola, Caridad Almirola, and Karina Almirola are each listed as directors of the company. Respondent operates out of an office at 4715 Mullins Road, Tampa, Florida 33614, and provides its services in Tampa, Clearwater, St. Petersburg, and Pasco County, Florida. Respondent does not directly employ workers to perform the roofing, repairs, and painting services that it provides to customers. Respondent asserts that it does not utilize subcontractors to provide roofing, repairs, and painting services. Rather, Respondent asserts that it “borrows” employees from DeVito Builders, Inc. (“DeVito”), to perform roofing, repairs, and painting services. Pursuant to this “borrowing” process, Respondent pays DeVito for the services of DeVito’s employees, who then perform the actual roofing, repairs, and painting services for Respondent’s customers. No evidence was presented that DeVito was ever a licensed employee leasing company authorized to lend employees to other entities. On May 15, 2018, a company called Maurer and Maurer was contracted to perform a re-roof at 518 West 122nd Avenue, Tampa, Florida. Maurer and Maurer subcontracted that re-roof to Respondent, i.e., Respondent performed the work for which Maurer and Maurer was contractually obligated to complete. Respondent, through Karina Almirola, pulled a permit for the job on May 10, 2018. The Hillsborough County permit number is ROF38978. Respondent then subcontracted the re-roof to DeVito, from whom Respondent asserts it “borrowed” employees to complete the work originally contracted by Maurer and Maurer. For purposes of workers’ compensation law, Respondent, which was Maurer and Maurer’s subcontractor, subsequently contracted its requirements under the original contract to a sub-subcontractor, specifically DeVito. Respondent identified the employees being “borrowed” for the re-roof on May 15, 2018, as Didier Rodriguez, Rolando Perez- Perez, Martin Barrera Huerta, and Octavio Leon. Munal Abedrabbo is an investigator for Petitioner, who investigates worksites to determine if employers have secured the payment of workers’ compensation for their employees. On May 15, 2018, Mr. Abedrabbo investigated the worksite at 518 West 122nd Avenue, Tampa, Florida, a residential home. Mr. Abedrabbo testified that he observed six individuals on the roof of the home actively engaged in tearing off the existing roof by removing the shingles and dumping the shingles into a dumpster. The individuals observed at the worksite were performing activities consistent with National Council on Compensation Insurance (“NCCI”) class code 5551, “Roofing – All Kinds & Drivers.” The six individuals found at the worksite by Mr. Abedrabbo identified themselves to Mr. Abedrabbo as Didier Rodriguez, Rolando Perez-Perez, Martin Barrera Huerta, Moises Enrique Castro, Octavio Leon, and Lencho Martinez. Didier Rodriguez identified himself to Mr. Abedrabbo as the crew leader and said that the workers on-site worked for “Carlos.” A phone number for “Carlos” was on a work trailer parked at the worksite, which had Respondent’s company name and contractor license number on it. Mr. Abedrabbo placed a call to “Carlos,” who said he was close to the worksite and would go there. Mr. Abedrabbo identified “Carlos” as Juan Carlos Almirola because Juan Carlos Almirola arrived at the worksite in response to Mr. Abedrabbo’s telephone call to the “Carlos” listed on the work trailer. While waiting for Juan Carlos Almirola to arrive, Mr. Abedrabbo searched Petitioner’s Coverage and Compliance Automated System (“CCAS”) database for workers’ compensation coverage and any exemptions held by Respondent. CCAS contains workers’ compensation insurance information, as well as workers’ compensation exemptions. The workers’ compensation insurance information in CCAS comes from the NCCI, which obtains that information directly from insurance carriers. All carriers writing workers’ compensation policies must notify Petitioner within 21 days of writing a policy pursuant to section 440.185(6). Petitioner grants exemptions and then inputs that data into CCAS where Mr. Abedrabbo would reasonably expect to find such information if it existed. Mr. Abedrabbo’s search of CCAS revealed that on May 15, 2018, Respondent had no workers’ compensation insurance coverage and only one exemption, for Karina Almirola. There were no active exemptions for Juan Carlos Almirola and Caridad Almirola on that date. Mr. Almirola was an active participant in the roofing job. Ms. Caridad Almirola works in the office and runs errands and secures notices of commencement for the company. Mr. Almirola informed Mr. Abedrabbo that Karina Almirola, a licensed roofing contractor, had pulled the building permit for the job and that Respondent subcontracted the work to DeVito. Mr. Almirola further indicated that the workers present were working for DeVito. Mr. Abedrabbo observed a copy of the building permit pulled by Respondent, which was posted at the worksite. On May 15, 2018, DeVito secured the payment of workers’ compensation solely through an employee leasing agreement with SouthEast Personnel Leasing, Inc. (“SouthEast”). Of the six individuals on-site, DeVito’s employee leasing agreement covered only two, Rolando Perez-Perez and Didier Rodriguez. On May 15, 2018, DeVito had one active workers’ compensation exemption, which was for Nicholas DeVito. Neither Respondent nor DeVito purchased a policy of workers’ compensation insurance at any time relevant to this proceeding. Mr. Abedrabbo contacted Nicholas DeVito of DeVito, who confirmed that the workers on-site were working for DeVito. Mr. Abedrabbo informed him that DeVito had not added four of the six workers present to the employee leasing agreement, to which Mr. DeVito replied that DeVito would add them by the end of the day. At hearing, Respondent presented the testimony of Elizabeth Hernandez, who handles human resources and payroll for DeVito, as well as handling paperwork for when Respondent “borrows” employees from DeVito. Ms. Hernandez claimed that DeVito employed Martin Barrera Huerta and Octavio Leon for the first time on May 15, 2018, but that Moises Castro and Lencho Martinez were never hired by DeVito. Ms. Hernandez claimed that DeVito employed Martin Barrera Huerta and Octavio Leon because they filled out applications for DeVito’s employee leasing agreement. Ms. Hernandez claimed that DeVito did not hire Moises Castro and Lencho Martinez because DeVito did not add Moises Castro and Lencho Martinez to DeVito’s employee leasing agreement. Ms. Hernandez further claimed that DeVito did not hire Moises Castro and Lencho Martinez because DeVito ultimately did not pay them. Ms. Martinez’s claims of the employment relationship between DeVito and Martin Barrera Huerta, Octavio Leon, Moises Enrique Castro, and Lencho Martinez are directly contradicted by the defined terms of Florida’s Workers’ Compensation Law, as detailed below. Martin Barrera Huerta and Octavio Leon had not yet been hired by DeVito to perform the roofing job on May 15, 2018, but had received applications for employment from DeVito, which they had not yet returned completed to the company. Moises Enrique Castro, and Lencho Martinez were hired by DeVito to perform a re-roof on May 15, 2018, which was their first day on the job with DeVito. Respondent did not request an employee leasing roster from DeVito prior to the commencement of the work at the worksite. In this regard, Respondent affirmatively assumed the risk that DeVito may not have had required workers’ compensation coverage in place for its employees. Based on the findings of his investigation, Mr. Abedrabbo determined that Respondent failed to ensure that its subcontractor, DeVito, secured the payment of workers’ compensation for its employees. Section 440.10(b) provides that when a contractor sublets any part of its contract to a subcontractor, the employees of such contractor and subcontractor are deemed to be employed in one and the same business and the contractor shall be liable for the payment of compensation to all such employees. As a result, on May 15, 2018, Petitioner issued Respondent a Stop-Work Order for Specific Worksite Only and Order of Penalty Assessment for engaging employees in the construction industry without securing the payment of workers’ compensation. On May 15, 2018, Petitioner issued Respondent a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation. The Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation requested several categories of business records from Respondent for the period of September 17, 2017, through May 15, 2018, to determine Respondent’s payroll during that period. Included in the Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation was a request for Respondent to provide all business check journals and statements including cleared checks for all open and/or closed business accounts established by Respondent. Respondent was also requested to provide payroll documents including time sheets, time cards and attendance records, earnings records, check stubs and payroll summaries, and federal income tax documents; disbursements including check and cash disbursements; workers compensation coverage information; professional employer organization records; and subcontractor records including all documents which reflect the identity of each subcontractor, the contractual relationship with them, and payments to the subcontractor including, but not limited to: contracts, invoices, check stubs, and check ledgers. Petitioner penalizes employers for the amount of workers’ compensation premiums that they have evaded paying during the preceding two-year period. Petitioner determines evaded premiums by reviewing the employer’s business records. Respondent submitted business records to Petitioner consisting of bank statements, check images, and a check detail report. However, the records Respondent submitted were incomplete. Respondent submitted bank statements for two accounts, a checking account ending in 3595 and a checking account ending in 0052. Respondent failed to submit complete copies of the records for these two accounts. For the account ending in 3595, Respondent failed to produce the account statements for March, April, and May 2018, which were the final three months of the penalty audit period. For the account ending in 0052, Respondent submitted an incomplete statement for March 2018, which was missing the check list. Some of the check images were also missing, which precluded analysis of the corresponding payments. The check detail report provided by Respondent failed to identify whether the checks paid as subcontractor expenses and payroll expenses were net or gross wages. Because workers’ compensation premiums are based on gross payroll, the Department could not determine Respondent’s payroll without knowing if the amounts in the check detail report were net or gross wages. More significantly, however, an analysis of Respondent’s bank records revealed the possibility that Respondent had another business bank account. Respondent’s bank records included multiple transfers to a checking account ending in 0411. If this account is another business account, then Respondent could have paid additional, uncovered, employees or subcontractors out of that account. If this account was a personal or non-business account, then it could have been excluded from the penalty. Respondent provided no information regarding the owner of this third account, despite Petitioner informing Respondent that this information was needed on September 4 and November 9, 2018. Petitioner calculated an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, which imposed a $117,013.08 penalty against Respondent. At no point during the penalty audit review period did Respondent secure the payment of workers’ compensation. Respondent failed to submit records sufficient for Petitioner to determine Respondent’s payroll, which required Petitioner to calculate the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment based on completely imputed payroll. The gross payroll for an employer, who provides insufficient records, is imputed at the statewide average weekly wage multiplied by 1.5 for each employee for the period requested for the calculation of the penalty. Petitioner properly included Juan Carlos Almirola and Caridad Almirola in the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment as employees of Respondent because they performed services for Respondent and Respondent remunerated them for those services. The Almirolas’ remuneration for services provided to Respondent is undisputed. The Almirolas further fill positions of authority listed in the articles of incorporation with the Department of State and receive remuneration for services. Juan Carlos Almirola worked for Respondent between September 2017 and May 2018, as an estimator. Respondent paid him a salary for this work. Although Juan Carlos Almirola was listed on the SouthEast employee leasing roster for DeVito, this coverage was only effective for work that he performed while he was being paid by SouthEast. Caridad Almirola worked for Respondent full time between September 2017 and May 2018, pulling permits, recording notices of commencement, and running errands. Respondent paid her a salary for this work. Respondent’s subcontractor, DeVito, failed to secure the payment of workers’ compensation for its employees Lencho Martinez, Martin Barrera Huerta, Moises Enrique Castro, and Octavio Leon on May 15, 2018. Because Respondent subcontracted its obligations under the Maurer and Maurer contract to DeVito, which failed to secure workers’ compensation coverage, Respondent became the statutory employer of DeVito’s unsecured employees by operation of law. Respondent, therefore, had four employees required to have workers’ compensation: Juan Carlos Almirola, Caridad Almirola, Martin Barrera Huerta, and Octavio Leon. As described above, Juan Carlos Almirola and Caridad Almirola had no active exemptions and were thus required to have coverage; and Martin Barrera Huerta and Octavio Leon were required to have coverage in place prior to their beginning work for Respondent on May 15, 2018, even though that was their first day working for Respondent or DeVito. In a penalty based on imputed payroll, an employer’s period of noncompliance shall be either the same time period requested in the Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation or an alternative period of noncompliance as determined by