The Issue Whether Respondent, John H. Woods, d/b/a Woods Construction, conducted operations in the State of Florida without obtaining workers’ compensation coverage which meets the requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2008)1, in violation of Subsection 440.107(2), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Amended Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment and Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. If so, what penalty should be assessed by Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, pursuant to Section 440.107, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of enforcing the requirement of Section 440.107, Florida Statutes, that employers in Florida secure the payment of workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Workers’ compensation coverage is required if a business entity is engaged in the construction industry in Florida. Securing the payment of workers’ compensation coverage can be achieved via three different methods: purchase a workers’ compensation insurance policy; ensure that workers are paid and workers’ compensation coverage is provided by a third party entity called a Professional Employment Organization (PEO); or apply for a Certificate of Exemption from Workers’ Compensation Coverage (Exemption Certificate) assuming certain statutorily mandated criteria are met. These methods are not mutually exclusive of each other. On August 14, 2008, a workers’ compensation compliance investigator employed by Petitioner, visited a construction site in Lee County, Florida. On the site, she observed several groups of men conducting various construction activities including the laying of a sidewalk along Lexington Street in Fort Myers. The work performed involved construction activities as contemplated under the applicable agency rule. Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.021. By a preponderance of evidence, it is determined that among the entities on the worksite was a group of three laborers who worked for Woods Construction. There was no proof of coverage for workers’ compensation for the Woods Construction Company, neither an insurance policy, nor any exemption certificate for the individuals encountered on the worksite. Woods Construction assumed that the three laborers were covered by Able Body Labor, a PEO. The evidence confirmed that two of the three laborers were covered. However, the third laborer, Filberto Castro, was unable to be included on the work roster due to his lack of corresponding documentation necessary for employment in the United States. Therefore, Castro was working without coverage. An SWO was issued and a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Calculation (BRR) was served on J. Woods Construction, Corp. [sic] on August 14, 2008. The SWO was later amended to conform to the correct name of the company, which is not a corporation. The amended SWO was served on John H. Woods on August 22, 2008, via certified mail. Pursuant to the BRR, Respondent provided business records to Petitioner. Petitioner’s Penalty Calculator’s duties are to receive records from the employer, and organize, identify, and audit those records which indicate payroll activities, while delineating other business activities, which may be related to the non-payroll activities of the business such as purchasing supplies, maintaining a place of business, etc. The characterization of the voluminous records received from Respondent were categorized into three distinct categories: reliable, somewhat reliable, and unreliable records. The records were characterized as “reliable” if they were records from an independent third party or the bank with whom Respondent conducted business, and were thus extremely difficult to alter without a high level of expertise. They are considered “source documentation.” The bank records capture the transactions as they occurred, to whom money was paid, and for what amount. The next category of records deemed “somewhat reliable” were those records which, on their face appear to be legitimate records, such as copies of the checks with corresponding amounts and dates to those in the “reliable” category. However, certain inconsistencies in these records demonstrated that they were less than reliable. These records were only used in select instances when there was corresponding source documentation supporting their veracity. A prime example, among many, is check number 1078 for $100.00 indicating a payment for a credit card; the corresponding checkstub indicates that the payment went to “Whitney,” a grand-child of John H. Woods. In toto, the documents illustrated that Respondent failed to follow generally accepted accounting principles by mislabeling or mischaracterizing funds on a regular basis. The third category of records were records which were considered “unreliable” as these records lacked any corresponding source documentation and they could not be considered in assessing the payroll activities of the firm. In the construction industry, there are instruments called “draw requests.” The draw request is an item that a subcontractor or builder will utilize to show partial completion of a project and concurrently request more funds (the draw) to complete the remaining portion of the project. The draw requests are often utilized at pre-measured stages of the project, e.g.: 25 percent completion, 50 percent completion, etc. The draw requests would have attached source documentation such as receipts from suppliers, servicers, and other miscellanea to show that the project is worked upon as opposed to the funds being siphoned off elsewhere. Nowhere, in the box full of records produced, was a proper draw request found with attached receipts. Therefore, none of the records produced could be considered as reliable documents. Many irregularities in Respondent’s methodology of accounting were also noted; as an example, there were numerous times that company checks from Respondent were deposited by an entity known as “Hendry Contracting,” without