Petitioner, whichever is less. In this case, Respondent has been in operation since 2007, but Petitioner requested business records from September 19, 2017, through May 15, 2018, which became the period of noncompliance. Between September 2017 and May 2018, Respondent continuously operated without securing workers’ compensation for its employees. Juan Carlos Almirola and Caridad Almirola acquired workers’ compensation exemptions on May 16, 2018, after the end of the period of noncompliance. When Petitioner calculates a penalty based on imputed payroll, Petitioner assigns the employer’s employees to the highest rated workers’ compensation classification code based upon records submitted or the investigator’s physical observation of any employee’s activities. In this case, Mr. Abedrabbo observed the employees on-site conducting roofing activities, which was the highest rated code indicated by the investigation. Petitioner applied the corresponding NCCI class code, 5551, for all of Respondent’s employees for the entire period of noncompliance. Petitioner determines the amount of evaded workers’ compensation insurance premiums by multiplying the employer’s gross payroll by the approved manual rates. Because Respondent failed to provide sufficient records to determine its payroll, Petitioner imputed Respondent’s gross payroll at 1.5 times the statewide average weekly wage for each employee. The approved manual rate is the workers’ compensation premium dollar amount associated with each class code expressed as dollars per $100 of gross payroll. Petitioner determined the evaded premium by multiplying Respondent’s imputed gross payroll by the approved manual rates. Petitioner then multiplied the evaded premium by two which resulted in a penalty of $117,013.08. Petitioner has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated Florida’s Workers’ Compensation Law by employing employees in the construction industry without securing the payment of workers’ compensation or elections to be workers’ compensation exempt, which required the issuance of the Stop-Work Order for Specific Worksite Only and Order of Penalty Assessment. Petitioner further demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent failed to submit sufficient records for Petitioner to determine Respondent’s payroll during the penalty audit review period. However, based upon the findings above that only four of the eight employees in question were working for all or part of the period of noncompliance, that penalty assessment must be adjusted to remove any calculations for Rolando Perez-Perez, Didier Rodriguez, Moises Enrique Castor, and Lencho Martinez since they were either covered for workers’ compensation by SouthEast (Perez-Perez and Rodriguez) or had not yet become employees of DeVito (Castro and Martinez). Accordingly, Petitioner has shown by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is correct that some penalty is due, but not the full amount previously calculated by its staff as a penalty for Respondent’s evaded workers’ compensation insurance premium based on imputed gross payroll for the entire period of noncompliance (except for the two employees who worked for only one day of the noncompliance period, May 15, 2018).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order assessing Respondent $58,746.52. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of March, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of March, 2019. COPIES FURNISHED: Leon Melnicoff, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 (eServed) Herbert Fiss, Esquire Herbert W. Fiss, Jr., P.A. 341 South Plant Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606 (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 was required to obtain workers' compensation coverage for himself pursuant to Section 440.107, Florida Statutes (2002), during the penalty period designated in the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment; and, if so, whether Petitioner should impose a penalty against Respondent in the amount of $120,467.88.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure the payment of workers' compensation for the benefit of their employees. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. (2002). On February 9, 2004, while conducting a random site inspection, Department investigator, Eric Duncan, observed three men performing construction work in the form of carpentry and house-framing at 720 Southwest 10th Street, Cape Coral, Florida. One of the workers on the site was Respondent, Jeremy Butzler, a sole proprietor who had employed the other two workers. Mr. Duncan interviewed Mr. Butzler at the site and requested proof of workers' compensation coverage, which Mr. Butzler was unable to provide. Mr. Duncan then issued the first Stop Work and Penalty Assessment Order, directing Mr. Butzler to cease work and pay a civil penalty of $1000.00. Also on February 9, 2004, Mr. Duncan served Mr. Butzler with a "Request for Production of Business Records," seeking copies of business records to determine whether Mr. Butzler had secured workers' compensation coverage, whether he had a current valid workers' compensation exemption, and to determine any civil penalties that may be owed for failing to secure workers' compensation coverage. Mr. Butzler complied in a very limited way. Mr. Duncan testified that most of the documents provided by Mr. Butzler were records of electronic transfer of funds that did not identify their recipients. No company checkbook or ledger was produced. After the penalty was calculated, the Department issued the First Amended Stop Work and Penalty Assessment Order, which increased the assessed penalty to $132,027.64. This assessment was later reduced to $120,467.88 after the Department corrected the workers' compensation premium rate it employed to calculate the penalty. At the time the Stop Work Order was issued and pursuant to Subsection 440.107(5), Florida Statutes (2002), the Department had adopted Florida Administrative Code Rule 4L-6.015,1/ which stated, in relevant part: In order for the Division to determine that an employer is in compliance with the provisions of Chapter 440, F.S., every business entity conducting business within the state of Florida shall maintain for the immediately preceding three year period true and accurate records. Such business records shall include original documentation of the following, or copies, when originals are not in the possession of or under the control of the business entity: All workers’ compensation insurance policies of the business entity, and all endorsements, notices of cancellation, nonrenewal, or reinstatement of such policies. * * * Records indicating for every pay period a description of work performed and amount of pay or description of other remuneration paid or owed to each person by the business entity, such as time sheets, time cards, attendance records, earnings records, payroll summaries, payroll journals, ledgers or registers, daily logs or schedules, time and materials listings. All contracts entered into with a professional employer organization (PEO) or employee leasing company, temporary labor company, payroll or business record keeping company. If such services are not pursuant to a written contract, written documentation including the name, business address, telephone number, and FEIN or social security number of all principals if an FEIN is not held, of each such PEO, temporary labor company, payroll or business record keeping company; and For every contract with a PEO: a payroll ledger for each pay period during the contract period identifying each worker by name, address, home telephone number, and social security number or documentation showing that the worker was eligible for employment in the United States during the contract for his/her services, and a description of work performed during each pay period by each worker, and the amount paid each pay period to each worker. A business entity may maintain such records or contract for their maintenance by the PEO to which the records pertain. * * * All check ledgers and bank statements for checking, savings, credit union, or any other bank accounts established by the business entity or on its behalf; and All federal income tax forms prepared by or on behalf of the business and all State of Florida, Division of Unemployment Compensation UCT-6 forms and any other forms or reports prepared by the business or on its behalf for filing with the Florida Division of Unemployment Compensation. During the period in question, Respondent was a "sole proprietor," as that term was defined in Subsection 440.02(25), Florida Statutes (2002): "Sole proprietor" means a natural person who owns a form of business in which that person owns all the assets of the business and is solely liable for all the debts of the business. Subsection 440.02(15)(c)1., Florida Statutes (2002), in effect during the penalty assessment period, stated, in relevant part: "Employee" includes a sole proprietor . . . Partners or sole proprietors actively engaged in the construction industry are considered employees unless they elect to be excluded from the definition of employee by filing written notice of the election with the department as provided in s. 440.05 . . . A sole proprietor or partner who is actively engaged in the construction industry and who elects to be exempt from this chapter by filing a written notice of the election with the department as provided in s. 440.05 is not an employee. (Emphasis added). Section 440.05, Florida Statutes (2002), allowed an individual to apply for election to be exempt from workers' compensation benefits. Only the named individual on the application was exempt from carrying workers' compensation insurance coverage. The Department maintains a database of all workers' compensation exemptions in the State of Florida. Mr. Duncan's review of this database revealed that, although Respondent had a valid workers' compensation exemption from November 18, 1999, to November 15, 2001, there were no exemptions for Respondent for 2002, the year constituting the penalty period in this case. At the hearing, Respondent admitted that he did not obtain an exemption for the year 2002. Mr. Duncan's investigation also revealed that Respondent did not have workers compensation insurance coverage during the year 2002. During the investigation, Respondent informed Mr. Duncan that he had contracted with an employee leasing company, Southeast Personnel Services, Inc., that was responsible for paying the salaries of and providing workers' compensation insurance coverage for Respondent and his workers. Pursuant to Subsection 468.520(5), Florida Statutes (2002),2/ an employee leasing company is a business entity engaged in employee leasing. "Employee leasing" is an arrangement whereby a leasing company assigns its employees to a client and allocates the direction of, and control over, the leased employees between the leasing company and the client. § 68.520(4), Fla. Stat. (2002). When the employee leasing company accepts a client, the client becomes an employee of the leasing company. An employee leasing company is the employer of the leased employees and is responsible for providing workers' compensation pursuant to Chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2002). § 468.529(1), Fla. Stat. (2002). Additionally, an employee leasing company assumes responsibility for the payment of wages to the leased employees without regard to payments by the client and for the payment of payroll taxes and collection of taxes from the payroll of leased employees. § 468.525(4)(b) and (c), Fla. Stat. (2002). At the hearing, Respondent demonstrated that he had workers' compensation coverage as an employee of the employee leasing company. However, the Department did not utilize any payments made through the leasing company in its penalty calculation. The evidence demonstrated that Respondent received compensation directly from Holiday Builders, Inc., in the amount of $185,006.50, and Gatco Construction, in the amount of $10,590.00. These amounts, totaling $195,596.50, were utilized by the Department to calculate Respondent's penalty. Mr. Duncan explained that in order for workers' compensation coverage to apply through the employee leasing company, companies such as Gatco Construction would have to make payments to the leasing company, not directly to Respondent. The leasing company would then pay a salary to Respondent, as its employee, and Respondent would be covered by the employee leasing company's workers' compensation insurance. Payments made directly to Respondent would not be secured by the workers' compensation coverage obtained through the employee leasing company. Respondent claimed that the Division utilized the incorrect gross income amount in calculating the penalty. To support this claim, Respondent attempted to introduce what he claimed was his personal income tax return for the year 2002. Respondent claimed this return had been prepared and filed by his bookkeeper some time in February 2004, subsequent to the Department's investigation. However, the return produced at hearing was unsigned and indicated that it had been self- prepared by Respondent. Respondent could not recall the bookkeeper's name without prodding from his counsel. Respondent offered no proof that this return had ever been completed or filed with the Internal Revenue Service. The purported 2002 tax return was not admitted into evidence, and Respondent's testimony as to the information contained on the return is not reliable. The Department correctly calculated the penalty assessment based on the money paid to Respondent as a sole proprietor "employee" who failed to file for a workers' compensation exemption for the year 2002. The Department calculated the total penalty based on Respondent's gross payroll, the class code assigned to Respondent utilizing the SCOPES Manual (a standard classification tool published by the National Council on Compensation Insurance), and the statutory guidelines in Subsection 440.107(7), Florida Statutes (2002). Based on that calculation, the correct penalty assessment in this case is $120,467.88.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, enter a final order confirming the Amended Stop Work Order and imposing a penalty in the amount of $120,467.88. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of May, 2005, 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 5th day of May, 2005.
The Issue Whether Respondent was required and failed to obtain workers' compensation insurance coverage for his employees during the period from March 7, 1997 through March 7, 2000, and, if so, what penalty should be assessed, pursuant to Section 440.107, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with enforcing the requirement that employers secure workers' compensation insurance for the benefit of their employees. On March 7, 2001, one of Petitioner's investigators observed two individuals, Worker 1 and Worker 2,3 painting a sidewalk, curb stops, and lines in the parking lot of a 7-Eleven store in Lake Worth, Florida. At that time, the investigator performed an on-site inspection. The investigator interviewed the two workers and completed a worksheet to determine if they were independent contractors. Worker 1 and Worker 2, among other things, worked for and were paid weekly by Respondent as painters, did not maintain a separate business from Respondent, did not control the means of performing their work, did not incur the expenses of their work, and did not incur the principal expenses related to their work. The investigator determined that the two workers were not independent contractors but were employees of Respondent. Neither Worker 1 nor Worker 2 was granted a workers' compensation exemption. Both workers were unprotected by workers' compensation insurance. Respondent provided to Petitioner's investigator federal tax Form 1099s for the years 1998 and 1999, pertaining to Worker 1 and Worker 2 and a handwritten note indicating the compensation paid to them during the year 2000. The documents indicated that Respondent paid the workers for the years 1998 through 2000 the following: Worker 1--$9,685 for 1998, $19,180 for 1999, and $3,330 for 2000; and Worker 2--$2,790 for 1999, and $240 for 2000. A compilation of approved classifications that groups employers according to their operations is published by the National Council of Compensation Insurance (NCCI). The publication is Scopes Manual, Scopes of Basic Manual Classifications (Scopes Manual). NCCI is a rating organization in Florida, which represents workers' compensation carriers. NCCI seeks approval from Florida's Department of Insurance of rates charged by workers' compensation carriers. NCCI and Professional Insurance Associates, as well as other sources, publish tables of approved rates for each classification code. It is undisputed that NCCI's publication of class codes and rates is relied upon and used by Petitioner to determine an employer's class code and the workers' compensation insurance rate. On March 7, 2000, Petitioner's investigator issued a SWO to Respondent. On March 8, 2000, Petitioner issued a NPAO to Respondent, indicating an assessment and penalty of $18,824. The investigator determined that, based upon what he had observed and the information that he had obtained, the work being performed by Worker 1 and Worker 2 was painting and was classified under Scopes Manual Code 5474. The investigator determined the evaded premium, or the premium that Respondent would have paid had he secured workers’ compensation insurance, by multiplying the gross compensation to employees each year by the premium rate for that Code for that year. The statutory penalty on the evaded premium is twice the evaded premium. The calculated penalty was $18,724. Added to the $18,724 was $100, which represented the penalty for the one day, March 7, 2000, that Respondent was not in compliance with the workers’ compensation requirement. On October 20, 2000, Petitioner issued a Second Amended Notice and Penalty Assessment Order, which was the final assessment, against Respondent assessing a penalty of $69,569, which included the $100 penalty. Pursuant to an agreement, Respondent performs general maintenance and preventative maintenance (GMPM) for Southland Corporation at 100 or more 7-Eleven stores in Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties. Petitioner was able to interview 13 of Respondent's employees, Worker 1 through Worker 13.4 As not a part of the GMPM agreement, Respondent's employees paint curbs, bumpers, and lines in the parking lot of each 7-Eleven store once each year. Respondent’s employees also engaged in the following: painting of buildings’ exterior and interior, parking lots, and loading docks; hanging drywall; setting of tile; paving of parking lots; repairing stucco and concrete; minor plumbing; carpentry, including trim, installation of doors and locks; filling potholes; and installing walls and cabinets. For example, Worker 10, who was employed with Respondent between June 1996 and January 1998, initially performed a daily activity of painting lines and curbs in parking lots at 7-Eleven stores. He could be assigned three stores in one day performing this activity. Later, Worker 10 performed under the GMPM agreement doing the following: painting the exterior and interior of stores, which could be the entire outside or a storeroom; tiling floors and ceilings; patching blacktop and repairing asphalt; and engaging in carpentry work, including putting up wooden shelves in storage rooms, cutting, nailing and screwing boards, and operating saws. Worker 10 also assisted Worker 6, who was a carpenter, repairing enclosures for dumpsters. The repairs consisted of sinking four-by-four posts into the ground, replacing slats, and occasionally replacing the entire enclosure due to damage caused by a truck backing into the enclosure. As another example, Worker 11 was employed with Respondent during 1998 and 1999 for 14 months and worked under the GMPM agreement. Worker 11 performed all activities under the agreement in maintaining the 7-Eleven stores, except for electrical and internal plumbing. The work to which he was assigned generally lasted four days a week, but for one day a week, he was assigned to handling service calls or performing line striping. Worker 11 performed the following: resurfacing asphalt; painting the entire parking lot, including lines for parking spaces and curbs; replacing or repairing ceiling and floor tile; laying tar on the roof; performing carpentry, including building shelves in storing rooms, reinforcing shelving, hanging new doors, replacing door hardware, and performing carpentry alongside Worker 6; and repairing enclosures for dumpsters by re-hanging doors, replacing slats, and replacing four-by-four posts. Even though Respondent stated that he subcontracted the repair of roofs and dumpsters, the installation of doors and electrical and plumbing work, he failed to present evidence showing to whom and when the work was subcontracted.5 Petitioner presented evidence demonstrating that Respondent’s employees performed all of the work described, except for electrical work. The work performed by Respondent’s employees included multiple class codes. NCCI requires the assignment of the highest rated classification under such circumstances. Carpentry is the highest-rated classification for all the work performed by Respondent’s employees, and the Scopes Manual Code for carpentry is 5403. Scopes Manual Code 5403 is also the code for the enclosure of a dumpster and the installation of a pre-hung door. The corresponding rate per $100 of payroll assigned to Scopes Manual Code 5403 is different for the applicable years 1997 through 2000. The rate for 1997 was 29.77; for 1998 was 29.09; for 1999 was 26.66; and 2000 was 27.96. Worker 1 through Worker 13 did not maintain a separate business from Respondent, did not control the means of performing their work, did not incur the expenses of their work, and did not incur the principal expenses related to their work. None of Respondent’s 13 employees had a valid workers’ compensation exemption. None of them were protected by workers’ compensation insurance. Respondent’s usual and customary practice was to pay his employees on a weekly basis. His usual and customary practice was to employ four or more employees during a weekly pay period. Respondent’s usual and customary practice was to employ four or more employees during any payroll period. Respondent asserts that he relied upon subcontractors for some of the work. The identity of the subcontractors, the service performed, and the frequency of their work are unknown. Whether the subcontractors had workers’ compensation insurance is also unknown. As a result, a determination cannot be made as to what Respondent’s responsibility, if any, was to the subcontractors as to workers’ compensation insurance, which in turn would affect an assessed penalty under worker’s compensation. To establish what his payroll was for the three years preceding the issuance of the SWO on March 7, 2000, Respondent used federal tax Form 1099s and cancelled business checks. For the years 1997 through 2000, Respondent’s payroll was as follows: Worker 1--1998 was $9,685, 1999 was $19,180, and 2000 was $3,330; Worker 2--1999 was $2,790, and 2000 was $240; Worker 3--1997 was $2,100, 1999 was $2,035, and 2000 was $3,045; Worker 4--1999 was $2,100; Worker 5--1997 was $1,900; Worker 6--1997 was $4,620, 1998 was $15,965, 1999 was $5,100, and 2000 was $3,303; Worker 7- -1999 was $610; Worker 8--1997 was $1,380, 1998 was $5,640, 1999 was $7,640, and 2000 was $350; Worker 9--1997 was $3,120; Worker 10--1997 was $8,450, and 1998 was $960; Worker 11--1998 was $7,095, and 1999 was $7,225; Worker 12--1998 was $2,883; and Worker 13--1999 was $2,675. Consequently, Respondent’s total payroll for 1997 was $21,570, for 1998 was $42,228, for 1999 was $49,355, and for 2000 was $10,268. Respondent’s payroll of $21,570 for 1997, was for the entire year. Petitioner made no reduction for the time period in the year 1997 prior to March 8, 1997, which would have been three years prior to the SWO on March 7, 2000. The statutory penalty assessed by Petitioner in its Second Amended Notice and Assessment Order against Respondent was $69,569, which included the penalty of $100. Petitioner’s assessment should be reduced to compensate for the Respondent’s payroll during the period of January 1, 1997 through March 7, 1997.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Labor and Employment Security, Division of Workers' Compensation, Bureau of Compliance enter a final order against Gregory Dennis Nelly: Sustaining the Stop Work Order. Sustaining the penalty assessed in the Second Amended Notice and Penalty Assessment Order minus the calculation for the payroll during the period of January 1, 1997 through March 7, 1997. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of June, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 5th day of June, 2001.
The Issue The issues are whether the individuals included in the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment were employees of Respondent during the penalty period designated therein and, if so, whether Respondent failed to secure workers' compensation coverage in violation of Section 440.107, Florida Statutes (2003); and whether Petitioner should impose a penalty against Respondent in the amount of $156,880.87.