explanation. Respondent personally held the license as a General Contractor, and would utilize Hendry Contracting as a subcontractor. Hendry Contracting did not have any license whatsoever. It utilized Respondent’s license while performing construction activities. Brad Hendry, the principal of Hendry Contracting, is married to Janice Hendry, the daughter of John H. Woods, the owner of Respondent, Woods Construction. Janice Hendry administered Respondent’s company account and the company account of Hendry Contracting. The evidence is clear that no separation of duties was attempted. Furthermore, Hendry admitted that she did not exercise any sense of separation between the two different accounts (Woods Construction and/or Hendry Contracting). The two businesses were “commingled,” and the ability to retain any form of standard accounting requirement of checks and balances has been nullified. Numerous irregularities that defied “generally accepted accounting principles” appeared, including personal loans to family members, wholesale transfers of monies from Respondent to Hendry Contracting without explanation, and checks drafted to Brad Hendry (personally). Further, Woods testified that he exercised little or no control over his company in the last ten years. Hendry also confirmed the haphazard method of managing the two firms’ different accounts by writing checks from one firm to another, when the other firm’s account was running low. Hendry’s testimony regarding the financial cooperation of Respondent and Hendry Contracting is indicative of the commingling of accounts, as well. Hendry testified that each entity would draw on each other’s accounts depending on the cash levels within each respective account. Hendry also testified that Hendry Contracting was utilized for obtaining bank loans and utilizing Hendry’s name to purchase materials when the other accounts were depleted. By utilizing only the bank records, a general ledger for Respondent was constructed which derived the amounts that came into the business and the amounts paid out for labor. The fact that Respondent had no general ledger meant that some items would never be accounted for, such as building supply costs. Based on that caveat, Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L- 6.035(i) was applied to the total payroll derived from the bank records. This had the effect of reducing total payroll by twenty percent to account for building supplies (which were never accounted for due to the non-existent business ledger of Respondent). The amount of money flowing and commingling between the two firms (Respondent and Hendry Contracting) and among family members, numbered in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. The commingled money was utilized for all manners of payments: loans (not expected to be paid back) to family members, inflated wages to family members for de minimis services, or payment for services/goods for family members’ personal residences. A proposed penalty in the amount of $365,876.82 was originally assessed, as reflected in the AOPA, and served on Respondent on August 26, 2008. Based on further records produced and the understanding that Respondent was a construction firm but was unable to show any receipts of building supplies, the proposed penalty, utilizing Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L- 6.035(i), decreased the payroll by 20 percent to account for building supplies that were not documented. After consideration of the documents provided and application of the rule, a Second AOPA was prepared showing an assessment in the amount of $306,876.82. With Hendry as the sole financial officer of Respondent, approximately $351,632.43 of payroll was allocated to various family members. There was unambiguous testimony from Woods and Hendry that family members were employed in various roles, most notably the grand-daughters who were earning wages while conducting secretarial duties. A further $472,292.94 was paid to Hendry Contracting during the three-year audit time- period. Hendry Contracting never had any discernible workers’ compensation coverage for this amount of payroll, rendering Respondent liable for failure to secure workers’ compensation coverage for the monies paid. The remainder of the unsecured payroll assessed to Respondent was for various non-family workers for whom no proof of workers’ compensation coverage could be ascertained. The Second AOPA was computed by calculating Respondent’s payroll for the past three years using the business records Respondent provided. The payroll was then divided for each year by 100 and that figure was multiplied by an approved manual rate assigned to the classification codes (class codes) found in the National Council on Compensation Insurance’s Scope of Trade Manual (Scopes Manual). Class codes were assigned to the individuals listed on the penalty worksheet according to their historical duties. The grand-daughters and other female employees of Respondent were listed as clerical employees (classification code 8810), while the remaining names were listed as general carpentry workers (classification code 5645). Next, the product of the approved manual rate and the payroll for each year divided by 100 was then multiplied by 1.5, pursuant to statute, to derive the penalty for each year or part of a year. The penalties for each employee and year or part of a year were then added together to come up with a total penalty of $306,213.78. Based on the assessment of the financial records in conjunction with the documents admitted into evidence, the grand total of $306,213.78 is a true and correct penalty amount for Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Chief Financial Officer of the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, enter a final order: Finding that Respondent failed to secure the payment of workers’ compensation insurance coverage for its employees in violation of Subsections 440.10(1)(a) and 440.38(1), Florida Statutes; and Assessing a penalty against Respondent in the amount of $306,213.78, which is equal to 1.5 times the evaded premium based on the payroll records provided by Respondent and on the applicable approved manual rates and classification codes for the period extending from August 15, 2005, through August 14, 2008, as provided in Subsection 440.107(7), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of July, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of July, 2009.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (the Department), properly issued a Stop-Work Order and Penalty Assessment against Respondent, Ogles Construction and Roofing, LLC (Respondent), for failing to obtain workers' compensation insurance that meets the requirements of chapter 440, Florida Statutes.1/