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 an "S" corporation domiciled in Florida and engaged in the construction industry. The company was incorporated in late October 2003 and began operating at or near that time. At all times relevant to this proceeding, David Roquet was the president and sole shareholder of the company. On April 7, 2004, Petitioner conducted an investigative sweep of areas in Pasco County, including the Lexington Oaks Subdivision. While in the Lexington Oaks Subdivision, one of Petitioner's investigators observed five individuals working on a residence under construction. These individuals were framing the house and performing other carpentry work. At the time of the investigation, John Sullivan, an investigator for Petitioner, spoke to Maurilio Carrizales, one of the five individuals working at the site. Later, Mr. Sullivan also spoke with Mr. Roquet after he arrived at the construction site. On April 7, 2004, Mr. Sullivan issued a Stop Work Order against Respondent after he determined that Maurilio Carrizales and other individuals working on the construction project did not have workers' compensation insurance. That same day, Petitioner issued to Mr. Roquet, as Respondent's president, a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation. On April 12, 2004, pursuant to the Division's request, Mr. Roquet provided the Division with copies of Respondent's business records, which included check stubs, payroll records, tax records, and workers' compensation documents. Respondent's business records revealed that Respondent made direct payments to Maurilio Carrizales, Raudel Carrizales, Victor Carrizales, and George Betz for the construction work they performed for the company. According to the check stubs and tax records, Respondent treated these individuals as subcontractors and did not withhold any taxes from the direct payments that were made to them. Respondent did not have workers' compensation coverage on the individuals named in paragraph 7 during the penalty periods covered in the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. There was no documentation in Respondent's business records which indicated that Maurilio Carrizales, Raudel Carrizales, Victor Carrizales, and George Betz had workers' compensation coverage or exemptions from such coverage during the penalty period. Moreover, Petitioner, which maintains a database of all workers' compensation exemptions in the State of Florida, determined that there were no exemptions from workers' compensation coverage for Mr. Roquet,1/ Raudel Carrizales, Maurilio Carrizales, Victor Carrizales, and George Betz for the time periods which are at issue in this proceeding. Based on Petitioner's review of its records and on the business records provided by Respondent, Petitioner issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment which assessed a penalty of $156,880.87 against Respondent for failing to secure workers' compensation as required by Subsection 440.107(2), Florida Statutes (2003). The penalty amount of $156,880.87 was determined by multiplying the payroll amount by the workers' compensation approved manual rate for carpentry of $37.91. That amount was then multiplied by 1.5. See Subsection 440.107(7)(d), Florida Statutes (2003), for the method of calculating penalties. The penalty assessed in the Amended Order is based on Petitioner's determination that Mr. Roquet, Maurilio Carrizales, Raudel Carrizales, Victor Carrizales, and George Betz were Respondent's employees during designated time periods and on the gross payments Respondent made to those employees. The Penalty Assessment Worksheet, upon which the total penalty amount is based, listed Respondent's employees and its gross payments to the employees and the periods which Petitioner determined the employees had no workers' compensation coverage or exemptions, as follows: (1) from October 30, 2003, until December 17, 2003, Mr. Roquet was paid $22,994; (2) from October 31, 2003, until December 31, 2003, Maurilio Carrizales was paid $33,536; (3) from October 31, 2003, through December 31, 2003, Raudel Carrizales' was paid $33,536; (4) from January 1, 2004, until April 7, 2004, Maurilio Carrizales was paid $57,023; (5) from February 1, 2004, through April 7, 2004, Raudel Carrizales was paid $24,666; (6) from January 4, 2004, until April 7, 2004, Victor Carrizales was paid $99,938; and (7) from January 16, 2004, until January 23, 2004, George Betz was paid $4,190. During this proceeding, Respondent stipulated that during the time period at issue in this proceeding George Betz did not have either workers' compensation coverage or a valid exemption from such coverage.2/ Respondent's net or ordinary income for 2003, as reported on its Internal Revenue Service Form 1120S (IRS Form 1120S) for the tax year 2003, was $22,994. Based on its review of this document, Petitioner determined that in 2003, Mr. Roquet received compensation of $22,994 from the company. Contrary to Petitioner's conclusion, the $22,994 was not compensation to Mr. Roquet and should not have been attributed to him as such. The ordinary income of Respondent, a corporation, reported on IRS Form 1120S prepared for the tax year 2003, does not represent compensation that was paid to Mr. Roquet, the sole shareholder and officer in the company. Because the corporation had initiated operations in late October 2003 and operated only the last two months of 2003, Mr. Roquet had not begun compensating himself in 2003 and had performed no services for the company for which he expected or received remuneration. In mid-October 2003, when Mr. Roquet filed for the corporation's federal identification number, he indicated on the form that he would begin receiving compensation in January 2004. That form was received and approved by IRS on or about October 21, 2003, and consistent with the intent stated therein, Mr. Roquet began receiving compensation from Respondent in January 2004. In 2003, Respondent made a distribution of $6,700 to Mr. Roquet. However, this distribution was not compensation to Mr. Roquet, but was reimbursement to him for expenses he had paid out of his personal funds for some of the company's day-to- day operating costs and was also a withdrawal of dividend distributions from the company. For the reasons stated in paragraphs 13, 14, and 15 above, Respondent's ordinary income of $22,994, and no part thereof, is compensation to Mr. Roquet for purposes of determining any penalty assessment against Respondent. Mr. Roquet, as Respondent's president, entered into an oral agreement with three brothers: Maurilio Carrizales, Raudel Carrizales, and Victor Carrizales. Pursuant to the oral agreement, each brother was a subcontractor of the company and would be paid $1.67 per square foot for the framing work that he completed. With the funds that the company paid, each of the brothers had to buy whatever supplies and materials were needed to complete the job. However, there was no written agreement to describe or define the business relationship between Respondent and each of the brothers. Prior to Respondent's hiring the Carrizales brothers, Mr. Roquet requested information regarding their workers' compensation coverage. Based on information provided, Mr. Roquet mistakenly believed that both Raudel Carrizales and Maurilio Carrizales had workers' compensation coverage through an employee leasing company and that Victor Carrizales had an exemption from such coverage. However, at the time periods relevant to this proceeding, these individuals had neither workers' compensation coverage nor exemptions from coverage. Victor Carrizales, as a sole proprietor of a construction business, had a valid exemption from workers' compensation coverage from October 25, 2000, to October 25, 2002, and from February 15, 2003, until December 31, 2003. The letter of exemption for Victor Carrizales was initially valid from February 15, 2003, until February 14, 2005, but became invalid after December 31, 2003, and individuals previously exempt had to re-apply for exemption. That change in the law became effective January 1, 2004. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.012. The portion of the penalty assessment attributable to Victor Carrizales was January 1, 2004, to April 7, 2004, a time period in which he had no workers' compensation coverage or exemption. During this proceeding, Respondent contended that Raudel Carrizales, Maurilio Carrizales, and Victor Carrizales had workers' compensation coverage through a personnel leasing company, Southeast Personnel Services, Inc. (Southeast Personnel). Pursuant to Subsection 468.520(5), Florida Statutes (2003), an employee leasing company is a business entity engaged in employee leasing. "Employee leasing" is an arrangement whereby a leasing company assigns its employees to a client and allocates the direction of and control over the leased employees between the leasing company and the client. § 468.520(4), Fla. Stat. (2003). When the employee leasing company accepts a client, the client becomes an employee of the employer's leasing company. An employee leasing company is the employer of the leased employees and is responsible for providing workers' compensation pursuant to Chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2003). § 468.529(1), Fla. Stat. (2003). Additionally, an employee leasing company assumes responsibility for the payment of wages to the leased employees without regard to payments by the client and for the payment of payroll taxes and collection of taxes from the payroll of leased employees. § 468.525(4)(b) and (c), Fla. Stat. (2003). Records from Southeast Personnel provided to Petitioner reflect that at one time, Raudel Carrizales, through his company, Carrizales Brothers Framing, was associated with that personnel leasing company pursuant to a written agreement (Agreement) entered into on or about October 27, 2003.3/ At the time the Agreement was executed, both Raudel Carrizales and Maurilio Carrizales were listed by Southeast Personnel as employees of Carrizales Brothers Framing. Pursuant to the Agreement, as the leasing company, Southeast Personnel was responsible for providing workers' compensation coverage for its leased employees, who were paid through the leasing company. The Agreement, which refers to leased employees as "assigned employees," provides in relevant part the following: Client "represents and warrants that all wages (including bonuses) paid to any assigned employee are to be paid through SPLI [Southeast Personnel] and that any such assigned employee will receive no additional wages in any form from Client. Client agrees that it will be solely responsible for damages of any nature arising out of Client's failure to report to SPLI [Southeast Personnel] the payment to an assigned employee of any remuneration for services rendered for Client. In addition, SPLI [Southeast Personnel] shall not be considered to be an employer of any individual for who required payroll information is not supplied during any pay period (except as may be required by law). Client assumes full responsibility for workers' compensation claims, . . . and any and all other obligations or claims pertaining in any way to any individual for whom payroll information is not supplied during any payroll period (except as may be required by law), or who is paid in whole or part by Client, as an employee, independent contractor, or in any other capacity. For workers' compensation coverage to apply through the leasing company, the "assigned employees" must be paid through the leasing company. In this case, none of the employees listed on the Penalty Worksheet were paid by Southeast Personnel for the construction work they did for Respondent. Instead, they were paid directly by Respondent. There is no evidence that these direct payments were ever reported to Southeast Personnel. Rodney Holderbau, a marketing specialist with Southeast Personnel, testified that Raudel Carrizales, Maurilio Carrizales, and Victor Carrizales had workers' compensation coverage through Southeast Personnel, even though they were paid directly by Respondent for the work they did for that company and received no payments for that job from Southeast Personnel. However, no documentary evidence was presented to support this position. Mr. Holderbau's testimony that Raudel Carrizales, Maurilio Carrizales, and Victor Carrizales had workers' compensation coverage during all the alleged periods noted on the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is neither credible nor persuasive. As a marketing specialist responsible for recruiting companies to become clients of Southeast Personnel, Mr. Holderbau failed to establish that he possessed the qualifications or position within Southeast Personnel to speak on behalf of the company and to interpret the terms of the contract. The claim of Mr. Holderbau is inconsistent with and contradicts the meaning of employee leasing companies within the meaning of Chapter 468, Part XI, Florida Statutes (2003), and the terms of the Agreement between Raudel Carrizales' company, Carrizales Brothers Framing, and Southeast Personnel. Raudel Carrizales allowed the Agreement between Carrizales Brothers Framing and Southeast Personnel to expire on January 31, 2004. Raudel Carrizales, on behalf of his new company, signed another contract with Southeast Personnel on April 13, 2004, six days after the Stop Work Order was issued. Therefore, between January 31, 2004, and April 13, 2004, Raudel Carrizales had no workers' compensation coverage through the employee leasing company. Maurilio Carrizales, who was listed on Southeast Personnel documents as an employee of Carrizales Brothers Framing, had no workers' compensation coverage through Southeast Personnel on January 31, 2004, when the contract between Carrizales Brothers Framing and Southeast Personnel expired. Maurilio Carrizales again became eligible for workers' compensation coverage through Southeast Personnel, as a leased employee, effective April 13, 2004, almost a week after the Stop Work Order was issued. Between January 31, 2004, and April 12, 2004, Raudel Carrizales had no workers' compensation coverage through Southeast Personnel. During the time period alleged in the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, Raudel Carrizales and Maurilio Carrizales received direct payments from Respondent, thus, circumventing Southeast Personnel and the coverage that they may have had through that employee leasing company. Respondent did not intend to violate the law. Rather, he mistakenly believed that Raudel Carrizales, Maurilio Carrizales, and George Betz had workers' compensation coverage; that Victor Carrizales had an exemption from workers' compensation coverage; and/or that the aforementioned individuals were subcontractors to whom he had no insurance- related responsibility. Nonetheless, these individuals did not have workers' compensation coverage or exemptions from coverage. Thus, they were employees of Respondent and, as such, Respondent was required to provide workers' compensation coverage for them. Petitioner correctly calculated the penalty assessment based on the money paid to Respondent's employees, Raudel Carrizales, Maurilio Carrizales, Victor Carrizales, and George Betz; the class code assigned to each employee utilizing the SCOPES Manual; and the statutory guidelines in Subsection 440.107(d), Florida Statutes (2003). Based on that calculation, the correct penalty assessment in this case is $143.805.33.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, enter a final order confirming the Stop Work Order and imposing a penalty in the amount of $143,805.33. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of December, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of December, 2004.