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and documentary evidence presented at hearing, the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: On September 30, 2013, the parties filed a Joint Pre- hearing Stipulation, by which the parties stipulated to the facts set forth in the following paragraphs 2 through 12. Those facts are accepted and adopted by the undersigned. The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure the payment of workers’ compensation for the benefit of their employees and corporate officers. Respondent, a Florida corporation,2/ was engaged in business operations as a roofing company in the State of Florida from June 13, 2010, through June 12, 2013. Respondent received a Stop-Work Order for Specific Worksite Only and Order of Penalty Assessment from the Department on June 12, 2013. Respondent received a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation from the Department on June 12, 2013. The penalty period in this case is from June 13, 2010, through June 12, 2013. Respondent employed Robert Ogles, II, Matthew Ogles, and Stephen Ogles during the period from June 13, 2010, through June 12, 2013. Robert Ogles had no exemption from June 13, 2010, through November 14, 2010, and from November 15, 2012, through January 9, 2013. Respondent was an “employer,” as defined in chapter 440, Florida Statutes, throughout the penalty period. Respondent did not secure workers' compensation insurance coverage for its employees during the period from June 13, 2010, through June 12, 2013. The appropriate class code from the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc. (NCCI), Scopes Manual for Respondent's employees is 5551, corresponding to “Roofing - All Kinds and Drivers.” The NCCI manual rates attached to the Prehearing Stipulation as Exhibit “C” are the correct manual rates for NCCI Class Code 5551 during the penalty period. Given the above stipulations, Respondent was in violation of the workers’ compensation coverage requirements of chapter 440 because Respondent employed uninsured employees working as roofers throughout the penalty period. Andre Canellas, penalty auditor for the Department, was assigned to assess the appropriate penalty owed by Respondent. Penalties for workers' compensation insurance violations are based on the amount of evaded insurance premiums over the three-year period preceding the Stop-Work Order, multiplied by 1.5. § 440.107(7)(d)1., Fla. Stat. At the time of his assignment, Mr. Canellas was provided with personal bank statements from Matthew, Stephen, and Robert Ogles, II, some checks that were written to Stephen and Robert Ogles, II, and an excel spreadsheet typed up for Respondent's payroll to Matthew Ogles. The records from Robert Ogles, II, consisted of statements from his personal bank account, which he jointly held with his wife, covering the course of the penalty period; and checks paid from Respondent to Robert Ogles, II, during the years of 2012 and 2013. The bank statements reference the amounts of all transactions in Robert Ogles, II, and his wife's joint personal bank account and do not distinguish the amounts for payroll from Respondent. From the periods of time in which Robert Ogles, II, produced checks from Respondent, Mr. Canellas was able to determine that Robert Ogles, II, did not deposit the entire amount from Respondent into his joint personal bank account. Thus, Robert Ogles, II's, personal joint bank statements covering the course of the penalty period were insufficient to enable the Department to determine his compensation from Respondent for those time periods. With respect to Stephen Ogles, the Department received statements from a joint personal bank account for the period of December 2012 through June 2013; checks paid from Respondent from December 2012 through June 7, 2013; and an IRS Form 1099 for payroll to Stephen Ogles, LLC from Respondent. The Department received personal bank statements from Matthew Ogles for the entire penalty period and an excel spreadsheet setting forth the payroll to Matthew Ogles from Respondent for all but one month of the penalty period. Petitioner did not receive any records at all for the payroll to Robert Ogles or to any of Respondent's subcontractors. Although Robert Ogles testified in deposition that he probably has the records requested by the Department, he stated that he “just chose not to” produce them. Employers in Florida are required to maintain the records that were requested by the Department and produce them upon the Department's request. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L- 6.015(1) and 6.032(1). For the time periods of January 1, 2012, through November 14, 2012, and from January 10, 2013, through June 12, 2013, Mr. Canellas could have potentially ascertained Respondent's payroll to Matthew, Stephen, and Robert Ogles, II- assuming that those individuals had identified all of the payroll they had received from Respondent during those periods. However, Mr. Canellas could not determine Respondent's overall payroll because the Department did not receive any records concerning Respondent's payroll to the subcontractors that Respondent regularly hires. Having not received business records sufficient to determine Respondent's actual payroll for the period of June 13, 2010, through June 12, 2013, Penalty Auditor Canellas calculated an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment of $158,423.82 by imputing the statewide average weekly wage, multiplied by 1.5, to Respondent's payroll for each identified employee during the penalty period. This methodology is required by section 440.107(7)(e), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L- 6.028(3). The Statewide Average Weekly Wage is determined by the Agency for Workforce Innovation (now the Department of Economic Opportunity). When the Average Weekly Wage changes, the Department updates its Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) to reflect the new amounts. The Average Weekly Wage that corresponds to various periods of non- compliance are populated automatically in the penalty worksheet when a penalty auditor selects an imputed penalty in CCAS. The Department has adopted a penalty calculation worksheet to aid in calculating penalties against employers pursuant to section 440.107. See Fla. Admin Code R. 69L-6.027. Mr. Canellas utilized this worksheet in assessing Respondent's penalty. In the penalty assessment calculation, the Department's Penalty Auditor consulted the classification codes listed in the Scopes Manual, which has been adopted by the Department through Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L- 6.021(3). As stipulated by the parties, the appropriate class code from the NCCI Scopes Manual for Respondent's employees is 5551, corresponding to “Roofing - All Kinds and Drivers.” Penalty Auditor Canellas applied the correct manual rates corresponding to class code 5551 for the periods of non- compliance in calculating the penalty. Mr. Canellas utilized the manual rates to satisfy his statutory obligation to determine the evaded workers' compensation insurance premium amounts for the period of June 13, 2010, through June 12, 2013, pursuant to section 440.107(7)(d)l. Respondent did not provide records sufficient to enable the Department to determine his actual total payroll for the period at issue. Accordingly, the Department was required to impute Respondent’s payroll in calculating the penalty assessment set forth in the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is calculated correctly, if the manual rates were properly adopted by rule.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation enter a final order assessing a penalty of $158,423.82 against Respondent, Ogles Construction and Roofing, LLC, for its failure to secure and maintain required workers’ compensation insurance for its employees. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of May, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. David Watkins 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 23rd day of May, 2014.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent materially understated payroll and thus should be deemed to have failed to secure payment of workers' compensation, which is a sanctionable offense.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Department of Financial Services ("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. Respondent Bicon, Inc. ("Bicon") is a corporation domiciled in Florida and engaged in the business of hauling construction debris, which is considered a non-construction activity for the purposes of workers' compensation coverage requirements. Bicon's workers' compensation carrier from October 1, 2003 to May 4, 2005 (the "Focal Period") was Bridgefield Employers Insurance Company ("Bridgefield"). Bridgefield's Policy Number 830-29266 (the "Policy") initially covered Bicon for the period from May 11, 2002 to May 11, 2003. Bridgefield renewed the Policy twice, each time for a one-year period. The premium for the Policy was based on Bicon's payroll. Before the beginning of each policy period, Bicon provided Bridgefield an estimate of its payroll for the upcoming period.2 Bridgefield then established an estimated premium for the period, which Bicon was expected to pay in installments. After the policy period had ended, Bridgefield audited Bicon's records to determine actual exposures. Once the audit had been completed, the estimated premium was adjusted as necessary, upward or downward, to reflect actual exposures for the policy period. The audit covering the first renewal period (May 11, 2003 to May 11, 2004) caused Bridgefield to conclude that there existed a premium shortfall of $274,281.66, for which sum Bridgefield billed Bicon on May 2, 2005.3 Given that the estimated premium for the period had been $22,634.44,4 this was a significant upward adjustment. The premium increase was attributed to exposure arising from Bicon's use of an alleged uninsured subcontractor, which exposure Bridgefield's auditor valued at $816,231.00. Bridgefield's Audit Summary Sheet contains the following instructions pertaining to uninsured subcontractors: If no evidence of coverage is submitted to the insured for a subcontractor and only labor is provided, the auditor must include either payroll of the subcontractor's employees or the Total Contract Price. If the labor and material portions of the contract are not broken down in the Insured's records, the auditor must include the Total Contract Cost prorated according to manual rules. No persuasive or convincing evidence was offered establishing whether the auditor calculated the subcontractor exposure for the first renewal period based on the subcontractor's payroll or, alternatively, on the contract price. Bicon paid $53,091.40 against the audit adjustment, leaving a balance of $221,190.26, which remained outstanding as of the final hearing. Bicon has disputed the findings of Bridgefield's audit, but the record does not disclose the nature and grounds of its objections. The estimated premium for the second renewal period (May 11, 2004 to May 11, 2005)——which had been calculated in March 2004, apparently before the findings from the audit of the first renewal period were available——was $20,097.48.5 The retrospective audit convinced Bridgefield that the estimated premium had fallen short by the amount of $186,653.88, for which Bridgefield billed Bicon on September 13, 2005. This shortfall was attributed to Bicon's use of five alleged uninsured subcontractors, which the insurer claimed gave rise to an exposure appraised at $718,462.00. No persuasive or convincing evidence was offered to establish whether the auditor calculated this exposure based on the subcontractors' respective payrolls or, alternatively, on the contract prices. Bicon disputed these audit findings, and as of the final hearing had not paid any part of the audit adjustment. The record does not disclose the nature and grounds of Bicon's objections to this audit. The Department's case against Bicon is premised on the liability for workers' compensation that attaches to a contractor who engages a subcontractor to perform any part of the contractor's contractual obligations to a third party. In such a situation, if the subcontractor is uninsured, then the contractor is obligated to provide workers' compensation to all of the subcontractor's employees. The Department alleges that, during the Focal Period, Bicon sublet work to the following uninsured subcontractors: Precision Equipment Fabricators & Repair, Inc.; S&S National Waste, Inc.; Mickelson Enterprises, Inc.; and Wheeler Employee Leasing, Inc. The Department alleges further that, in its dealings with Bridgefield, Bicon materially understated the amounts of its uninsured subcontractors' payrolls——a practice that, the Department contends, is deemed by statute to constitute a failure to secure the payment of workers' compensation. Despite these allegations, the Department did not elicit any direct evidence that Bicon's alleged subcontractors were performing jobs or providing services that Bicon was contractually obligated to carry out for third parties. Rather, in this regard, the Department's investigator testified (via affidavit) as follows: [T]he vast majority of the work being performed [by Bicon's alleged subcontractors] was the hauling of debris by truck drivers, which is a non-construction activity. However, the duties performed by the employees of Precision Equipment Fabricators & Repair Inc., were construction in nature, specifically, the installing/erecting of debris chutes at construction sites. Aff. of J. Turner at 3. Notably absent from the investigator's account is any testimony that the alleged subcontractors were performing Bicon's contract work. There is, however, some circumstantial evidence that Bicon sublet part of its contract work to other entities. In its application for workers' compensation insurance, for example, Bicon described its business operations as follows: "haul[ing] clean recyclable construction materials (sand, gravel, concrete, wood) from construction sites to waste management locations." The Department accepts this description, for in its Proposed Recommended Order, the Department requested a finding that "Respondent is . . . engaged in the business of hauling construction debris, which is a non-construction activity." The undersigned so found above. It is reasonable to infer, from the basic undisputed facts about Bicon's business, that Bicon provided hauling services to third parties (its clients or customers) to whom it was contractually bound. The inference is sufficiently strong that the undersigned is convinced, and finds, that such was the case. The evidence shows that Bicon considered various entities, including S&S National Waste, Inc. ("S&S"); Mickelson Enterprises, Inc. ("Mickelson"); and Wheeler Employee Leasing, Inc. ("Wheeler"), to be its "subcontractors." Indeed, at the Department's request, Bicon produced one of its subcontracts, which is in evidence, wherein Mickelson was designated the "subcontractor." The undersigned is convinced, and finds, that Bicon did, in fact, enter into subcontracts, express or implied, with S&S, Mickelson, and Wheeler. It is undisputed, moreover, that these three companies——S&S, Mickelson, and Wheeler——performed the work of hauling construction debris, which happens to be Bicon's core business. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer, and the undersigned finds, that, to some extent, S&S, Mickelson, and Wheeler provided hauling services to Bicon's customers. None of the aforementioned subcontractors had workers' compensation insurance in place during the Focal Period. The evidence is insufficient to prove that Precision Equipment Fabricators & Repair, Inc. ("Precision") was a subcontractor of Bicon that performed Bicon's contract work. On the contrary, Mr. Turner's testimony, which was not contradicted, shows that Precision was engaged in a different business from Bicon's——one involving construction activities (i.e. installing debris chutes) as opposed to the non- construction work of hauling. There is no persuasive or convincing evidence in the record establishing that Bicon was contractually obligated to anyone to perform such construction services. There is no persuasive or convincing direct evidence that Bicon ever understated the payroll of S&S, Mickelson, or Wheeler in communicating with Bridgefield. There is, indeed, no evidence in the record of any statement made by or on behalf of Bicon, to Bridgefield, concerning either the subcontractors' payrolls or the amounts that Bicon had paid, expected to pay, or owed its subcontractors pursuant to the subcontracts that it had made with them.6 The Department's theory, which is implicit (though unstated) in its litigating position, is that Bicon must have understated the subcontractors' payrolls because: (a) during the audits following the first and second renewal periods, Bridgefield picked up additional exposure, which it attributed to uninsured subcontractors; and (b) no other explanation accounts for the large discrepancies between the estimated premiums and the audited premiums.7 The flaw in this theory is that the incriminating fact which the Department urges be inferred (material understatement of payroll) is plainly not the only possible cause of the known effect (audit findings relating to