The Issue Whether Royal Roofing and Restoration, Inc. (Respondent or Royal Roofing), failed to secure 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 Petitioner is the state agency charged with enforcing the requirement of chapter 440, that Florida employers secure workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Respondent is a Florida for-profit corporation organized on July 28, 2015, and engaged in the business of roofing and storm damage restoration. The company was formed, and initially conducted business, in Tallahassee, Florida, but expanded to the Panama City area in 2016. Traci Fisher is Respondent’s President and Registered Agent, with a mailing address of 1004 Kenilworth, Tallahassee, Florida 32312. DOAH Case No. 17-0879 On May 4, 2016, Department Compliance Investigator Jesse Holman, conducted a routine workers’ compensation compliance inspection at 374 Brown Place in Crestview, Florida. Mr. Holman observed four men removing shingles from the roof of a residential structure at that address. Mr. Holman first interviewed a worker who identified himself as Dustin Hansel and reported that he and the other three workers on site were a new crew for Respondent, the permit for the job had not yet been pulled, and the workers were not aware of the rate of pay for the job. Mr. Hansel telephoned Respondent’s sales manager, Dillon Robinson, who then spoke directly with Mr. Holman via telephone. Mr. Robinson informed Mr. Holman that Respondent obtained workers’ compensation coverage through Payroll Management Inc. (PMI), an employee-leasing company. Mr. Holman identified the three remaining workers at the jobsite as Milton Trice, Winston Perrotta, and Kerrigan Ireland. Mr. Holman contacted PMI and secured a copy of Respondent’s then-active employee roster. None of the workers at the jobsite, including Mr. Hansel, were included on Respondent’s employee roster. Upon inquiry, Mr. Holman was informed that PMI had no pending employee applications for Respondent. Mr. Holman consulted the Department’s Coverage Compliance Automated System (CCAS) and found Respondent had no workers’ compensation insurance policy and no active exemptions. During Mr. Holman’s onsite investigation, the workers left the jobsite. Mr. Holman could not immediately reach Ms. Fisher, but did speak with her husband, Tim Fisher. Mr. Fisher informed Mr. Holman that the crew was on their way to the PMI Fort Walton office to be enrolled on Respondent’s employee roster. On May 5, 2016, based on his investigation, and after consultation with his supervisor, Mr. Holman issued Respondent Stop-Work Order (SWO) 16-148-1A, along with a Business Records Request (BRR) for records covering the audit period of July 27, 2015 through May 4, 2016. Later that day, Mr. Holman spoke to Ms. Fisher, who informed him the crew did not have permission to begin the work on that date, as she had not yet pulled the permit for the reroof. Ms. Fisher further explained that the crewmembers had been instructed to complete applications with PMI prior to departing Tallahassee for Crestview. Ms. Fisher confirmed the crewmembers were completing applications at PMI Fort Walton that same day. Mr. Holman met with Ms. Fisher the following day and personally served SWO 16-148-1A. Ms. Fisher delivered to Mr. Holman an updated employee roster from PMI which included Mr. Hansel, Mr. Perrotta, and Mr. Ireland; a letter documenting Mr. Trice was not employed by Respondent; and a $1000 check as downpayment on the penalty. Respondent initially submitted business records in response to the BRR on May 23 and 25, 2017. DOAH Case No. 17-1558 On June 8, 2016, Mr. Holman conducted a random workers’ compensation compliance inspection at 532 Rising Star Drive in Crestview. The single-family home at that address was undergoing renovations and Mr. Holman observed three men on the roof removing shingles. None of the men on the roof spoke English, but a fourth man, who identified himself as Jose Manuel Mejia, appeared and stated he worked for Respondent, and that all the workers onsite were paid through PMI at a rate of $10.00 per hour. Mr. Mejia admitted that one of the worker’s onsite, Emelio Lopez, was not enrolled with PMI and explained that Mr. Mejia brought him to the worksite that day because he knew Mr. Lopez to be a good worker. The remaining workers onsite were identified as Juan Mencho and Ramon Gonzalez, both from Atlanta, Georgia. Mr. Mejia produced some PMI paystubs for himself and Mr. Mencho. Mr. Mejia stated that he and his crews also received reimbursement checks directly from Respondent for gas, rentals, materials, and the like. Mr. Holman contacted PMI, who produced Respondent’s then-active employee roster. Mr. Mejia and Mr. Mencho were on the roster, but neither Mr. Gonzalez nor Mr. Lopez was included. Mr. Holman next contacted Ms. Fisher, who identified Mr. Mejia as a subcontractor, but was not familiar with any of the other men Mr. Holman encountered at the worksite. Mr. Holman consulted via telephone with his supervisor, who instructed him to issue an SWO to Respondent for failing to secure workers’ compensation coverage for its employees. Mr. Holman issued SWO 16-198-1A by posting the worksite on June 8, 2016. Department Facilitator Don Hurst, personally served Ms. Fisher with SWO 16-198-1A in Tallahassee that same day. SWO 16-148-1A Penalty Calculation1/ Department Penalty Auditor Eunika Jackson, was assigned to calculate the penalties associated with the SWOs issued to Respondent. On June 8, 2016, Ms. Jackson began calculating the penalty associated with SWO 16-148-1A. Ms. Jackson reviewed the documents submitted by Respondent in response to the BRR. The documents included Respondent’s Wells Fargo bank statements, check images, and PMI payroll register for the audit period.2/ Based on a review of the records, Ms. Jackson identified the following individuals as Respondent’s employees because they received direct payment from Respondent at times during the audit period: David Rosinsky, Dylan Robinson, Jarod Bell, Tommy Miller, and David Shields. Ms. Jackson determined periods of non-compliance for these employees based on the dates they received payments from Respondent and were not covered for workers’ compensation via PMI employment roster, separate policy, or corporate officer exemption. Ms. Jackson deemed payments to each of the individuals as gross payroll for purposes of calculating the penalty. Based upon Ms. Fisher’s deposition testimony, Ms. Jackson assigned National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) class code 5551, Roofing, to Mr. Miller; NCCI class code 5474, Painting, to Mr. Rosinsky; NCCI class code 8742, Sales, to Mr. Bell and Mr. Robinson; and NCCI class code 8810, clerical office employee, to Mr. Shields. Utilizing the statutory formula for penalty calculation, Ms. Jackson calculated a total penalty of $191.28 associated with these five “employees.” Ms. Jackson next calculated the penalty for Dustin Hansel, Kerrigan Ireland, Milton Trice, and Winston Perrotta, the workers identified at the jobsite as employees on May 4, 2016. The Department maintains that the business records submitted by Respondent were insufficient to determine Respondent’s payroll to these “employees,” thus, Ms. Jackson used the statutory formula to impute payroll to these workers. Ms. Jackson calculated a penalty of $14,970.12 against Respondent for failure to secure payment of workers’ compensation insurance for each of these four “employees” during the audit period. The total penalty associated with these four “employees” is $59,880.48. Ms. Jackson calculated a total penalty of $60,072.96 to be imposed against Respondent in connection with SWO 16-148- 1A. Business Records In compliance with the Department’s BRR, Respondent submitted additional business records on several occasions-- March 21, May 3 and 31, June 7, and August 15 and 24, 2017--in order to establish its complete payroll for the audit period. While the Department admits that the final documents submitted do establish Respondent’s complete payroll, the Department did not issue amended penalty assessment based on those records in either case. The Department maintains Respondent did not timely submit records, pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.028(4), which allows an employer 20 business days after service of the first amended order of penalty assessment to submit sufficient records to establish payroll. All business records submitted by Respondent were admitted in evidence and included as part of the record. The undersigned is not limited to the record before the Department at the time the amended penalty assessments were imposed, but must determine a recommendation in a de novo proceeding. The undersigned has relied upon the complete record in arriving at the decision in this case. Penalty Calculation for Ireland, Trice, and Perrotta For purposes of workers’ compensation insurance coverage, an “employee” is “any person who receives remuneration from an employer” for work or services performed under a contract. § 440.02(15)(a), Fla. Stat. Respondent did not issue a single check to Mr. Ireland, Mr. Trice, or Mr. Perrotta during the audit period. Mr. Ireland, Mr. Trice, and Mr. Perrotta are not included on any PMI leasing roster included in the record for the audit period. The uncontroverted evidence, including the credible and unrefuted testimony of each person with knowledge, established that Mr. Ireland, Mr. Trice, and Mr. Perrotta were newly hired for the job in Crestview on May 4, 2016, and began working that day prior to submitting applications at PMI, despite Ms. Fisher’s directions otherwise. Petitioner did not prove that either Mr. Ireland, Mr. Trice, or Mr. Perrotta was Respondent’s employee at any time during the audit period. Petitioner did not correctly calculate the penalty of $44,911.26 against Respondent for failure to secure workers’ compensation insurance for Mr. Ireland, Mr. Trice, and Mr. Perrotta during the audit period. Penalty Calculation for Hansel Ms. Fisher testified that Mr. Hansel has owned several businesses with which Respondent has conducted business over the years. Originally, Mr. Hansel owned a dumpster rental business, now owned by his father. Mr. Hansel also owned an independent landscaping company with which Respondent occasionally transacted business. When Respondent expanded business into the Panama City area, Ms. Fisher hired Mr. Hansel as a crew chief to supervise new crews in the area. The job on May 4, 2016, was his first roofing job. A review of Respondent’s records reveals Respondent issued the following checks to Mr. Hansel during the audit period: December 4, 2015, in the amount of $360, $300 of which was for “dumpster rental” and the remaining $60 for “sod”; May 4, 2016, in the amount of $200 for “sod repair”; May 6, 2016, in the amount of $925 as reimbursement for travel expenses; May 9, 2016, in the amount of $1,011.50 (with no memo); and May 21, 2016, in the amount of $100 for “7845 Preservation.” Mr. Hansel was included on Respondent’s PMI leasing roster beginning on May 13, 2016. Petitioner proved that Mr. Hansel was Respondent’s employee at times during the audit period. Petitioner did not prove that Respondent’s records were insufficient to determine payroll to Mr. Hansel during the audit period, which would have required an imputed penalty. Petitioner did not correctly calculate the penalty of $14,970.42 against Respondent for failure to secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage for Mr. Hansel during the audit period. Sod repair by Mr. Hansel is a service performed for Respondent during the audit period. Reimbursement of travel expenses is specifically included in the definition of payroll for purposes of calculating the penalty. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L- 6.035(1)(f) (“Expense reimbursements, including reimbursements for travel” are included as remuneration to employees “to the extent that the employer’s business records and receipts do not confirm that the expense incurred as a valid business expense.”). Dumpster rental is neither work performed on behalf of, nor service provided to, Respondent during the audit period. The correct uninsured payroll amount attributable to Mr. Hansel is $2,296.50. Petitioner correctly applied NCCI class code 5551, Roofing, to work performed by Mr. Hansel based on the observation of Mr. Holman at the worksite on May 4, 2016. With respect to Mr. Hansel’s services for sod and sod repair, Petitioner did not correctly apply NCCI class code 5551. Petitioner did not introduce competent substantial evidence of the applicable NCCI class code and premium amount for landscaping services performed during the audit period.3/ Uninsured payroll attributable to Mr. Hansel for roofing services during the audit period is $2,036.50. The approved manual rate for workers’ compensation insurance for NCCI class code 5551 during the period of non- compliance--May 9 and 21, 2016--is $18.60. The premium amount Respondent would have paid to provide workers’ compensation insurance for Mr. Hansel is $378.79 (One percent of Mr. Hansel’s gross payroll during the non-compliance period--$20.36--multiplied by $18.60). The penalty for Respondent’s failure to secure worker’s compensation coverage insurance for Mr. Hansel during the period of non-compliance is calculated as two times the amount Respondent would have paid in premium for the non- compliance period. The correct penalty for Respondent’s failure to maintain workers’ compensation coverage for Mr. Hansel during the period of non-compliance is $757.58. Penalty Calculation for Salesmen Independent contractors not engaged in the construction industry are not employees for purposes of enforcing workers’ compensation insurance requirements. See § 440.02(15)(d)1., Fla. Stat. Sales is a non-construction industry occupation. The Department calculated a penalty associated with payroll attributable to the following persons identified by Ms. Fisher as independent salesmen: Dylan Robinson, Kevin Miller, Marc Medley, Mike Rucker, Colby Fisher, David Jones, Jarod Bell, Matt Flynn, and Todd Zulauf. Section 440.02(15)(d)1. provides that an individual may be an independent contractor, rather than an employee, as follows: In order to meet the definition of independent contractor, at least four of the following criteria must be met: 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 regulations; The independent contractor receives compensation for services rendered or work performed and such compensation is paid to a business rather than to an individual; The independent contractor holds one or more bank accounts in the name of the business entity for purposes of paying business expenses or other expenses related to services rendered or work performed for compensation; The independent contractor performs work or is able to perform work for any entity in addition to or besides the employer at his or her own election without the necessity of completing an employment application or process; or The independent contractor receives compensation for work or services rendered on a competitive-bid basis or completion of a task or a set of tasks as defined by a contractual agreement, unless such contractual agreement expressly states that an employment relationship exists. If four of the