uninsured subcontractors). Without being creative, the following possibilities, all of which are reasonable and consistent with the proved facts of this case, spring readily to mind: Estimating its anticipated exposures, Bicon told Bridgefield that it estimated its payments to uninsured subcontractors would be $X, and in fact, Bicon had estimated that it would pay uninsured subcontractors $Y——a materially greater sum than $X. Or: in fact, Bicon truly had estimated that its payments to uninsured subcontractors would total $X, but its estimate turned out to be low, and the actual aggregate of such payments was $Y, a materially greater sum. Bicon said nothing to Bridgefield about its payments to uninsured subcontractors until the audits because: prior to the audits, Bridgefield had never asked Bicon to disclose such information. Or: prior to the audits, Bridgefield had asked Bicon an ambiguous question about its estimated payroll exposures, which Bicon reasonably had understood as not inquiring about payments to uninsured subcontractors. Or: although, prior to the audits, Bridgefield had asked Bicon a clear and unambiguous question calling for Bicon to disclose such information, Bicon had remained silent on the issue. Bicon told Bridgefield about its payments to uninsured subcontractors, but Bridgefield, which knew that the actual amount of such exposure would be included at audit in determining the final premium, declined to use the information in calculating the estimated premium. The Department failed to prove, by any standard, that something like 1.a. occurred in fact. Further, the Department failed to exclude numerous hypotheses of innocence——such as 2.a., 2.b., and 3.——which are reasonable and consistent with the evidence. Accordingly, the undersigned declines to infer, from the proved facts, that, in its communications with Bridgefield, (the existence of which must be inferred, for there is no direct evidence of such communications), Bicon materially understated either the amounts of its subcontractors' payrolls or the amounts Bicon paid or owed to its subcontractors for the work they performed for Bicon's customers pursuant to subcontracts. Consequently, it is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Bicon is not guilty of materially understating payroll——and hence failing to secure payment of workers' compensation——as charged under Section 440.107(2), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order rescinding the Stop Work Order and exonerating Bicon of the charge of failing to secure the payment of workers' compensation by materially understating payroll. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of March, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 16th day of March, 2006.
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 Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (“Petitioner” or “Department”) properly issued a Stop-Work Order and Penalty Assessment against Respondent, Barber Custom Builders, Inc. (“Respondent” or “Barber”) for failing to obtain workers' compensation insurance that meets the requirements of chapter 440, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On January 31, 2014, the parties filed a Joint Pre- hearing Stipulation, by which the parties stipulated to the facts set forth in the following paragraphs 2 through 12. Those facts are accepted and adopted by the undersigned. The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure the payment of workers’ compensation for the benefit of their employees and corporate officers. Respondent, a Florida corporation, was engaged in business operations in the construction industry in the State of Florida from June 6, 2010 through June 5, 2013. Respondent received a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment from the Department on June 5, 2013. The Department had a legal basis to issue and serve Stop-Work Order 13-273-1A on Respondent. Respondent contests the validity of the Department’s Stop-Work Order as a charging document. Respondent received a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation from the Department on June 5, 2013. Respondent received an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment from the Department on June 17, 2013. Respondent executed a Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty and was issued an Order of Conditional Release from Stop-Work Order on August 6, 2013. Respondent received a 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment from the Department on September 25, 2013. Respondent employed more than four non-exempt employees during the periods of June 10, 2010 through June 30, 2010; July 2, 2010 through December 31, 2010; January 14, 2011 through December 29, 2011; January 30, 2012 through December 16, 2012; and January 4, 201[3] through June 5, 2013. Respondent was an “employer” as defined in chapter 440. All of the individuals listed on the Penalty Worksheet of the [2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment], except Buffie Barber and Linda Barber, were “employees” in the State of Florida (as that term is defined in section 440.02(15)(a), Florida Statutes), of Respondent during the periods of non- compliance listed on the penalty worksheets. In addition to the foregoing, in their March 12, 2014, Joint Stipulations and Status Report, the parties stipulated to the facts set forth in the following paragraphs 14 and 15. Those facts are accepted and adopted by the undersigned. Based on business records received from Respondent, the Department has recalculated the assessed penalty. The penalty has been reduced from $36,387.03 to $2,272.31. The 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is calculated correctly, if the manual rates were properly adopted by rule. A review of the stipulated 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment reveals assessed penalties for employees engaged in work described as class code 5403 (carpentry - NOC) and class code 8810 (clerical office employees - NOC). Given the stipulations of the parties, further findings are unnecessary.