criteria listed in sub- subparagraph a. do not exist, an individual may still be presumed to be an independent contractor and not an employee based on full consideration of the nature of the individual situation with regard to satisfying any of the following conditions: The independent contractor performs or agrees to perform specific services or work for a specific amount 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 the work or services that he or she performs or agrees to perform. The independent contractor receives compensation for work or services performed for a commission or on a per-job 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. The success or failure of the independent contractor’s business depends on the relationship of business receipts to expenditures. Ms. Fisher testified that each of the above-named salesmen sold roofing jobs for her at various times during the audit period on a commission-only basis. The contractors inspect homeowner roofs, draft schematics, use their own equipment (e.g., drones), incur all of their own expenses, and handle the insurance filing for the homeowner’s insurance to pay on the claim. Ms. Fisher further testified that each of the salesmen also sells for other roofing contractors in the Tallahassee area. She pays the salesmen on a per-job basis. Ms. Fisher does not compensate the salesmen for the time involved in inspecting a roof, preparing schematics, or making the sale. Nor does Ms. Fisher reimburse the salesmen for travel to sales jobsites. Ms. Fisher’s testimony was credible, persuasive, and uncontroverted. Respondent introduced in evidence four “Independent Contractor Checklists” allegedly completed by Mr. Robinson, Mr. Medley, Mr. Fisher, and Mr. Flynn. Each form checklist follows the format of section 440.02(15)(d)1., listing the criteria set forth in subparagraphs a. and b. The forms indicate that they each meet all the criteria listed in subparagraph b.: they perform, or agree to perform services for a specific amount of money and control the means of performing the service; they incur the principal expenses related to the service performed; they are responsible for satisfactory completion of the services performed; they receive compensation for the services performed on a per-job or commission basis; they may realize a profit or suffer a loss in connection with performing the services; they have continuing and recurring business liabilities or obligations; and the success or failure of their business depends on the relationship of business receipts to expenditures.4/ In its Proposed Recommended Order, Petitioner conceded the nine men identified by Respondent as independent sales contractors “would not be considered employees of Respondent” because the “salesmen would seem to meet the majority of [the] requirements [of section 440.02(15)(d)1.b.].” Respondent issued Dylan Robinson, Mark Medley, Colby Fisher, Matt Flynn, Kevin Miller, Mike Rucker, Jarod Bell, David Jones, and Todd Zulauf an IRS FORM 1099-MISC for income paid during the 2016 tax year. Respondent did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the above-named salesmen were Respondent’s employees during the audit period. For SWO 16-148-1A, Respondent did not correctly calculate the penalty because Respondent included a penalty associated with Petitioner’s failure to provide workers’ compensation insurance coverage for Dylan Robinson and Jarod Bell. Penalty in the amount of $20.70 associated with Dylan Robinson and Jarod Bell should not be included in the total penalty. The correct penalty amount for SWO 16-148-1A, based on records submitted by Respondent on or before March 20, 2016, is $929.16. Draft Revised Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment The additional records submitted by Respondent revealed payments made to persons during the audit period who were not included in the Department’s Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. The Department and Respondent disagreed at hearing whether the payments qualified as payroll. At hearing, Petitioner submitted a draft revised second amended penalty calculation for SWO 16-148-1A based on all records received from Respondent. The revised penalty is in the amount of $61,453.50. Ms. Jackson populated the spreadsheet with the name of every individual to whom a check was written on Respondent’s business bank account during the audit period, removing only those payments to individuals and entities which, to Petitioner’s knowledge, were not Respondent’s employees. Respondent’s calculations in the revised penalty suffer from some of the same errors as in the second amended penalty calculation--they include individuals Petitioner did not prove were Respondent’s employees, as well as payments which were not uninsured payroll. For the reasons explained herein, Petitioner did not prove that salesmen David Jones, Dylan Robinson, Jarod Bell, Kevin Miller, Mark Medley, Matt Flynn, Mike Rucker, Tim Fischer, and Colby Fisher were Respondent’s employees during the audit period. Respondent did not accurately calculate the penalty associated with those persons. Respondent made payments to David Shields during the audit period, which the Department argues should be included as payroll. The Department included payments to Mr. Shields in its draft revised second amended order of penalty assessment and assigned NCCI class code “8810” for clerical work. Mr. Shields is a licensed professional roofing contractor who acts as “qualifier” for Respondent’s business. A qualifier is a licensed professional who certifies plans for permit applications submitted by another business. Respondent pays Mr. Shields a flat fee per permit application qualified by him. The record evidence does not support a finding that Mr. Shields provides clerical services to Respondent. Mr. Shields provides some sort of professional services to Respondent, and is likely an independent contractor providing his own materials and supplies, maintaining his own business accounts, and liable for his own business success. Assuming Mr. Shields were Respondent’s employee, the Department introduced no evidence of an appropriate NCCI class code for Mr. Shields’ services. The Department did not prove that payments to Mr. Shields should be included as Respondent’s uninsured payroll during the audit period. Respondent paid Susan Swain a total of $258 during the audit period for clerical work. Ms. Fisher maintained Ms. Swain’s work was casual at first, and the payments reflect a time when she worked on-again, off-again, handling the paperwork for restoration insurance claims. Later, Ms. Swain came to work for Respondent full-time and was added to the PMI leasing roster. Section 440.02(15)(d)5. provides that a person “whose employment is both casual and not in the course of the trade, business, profession or occupation of the employer” is not an employee. The statute defines “casual” employment as work that is anticipated to be completed in 10 working days or less and at a total labor cost of less than $500. See § 440.02(5), Fla. Stat. In its Proposed Recommended Order, the Department argues Ms. Swain’s wages should be included as payroll because the “testimony regarding Ms. Swain does not suggest that she was employed for less than 10 days[.]” However, it was the Department’s burden to prove that Ms. Swain was a statutory employee. The Department did not prove that Ms. Swain’s wages should be included within Respondent’s uninsured payroll. The largest portion of the penalty assessed by the Department, as well as in the draft revised second amended penalty assessment, against Respondent is in connection with various roofers who were employed by Respondent at times during the audit period. Each of the roofers was included on Respondent’s PMI leasing roster, but received checks directly from Respondent in addition to PMI payroll checks. The Department included all the direct payments to those roofers as payroll for purposes of calculating a penalty in this case. As Ms. Fisher explained, the company bids a reroof on a per job basis--usually a per square foot price. Ms. Fisher adds each roofing contractor’s name to the PMI leasing roster to ensure that each roofer is covered by workers’ compensation insurance for the duration of the job. When the job is completed (which is a matter of just a few days), the contractor reports to Ms. Fisher what amount of the contract price was spent on materials, supplies, or other non-labor costs. Ms. Fisher cuts a check to the contractor for that amount and authorizes PMI to issue payroll checks for the “labor cost” (the difference between the contract price and the non-labor costs). Ms. Fisher refers to this process as “back-charging” the contractors for their materials, maintenance, tools, and other non-labor costs. The Department is correct that the direct payments are payroll to the roofing contractors. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.035(1)(b) and (h) (remuneration includes “payments, including cash payments, made to employees by or on behalf of the employer” and “payments or allowances made by or on behalf of the employer for tools or equipment used by employees in their work or operations for the employer.”). The Department would be correct to include these payments in the penalty calculation if they represented uninsured payroll. However, the evidence supports a finding that the direct payments to the roofing contractors were made for the same jobs on which Respondent secured workers’ compensation coverage through PMI. The roofing contractors were covered for workers’ compensation throughout the job, even though they may have received partial payment for the job outside of the PMI payroll checks.5/ The direct payments were not for separate reroofs on which the roofers were not otherwise insured. The Department did not correctly calculate penalties associated with the following roofing contractors: Donald Tontigh, Joseph Howard, Keith Mills, Aaron Kilpatrick, Gustavo Tobias, Jose Mejia, and Tommy Miller. Ms. Fisher also received cash payments from Respondent during the audit period. These payments were made in addition to her payroll through PMI. Ms. Fisher described these payments as “cash tickets,” which were paid outside of her PMI payroll to reimburse her for investments made in the company. For purposes of calculating the penalty in this case, these “cash tickets” are clearly payroll, as that term is to be calculated pursuant to rule 69L-6.035. Similar to the issue with the roofing contractors, the question is whether the payments represent uninsured payroll. Ms. Fisher did not hold a corporate officer exemption at any time relevant hereto. Ms. Fisher testified that she was covered through PMI payroll leasing. In contrast to the roofing contractors, Ms. Fisher’s direct payments do not directly coincide with any particular job or specific time frame during which Ms. Fisher was covered for workers’ compensation insurance through PMI. The evidence was insufficient to determine that the amounts were insured payroll. The Department properly calculated a penalty associated with payroll attributable to Ms. Fisher. Respondent made one payment of $75 to Donald Martin during the audit period. The Department calculated a penalty of $27.90 associated with this payment to Mr. Martin. Ms. Fisher explained that Mr. Martin was a down-on-his-luck guy who came by the office one day complaining that Mr. Hansel owed him some money. Ms. Fisher offered to put him on a roofing crew and wrote him the $75 check to help him out. Ms. Fisher’s testimony was both credible and unrefuted. Mr. Martin was never hired by Respondent, put on any roofing crew, or added to the PMI leasing roster. Mr. Martin was not Respondent’s employee because he did not receive remuneration for the “performance of any work or service while engaged in any employment under any appointment or contract for hire” with Respondent. § 440.02(15)(a), Fla. Stat. Cale Dierking works for Respondent full-time in a clerical position. During the audit period, Respondent paid Mr. Dierking directly by check for $1,306.14. This payment was made outside of Mr. Dierking’s PMI payroll checks. Ms. Fisher testified that she paid Mr. Dierking directly on one occasion when “PMI’s payroll got stuck in Memphis, I believe it was a snow-in situation where payroll checks didn’t come.” Rather than ask her employee to go without a timely paycheck, she advanced his payroll. Ms. Fisher’s testimony was both credible and unrefuted. The payment to Mr. Dierking is clearly payroll. However, Mr. Dierking was covered for workers’ compensation through PMI for the period during which the check was issued. Thus, there is no evidence that it was uninsured payroll. The Department did not correctly calculate a penalty associated with payments to Mr. Dierking. The correct penalty to be assessed against Respondent for failure to secure workers’ compensation coverage for its employees during the audit period in connection with SWO 16-148- 1A is $770.60. Penalty Calculation for SWO 16-198-1A Ms. Jackson calculated a total penalty against Respondent in connection with SWO 16-198-1A in the amount of $19,115.84, as reflected in the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. The Department correctly imputed penalty against Respondent in the amount of $91.68 each for uninsured payroll to Mr. Gonzalez and Mr. Lopez. The evidence supported a finding that these workers were Respondent’s statutory employees on June 8, 2016, and were not enrolled on the PMI leasing roster. The Department did not correctly calculate the penalty associated with salesmen Dylan Robinson, Jarod Bell, Kevin Miller, Mark Medley, Matt Flynn, and Todd Zulauf. The Department did not correctly calculate the penalty associated with roofing contractors Abraham Martinez- Antonio, Edwin Kinsey, Dustin Hansel, Efrian Molina-Agustin, Jose Mejia, Joseph Howard, Keith Mills, Samuel Pedro, and Tommy Miller. The Department did not correctly calculate the penalty against Respondent associated with Mr. Shields, Respondent’s qualifier. Based on a review of Respondent’s complete “untimely” records, the Department discovered direct payments made to additional employees not included on the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. Respondent made a direct payment to Ethan Burch in the amount of $602.50 during the audit period. Ethan Burch is one of Respondent’s full-time clerical employees. The evidence is insufficient to determine whether the payment of $602.50 was insured or uninsured payroll. As such, the Department did not prove it correctly calculated the penalty associated with Mr. Burch. Respondent also made a direct payment to Chelsea Hansel in the amount of $965 during the audit period. Ms. Hansel is another clerical employee. Ms. Hansel’s PMI enrollment was delayed due to some background investigation. Respondent paid Ms. Hansel for work she completed prior to enrollment. The direct payment to Ms. Hansel constitutes uninsured payroll. The Department correctly calculated the penalty associated with the payment to Chelsea Hansel. The correct penalty amount to be imposed against Respondent for failure to secure payment of workers’ compensation coverage for its employees (Gonzalez, Lopez, and Chelsea Hansel) during the audit period in connection with SWO 16-198-1A is $187.80.
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 Royal Roofing and Restoration, Inc., violated the workers’ compensation insurance law and, in DOAH Case No. 17-0879, assessing a penalty of $770.60; and in DOAH Case No. 17-1558, assessing a penalty of $187.80. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of January, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of January, 2018.
The Issue Has Respondent failed to secure that payment of workers' compensation for his employees, Section 440.107(2), Florida Statutes (2004), justifying the entry of a stop-work order, Section 440.107(7)(a), Florida Statutes (2004), and the entry of a financial penalty against Respondent, Section 440.107(7)(d), Florida Statutes (2004)?
Findings Of Fact William Pangrass is a workers' compensation investigator for Petitioner. On July 27, 2004, following a public complaint, Mr. Pangrass went to a work site location in Gainesville, Florida. This visit was made to ascertain whether Respondent had secured workers' compensation for persons employed at the work site. He observed several persons doing framing and related activities that constituted construction. Respondent was at the work site supervising activities. Mr. Pangrass asked Respondent to provide proof of workers' compensation insurance for persons employed at the work site. Respondent told Mr. Pangrass that Respondent had a leasing arrangement with Modern Business Associates, Inc. (MBA) to provide lease employees for the job, which would make the leasing company responsible for workers' compensation coverage. The personnel leasing company (MBA) takes employees that would ordinarily work for an employer, hires them and leases them back, making the leasing company the employer for purposes of providing workers' compensation insurance. Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 8 is a certificate of liability insurance for MBA in relation to Respondent. However, on the date in question, July 27, 2004, there was a dispute concerning coverage for the employees Travis Guarino and Thomas Hunter. On that subject, Respondent first told Mr. Pangrass that those two employees had just walked on the job that morning and that Respondent had not had time to inform MBA, so that the leased employees could be covered for workers' compensation insurance. Later Respondent told Mr. Pangrass that the employee names had been called into MBA so that workers' compensation insurance could be provided. Mr. Pangrass received a written communication from MBA concerning workers' compensation coverage for the employees at the work site, to include Messrs. Guarino and Hunter. This document is dated July 28, 2004. It is Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 9. It says "the two new employees were covered from the time they began work for Mr. Marston." It refers to them by name with the date of hire/coverage reflected as 7/27/04. When Mr. Pangrass received Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 9, he called MBA and someone, who is not identified in the record, told Mr. Pangrass that they had received his application, taken to mean Respondent's application and that the subject employees were covered as of 5:30 that day. This is taken to mean 5:30 p.m. July 27, 2004. As part of the investigation Mr. Pangrass utilized the Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS). The CCAS printout, Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 1, shows that Respondent and Marston Builders did not have separate workers' compensation insurance coverage apart from that provided by MBA. On July 27, 2004, at 3:27 p.m., Mr. Pangrass served Respondent with a written request for production of business records for penalty assessment calculation, Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 4, requesting various categories of records maintained by Respondent. The next day Mr. Pangrass received from Respondent copies of cancelled checks drawn on the account of Ronnie W. Marston, Jr., d/b/a Marston Builders, Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 5. Some checks were paid to the order of Respondent. Some were paid to Lisa Marston for child support, day care, insurance and registration. One check was written to an auto sales company for the purpose "Nissan Sentra." Some checks were written to named individuals reflected in the list of employees on the work site July 27, 2004. Other checks were written to named individuals not at the work site on that date. The other persons referred to were in addition to Respondent and Lisa Marston. Some checks written to the third-party individuals noted the purposes, such as "sub-work" or "contracting labor." Other checks written to named individuals did not identify the purpose. Concerning payments made to Respondent in the checking account, all checks that were written to Respondent had dates in 2004. Prior to 2004, Respondent personally had been exempt from receiving workers' compensation coverage as a sole proprietor, notwithstanding his status as an employee. He is no longer entitled to elect exemption from coverage under terms set forth in Section 440.05, Florida Statutes, effective December 31, 2003. This is further reflected in the employer exemptions report pertaining to Respondent maintained by Petitioner, Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 2. When the law changed, corporate officers could still elect exemption, sole proprietors could not. At all times relevant to the inquiry, Respondent was a sole proprietor. Based upon his belief that Messers. Guarino and Hunter were employed at the work site without workers' compensation coverage, Mr. Pangrass issued a stop-work order on July 27, 2004, at 3:27 p.m., Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 6. This decision was supported by the field interview worksheet completed by Mr. Pangrass, Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 3. Based upon information discovered in the cancelled checks showing the payments that have been referred to, Mr. Pangrass entered an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on August 4, 2004, calling for $106,135.46 in penalties under authority set forth in Section 440.107(7)(d), Florida Statutes (2004). The Amended of Order of Penalty Assessment is Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 7. It has attached a worksheet setting forth calculations pertaining to the persons who received the checks described. These calculations include class codes, the period of non-compliance, the gross payroll, the payroll column divided by 100, approved manual rate, premium calculations and penalty calculations the product of the proper premium multiplied by 1.5. The class codes were derived from the Scopes Manual, a listing published by NCCI that includes all occupations with job descriptions and classification numbers assigned to them. The Scopes Manual is used in the insurance industry and has been adopted by Petitioner in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.021. The classification code selected to perform penalty calculations was that of "Carpentry- Detached One or Two Family Dwellings." This classification is Number 5645. The calculation of an assessed penalty included workers found at the work site on July 27, 2004, who were paid by MBA. As reflected in the cancelled checks, Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 5, those workers were also paid by Respondent. For this reason, they were considered to be dually employed and payments not received from the lease company entitled the employees to workers' compensation coverage from Respondent. Calculations in the penalty worksheet supporting the assessment included payments to Respondent and Lisa Marston. The portion of the check payments received in the name of Respondent were outside the December 21, 2003 date, when the right to select to exemption from workers' compensation coverage as an employee who was a sole proprietor had expired. The calculations and the worksheet include checks written to Lisa Marston upon the theory that the payments benefit Respondent no less so had they been paid to Respondent directly, who in turn paid Lisa Marston. Calculations in the worksheet leading to the assessed penalty included checks written to individuals regardless of the stated purpose for the check, as well as those for whom the purpose of the payments was not made known.
Recommendation Upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered keeping the stop-work order in effect pending payment of the modified penalty assessed for failure to secure payment of workers' compensation. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of March, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 23rd day of March, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Colin M. Roopnarine, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 Ronnie W. Marston d/b/a Marston Builders 25506 North West County Road 241 Alachua, Florida 32615 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent had workers' compensation insurance coverage for the relevant time period as required by Sections 440.10(1)(a) and 440.38(1), Florida Statutes, and if not, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency responsible for enforcing the requirement that employers secure the payment of workers' compensation insurance for their employees. Respondent is a Florida corporation, incorporated on October 3, 2001. Paul Gilbert is Respondent's only officer and the corporation's managing member. Zurich-American Insurance Group (Zurich) issued a workers' compensation and employer's liability insurance policy (Policy No. WC 3617144) to Mitchell Construction Company (Mitchell) in October 1999. Zurich also provided Mitchell with general liability and business automobile insurance. At that time, Paul Gilbert was the risk manager for Mitchell, which was a large commercial contractor doing business in several states. Mitchell's offices were located in Vidalia, Georgia. In October 2000, Zurich renewed Mitchell's workers' compensation policy (Policy No. WC 3617144-01) for the period October 1, 2000 through October 1, 2001. The original and renewed policies listed other combinable entities as named insureds. Mitchell owned at least 51 percent of its combinable companies, one of which was Wood-Hopkins Contracting Company of Georgia, LLC. The company was also registered in Florida as Wood-Hopkins Contracting Company, LLC. The company was located in Jacksonville, Florida, with a mailing address in Vidalia, Georgia. The type of workers' compensation insurance that Zurich provided to Mitchell was known as a rolling contractor- controlled insurance policy (CCIP). It had endorsements for large deductible reimbursements for paid losses and a set monthly premium based in part on the projected payroll and experience rating modifiers for Mitchell and its combinable entities. The CCIP also covered subcontractors that had a contract with Mitchell for such coverage. The CCIP was renewable on an annual basis. Zurich did not need to re-underwrite the policy each year because the policy was created using three-year parameters. Additionally, Zurich had the option of auditing Mitchell's operations to determine whether there was a substantial change in the business. Palmer and Cay of Georgia (Palmer and Cay) was the producer and the broker of record for Mitchell's original and renewed CCIP. Stephen McMillan, an associate with Palmer and Cay at its offices in Savannah, Georgia, was the insurance agent that helped Mr. Gilbert negotiate and service Mitchell's CCIP with Zurich. In the Fall of 2001, Mr. Gilbert and Mr. McMillan contacted Zurich about renewing Mitchell's CCIP for the period October 1, 2001 through October 1, 2002. In a meeting with Zurich's representatives at its offices in Atlanta, Georgia, Mr. Gilbert advised Zurich that a company bearing the Wood-Hopkins name was going to complete Mitchell's then on-going projects. Zurich's employees believed Mr. Gilbert was referring to Wood- Hopkins Contracting Company, LLC. During the trip to Atlanta, Mr. Gilbert told Mr. McMillan that he was attempting to form a new company. However, Mr. Gilbert did not make it clear in the meeting with the Zurich representatives that he intended to incorporate Respondent, an independent company with a similar name to Wood- Hopkins Contracting Company, LLC, but unrelated to Mitchell. After the meeting in the Fall of 2001, Zurich was unaware that Mitchell and its combinable entities were or soon would be out of business as a general contracting group. Zurich's employees mistakenly believed that Mr. Gilbert continued to work for Mitchell. Mr. Gilbert resigned his position with Mitchell on September 1, 2001. After he incorporated Respondent, it purchased the assets of Mitchell and Wood-Hopkins Contracting Company, LLC, and hired about 100 of Mitchell's employees. Respondent planned to complete Mitchell's on-going projects and then operate primarily as a marine and civil contractor. Respondent was a new company, smaller than Mitchell, with a different risk exposure. Mr. Gilbert provided Zurich's underwriters with the payroll projections and other information necessary to renew Mitchell's CCIP. The data related to Mitchell's on-going projects and loss history as well as Respondent's planned projects. Zurich subsequently issued Policy No. WC 3617144-02 for the period October 1, 