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation enter a final order assessing a penalty of $2,272.31 against Respondent, Barber Custom Builders, Inc., for its failure to secure and maintain required workers’ compensation insurance for its employees. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY 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 30th day of April, 2014.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent was an employee engaged in the construction industry and required to obtain workers' compensation insurance while working on the roof of the Myakka Animal Clinic and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact On August 24, 1998, Petitioner's investigator observed Respondent working on the roof of the Myakka Animal Clinic in Venice, Florida. At the time, Respondent was regularly employed by Paradise Roofing, Inc., where he had an exemption from workers' compensation insurance coverage. He has never previously been guilty of a violation of the workers' compensation laws. The contract price was $800. However, the evidence is conflicting as to the identity of the party that entered into the contract with the Myakka Animal Clinic. The veterinarian testified that her understanding of the agreement was that Respondent was to do the work, but, if any problems arose, he was not alone, and she could go to Paradise Roofing, Inc., to ensure that the labor and materials were satisfactory. Although there are other indications in the record that Respondent may have been working on his own on this job, there is sufficient conflict in the evidence that Petitioner has failed to prove that Respondent was doing the job as a self- employed person, rather than an exempt employee of Paradise Roofing, Inc. Respondent's understanding of the contractual relationship carries less weight than the veterinarian's understanding of this relationship.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Workers' Compensation enter a final order dismissing the Notice and Penalty Assessment Order and any related stop work order. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of April, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward A. Dion, General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Mary Hooks, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 303 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Louise T. Sadler, Senior Attorney Department of Labor and Employment Security 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Eric Kristiansen 3750 Aba Lane North Port, Florida 34287
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Hispanic male. Respondent is an 860-unit apartment complex in Ocala. Petitioner was employed by Respondent as a full-time maintenance technician from 2001 through September 28, 2007. His job responsibilities included performing repairs and general maintenance work on the insides of the apartments. Petitioner’s starting wage in 2001 was $9.00 per hour. He received annual raises from 2001 to 2004, at which point his wage was $11.75 per hour. Petitioner did not receive any raises from 2004 through 2007. He was still earning $11.75 per hour when he was fired on September 28, 2007. Starting in 2004, Respondent did not give raises to any maintenance technicians who were not HVAC-certified. This policy applied equally to all maintenance technicians, including non-Hispanics, and was intended to encourage them to get HVAC- certified. HVAC certification was important to Respondent because the air conditioning systems at the apartment complex were getting older and were requiring more frequent repairs. Respondent provided the necessary study materials for the HVAC certification exam and paid for the exam. Petitioner is not HVAC-certified. He took the certification exam once, but he did not pass. He did not take the exam again, even though Respondent would have paid for him to do so as it did for other maintenance technicians. HVAC certification is not required to perform all types of work on air conditioners, and Petitioner continued to do some work on the air conditioners at the apartment complex after 2004 even though he was not HVAC-certified. Petitioner was characterized as a “fair” employee who did “okay” work. His supervisor, a Hispanic male, testified that there were some jobs that he did not assign to Petitioner, that Petitioner frequently got help from other employees, and that he received a couple of complaints from other maintenance technicians about Petitioner’s work. Respondent does not have an employee handbook, and the only written policy that Respondent has is a policy prohibiting sexual and other harassment. Respondent’s executive director, Laura Smith, testified that she expected employees to use “common sense” regarding what they can and cannot do at work. Respondent utilizes a system of progressive discipline, which starts with warnings (oral, then written) and culminates in dismissal. However, the nature of the misconduct determines the severity of the discipline imposed, and a serious first offense may result in dismissal. On October 5, 2006, Petitioner was given an oral warning for “improper conduct” for visiting with a housekeeper multiple times a day for as long as 20 minutes at a time. The housekeeper also received an oral warning for this conduct. On May 15, 2007, Petitioner was given a written warning for the same “improper conduct,” i.e., wasting time by going into an apartment to visit with a housekeeper. Petitioner acknowledged receiving these warnings, but he denied engaging in the conduct upon which they were based. His denials were contradicted by the more credible testimony of his supervisor and Ms. Smith. Petitioner was fired on September 28, 2007, after a third incident of “improper conduct.” On that day, Petitioner left the apartment complex around 10 a.m. to get gas in his truck. He did not “clock out” or get permission from his supervisor before leaving the apartment complex. Petitioner was away from the apartment complex for at