2001 through October 1, 2002. The policy designated Mitchell as the primary named insured and Wood-Hopkins Contracting Company, LLC, as one of the combinable entities and an additional named insured. The policy listed Palmer and Cay as the broker of record. The policy did not list Respondent as a named insured. Mr. Gilbert did not receive a copy of the policy until March 2002. However, Mr. Gilbert learned that Zurich had not added Respondent as a named insured to Mitchell's CCIP at least by February 2002. After learning that Zurich had not named Respondent as an insured, Mr. Gilbert continued to operate Respondent as if it had workers' compensation insurance. He was convinced that Respondent's assumption of Mitchell's business presented no additional risk exposure to Zurich. In fact, Mr. Gilbert had a history of spending sufficient funds on safety to reduce a company's loss ratio by half. Additionally, Respondent had suffered no workers' compensation losses. For these reasons, Mr. Gilbert hoped to persuade Zurich to add Respondent retrospectively as a named insured on Mitchell's CCIP policy. Towards the end of 2001 or the beginning of 2002, Zurich learned that Mitchell was going out of business or was no longer in business. Michael Esposito, Mitchell's account manager at Zurich, began to realize that something was wrong when Zurich received a premium payment for Mitchell's CCIP drawn on Respondent's bank account. At that time, Mitchell was behind in making deductible and premium payments to Zurich. Mitchell also was behind in paying Palmer and Cay its fees. On or about January 2, 2002, Mr. Gilbert signed one of Respondent's checks made payable to Palmer and Cay in the amount of $28,740.23. The check included a premium payment in the amount of $3,818.00 for October 2001 workers' compensation insurance. Mr. Gilbert wrote the check pursuant to a Palmer and Cay invoice addressed to The Mitchell Group. The record indicates that Respondent sent its check to Palmer and Cay's lockbox in Atlanta, Georgia, and that it was cashed. By letter dated February 7, 2002, Palmer and Cay advised Mitchell that it resigned as broker of record for The Mitchell Group. The most persuasive evidence indicates that Palmer and Cay resigned due to a dispute with Respondent over fees, not premium payments. By the end of February 2002, Mr. Esposito became aware that Mr. Gilbert wanted Zurich to continue Mitchell's CCIP with Respondent, a totally new company, listed as a named insured. Mr. Esposito then told Mr. Gilbert that Respondent would have to pay Mitchell's past-due premiums and provide Zurich with the necessary information to re-underwrite the policy, reflecting the change in ownership and operations. There is no persuasive evidence that Palmer and Cay or Mr. Gilbert ever provided Zurich with this information. Despite its resignation as broker of record for Mitchell's CCIP, Palmer and Cay agreed to continue servicing the policies until Zurich advised otherwise. For example, on or about February 22, 2002, Mr. Gilbert asked Palmer and Cay to add Respondent as a named insured, along with Wood-Hopkins Contracting Company, LLC, to Mitchell's railroad protection policies. Palmer and Cay referred this request to Zurich. Effective February 26, 2002, Zurich issued a Notice of Cancellation for Mitchell's Policy No. WC 3617144-02. The notice indicates that the policy was cancelled due to nonpayment of premium. About that time, Mr. Gilbert began trying to find a replacement for Palmer and Cay as broker of record. Willis of Florida, an affiliate of Willis of North America, Inc. (Willis), is an insurance broker with offices located in Tampa, Florida. Robert Allen is an insurance agent associated with Willis of Florida. Mr. Allen and Mr. Gilbert had a social and business relationship for many years prior to the time frame at issue here. Toward the end of February 2002, Mr. Allen and Mr. Gilbert had a telephone conference with Mr. Esposito. During that conversation, Mr. Allen indicated that his company was not interested in becoming the broker of record for Mitchell. However, Mr. Allen agreed that, in order to assist Zurich, Willis would issue Certificates of Liability Insurance for Respondent. At that time, Mr. Allen was under the impression that Respondent was a named insured under the Mitchell CCIP. As authorized by Zurich, Palmer and Cay issued three Certificates of Liability Insurance to the Florida Department of Transportation on March 4, 2002. The certificates indicate that Zurich provided commercial general liability and railroad protection insurance for CSX Transportation, Inc., Norfolk Southern Corporation, and Florida East Coast Railway as the named insureds. The certificates state that Wood-Hopkins Contracting Company, LLC, and Respondent were the contractors. Palmer and Cay issued these certificates for the Beaver Street viaduct bridge replacement in Jacksonville, Florida, a project begun by Wood-Hopkins Contracting Company, LLC, during the time that Palmer and Cay was acting as Mitchell's broker of record. On or about March 6, 2002, Mr. Gilbert signed one of Respondent's checks made payable directly to Zurich in the amount of $24,848.00. The check included premium payments in the amount of $3,818.00 for Policy No. WC 3617144-02 for the months of February and March 2002. The record indicates that this check was sent to Zurich's lockbox in Chicago, Illinois, and that it was cashed. On or about March 7, 2002, Zurich reinstated Policy No. WC 3617144-02 without lapse of coverage. The Notice of Reinstatement indicates that Mitchell was the named insured and that Palmer and Cay was the broker of record. On or about March 20, 2002, Zurich sent Mitchell a Notice of Cancellation. The notice states that Mitchell's Policy No. WC 3617144-02 would be cancelled effective June 8, 2002, due to a material change in exposures. Mr. Gilbert did not receive a copy of this cancellation notice. Mr. Gilbert and Mr. Allen did not learn about the cancellation until November 2002. On or about April 17, 2002, Mr. Gilbert signed one of Respondent's checks made payable directly to Zurich in the amount of $12,424.00. The check included a premium payment in the amount of $3,818.00 for Policy No. WC 3617144-02 for the month of April 2002. The record indicates that this check was sent to Zurich's Illinois lockbox and cashed. On April 25, 2002, Willis issued a Certificate of Liability Insurance to American Home Assurance with Respondent as the named insured. The certificate indicates that Zurich provided commercial general liability, automobile liability, and workers' compensation insurance for Respondent on the Beaver Street viaduct bridge replacement project with American Home Assurance and the Florida Department of Transportation as additional named insureds with respect to the general liability coverage. Mr. Allen signed this certificate. On May 6, 2002, Willis issued a Certificate of Liability Insurance to the University of Georgia Athletic Association with Respondent as the named insured. The certificate indicates that Zurich provided commercial general liability, automobile liability, and workers' compensation insurance for Respondent on an academic achievement center project. Mr. Allen signed this certificate. On or about June 13, 2002, Mr. Gilbert signed one of Respondent's checks made payable directly to Zurich in the amount of $12,424.00. The check included a premium payment in the amount of $3,818.00 for Policy No. WC 3617144-02 for the month of May 2002. The record indicates that this check was sent to Zurich's Illinois lockbox and cashed. On July 18, 2002, Willis issued a Certificate of Liability Insurance to Crowley Maritime Corporation with Respondent as the named insured. The certificate indicates that Zurich provided general liability, automobile liability, and workers' compensation insurance to Respondent for a barge loading ramp concrete removal and replacement in Jacksonville, Florida, and that Crowley Maritime Corporation was an additional named insured with respect to general liability coverage. Mr. Allen did not know the policy was cancelled when he signed this certificate. On August 12, 2002, Willis issued a Certificate of Liability Insurance to Martin K. Eby Construction Company with Respondent as the named insured. The certificate indicates that Zurich provided general liability, automobile liability, and workers' compensation insurance for Respondent on the Wonderwood Expressway channel excavation with the Jacksonville Transit Authority and J. E. Sverdrup (Engineer) as additional named insureds as to general liability coverage. Mr. Allen did not know the policy was cancelled when he signed this certificate. On or about August 15, 2002, Mr. Gilbert signed one of Respondent's checks made payable directly to Zurich in the amount of $12,424.00. The check included a premium payment in the amount of $3,818.00 for Policy No. WC 3617144-02 for the month of June 2002. The record indicates that this check was sent to Zurich's Illinois lockbox and cashed. On or about October 1, 2002, Mr. Gilbert signed one of Respondent's checks made payable directly to Zurich in the amount of $12,424.00. The check included a premium payment in the amount of $3,818.00 for Policy No. WC 3617144-02 for the month of September 2002. The record indicates that this check was sent to Zurich's lockbox in Illinois and cashed. In November 2002, Petitioner issued a Stop Work and Penalty Assessment Order for failing to secure workers' compensation insurance. In November and December 2002, Mr. Gilbert and Mr. Allen attempted to persuade Seth Hausman, Zurich's regional manager, to provide retroactive coverage for Respondent under the Mitchell workers' compensation policy, to reinstate the coverage, and to let the policy continue until it lapsed at expiration. Mr. Hausman concluded that Zurich could not assume the exposure without an underwriting evaluation. Mr. Hausman told Mr. Gilbert what information he had to provide in order for Zurich to conduct such an evaluation. In January 2003, Mr. Hausman advised Mr. Gilbert that Zurich had been unable to collect on a surety bond and that Mitchell owed Zurich approximately $750,000.00 in uncollected deductible payments. Mr. Hausman stated that in order to amend the workers' compensation policy to include Respondent as a named insured and to rescind the cancellation retroactively to allow the policy to run full term, Zurich would have to be paid for all outstanding balances. In that event, Zurich was willing to talk about extending workers' compensation coverage to Respondent as requested. When Petitioner issued the Stop Work and Penalty Assessment Order in November 2002, Respondent had about 20 employees. For the period October 1, 2001 through December 31, 2001, Respondent had the following amounts of payroll by class code: Class Code Payroll 5213 $126,739.96 5606 $170,615.31 5610 $5,391.51 6003 $5,777.00 6217 $62,691.54 7335 $73,434.08 8227 $135,572.71 8810 $27,503.88 41. For the period October 1, 2001 through December 31, 2001, the workers' compensation premium rates per $100.00 of payroll for each relevant Class Code class code were as follows: Premium Rates 5213 $33.02 5606 $4.76 5610 $18.08 6003 $62.53 6217 $14.27 7335 $25.97 8227 $9.80 8810 $0.59 For the period October 1, 2001 through December 31, 2001, the premium Respondent would have paid for workers' compensation coverage Class Code by class codes was as follows: Premium 5213 $41,849.53 5606 $8,121.29 5610 $974.79 6003 $3,612.36 6217 $8,946.08 7335 $19,070.83 8227 $13,286.13 8810 $162.27 For the period January 1, 2002 through November 5, 2002, Respondent had the following amounts of payroll by class code: Class Code Payroll 5213 $360,825.22 5403 $7,969.23 5606 $355,253.16 5610 $93,981.09 6003 $17,977.19 6217 $237,889.32 7335 $212,654.00 8227 $261,091.70 8810 $162,068.41 For the period January 1, 2002 through November 5, 2002, the workers' compensation premium rates per $100.00 of payroll for each relevant Class Code class code were as follows: Premium Rates 5213 $32.31 5403 $30.39 5606 $4.91 5610 $17.91 6003 $57.57 6217 $13.52 7335 $29.60 8227 $10.80 8810 $0.65 For the period January 1, 2002 through November 5, 2002, the premium Respondent would have paid for workers' compensation coverage by class codes was as follows: Class Code Premium 5213 $116,582.63 5403 $2,421.85 5606 $17,442.93 5610 $16,832.01 6003 $10,349.46 6217 $32,162.64 7335 $62,945.58 8227 $28,197.90 8810 $1,053.44 Respondent was out of compliance with the workers' compensation law for 398 calendar days between October 1, 2001 and November 5, 2002. Petitioner properly assessed penalty of $100.00 per day, totaling $39,800.00. Respondent would have paid a premium of $384,011.72 to secure workers' compensation insurance for its employees and owes a $39,800.00 penalty for the days it operated without coverage during the period October 1, 2001 through November 5, 2002. Accordingly, Respondent owes a total penalty in the amount of $423,811.72.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order affirming the Amended Stop Work Penalty Assessment Order and directing Respondent to pay a penalty in the amount of $423,811.72. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of November, 2003, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of November, 2003.
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.