least 15 minutes, but likely no more than 30 minutes. Even though Respondent does not have written policies and procedures, Petitioner understood, and common sense dictates that he was supposed to get his supervisor’s approval and “clock out” before he left the complex on a personal errand. Petitioner also understood the procedure to be followed to get the 14 gallons of gas per week that Respondent provided for maintenance technicians. The procedure required the employee to get the company credit card from the bookkeeper, get the gas from a specific gas station, and then return the credit card and a signed receipt for the gas to the bookkeeper. Petitioner did not follow any aspect of this procedure on the day that he was fired. He had already gotten the 14 gallons of gas paid for by Respondent earlier in the week. Petitioner’s supervisor, a Hispanic male, compared Petitioner’s actions to “stealing from the company” because he was getting paid for time that he was not at the apartment complex working. He also expressed concern that Respondent could have been held liable if Petitioner had gotten in an accident on his way to or from getting gas because he was still “on the clock” at the time. Petitioner testified that he and other maintenance technicians routinely left the apartment complex to fill up their cars with gas without “clocking out” or getting permission from their supervisor. This testimony was corroborated only as to the 14 gallons of gas paid for each week by Respondent. There is no credible evidence that other employees routinely left the apartment complex to do personal errands without “clocking out,” and if they did, there is no credible evidence that Respondent’s managers were aware of it. There is no credible evidence whatsoever that Petitioner’s firing was motivated by his national origin. His supervisor is Hispanic, and he and Ms. Smith credibly testified that the fact that Petitioner was Hispanic played no role in her decision to fire Petitioner. Petitioner claimed that he was “harassed” by Ms. Smith and that she accused him of having sex with a housekeeper in the vacant apartments. No persuasive evidence was presented to support Petitioner’s “harassment” claim, which was credibly denied by Ms. Smith. Petitioner also claimed that he was disciplined differently than similar non-Hispanic employees, namely James Stroupe, Jason Head, and Willie Hutchinson. Mr. Stroupe is a white male. He worked on the grounds crew, not as a maintenance technician. In May 2007, Mr. Stroupe was given a written warning based upon allegations that he was making explosive devices at work, and in September 2007, he was given an oral warning for “wasting time” by hanging out in the woods with Mr. Head. Mr. Head is a white male. He worked on the grounds crew, not as a maintenance technician. In September 2007, he received a written warning for “wasting time” by hanging out in the woods with Mr. Stroupe. Mr. Hutchinson is a white male, and like Petitioner, he worked as a maintenance technician. In September 2007, he was arrested for DUI. Mr. Hutchinson was not disciplined by Respondent for this incident because it did not happen during working hours and it did not affect his ability to perform his job duties as maintenance technician. The grounds department (in which Mr. Stroupe and Mr. Head worked) was responsible for maintaining the landscaping around the apartment complex, whereas the maintenance department (in which Petitioner and Mr. Hutchinson worked) was responsible for maintaining the insides of the apartments. The departments had different supervisors. Petitioner was initially denied unemployment compensation by Respondent after he was fired, but he successfully appealed the denial to an Appeals Referee. Petitioner received unemployment compensation through April 2008. On April 11, 2008, Petitioner started working for Holiday Inn as a maintenance technician. He is employed full time and his wage is $11.50 per hour. Respondent placed an advertisement in the local newspaper after Petitioner was fired in order to fill his position in the maintenance department. The advertisement stated that Respondent was looking for an applicant who was HVAC-certified. Respondent hired Javier Herrera to fill the position. Mr. Herrera, like Petitioner, is a Hispanic male.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of September, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 16th day of September, 2008.
The Issue Did Respondent, John McCary General Contractor, Inc. (McCary), fail to secure workers’ compensation insurance for employees as required by chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2016)?1/ If so, what is the appropriate penalty?
Findings Of Fact The Division is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure workers’ compensation insurance for the benefit of their employees. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. McCary is a roofing contractor owned and operated by John McCary. It is in the construction industry. On November 18, 2016, Mr. Howe, a compliance investigator for the Division, visited a house where McCary was tearing off the roof. Mr. Howe recorded the names of each employee. He conducted an investigation that included speaking to Mr. McCary, re-interviewing the employees, checking with the employee leasing company that McCary used, and checking the Davison database of insured individuals. Mr. Howe could not find a record of workers’ compensation coverage for at least one employee. This triggered further investigation that resulted in Mr. Howe issuing a Stop-Work Order to McCary on November 18, 2016, for failure to secure workers’ compensation insurance in violation of sections 440.10(1), 440.38(1) and 440.107(2). After that, the Division followed its usual practice of requesting documents, reviewing its databases, soliciting information and explanations from the employer, and analyzing the information and documents obtained. Division Exhibit 9 shows that the Division asked McCary for business records on November 21, 2016, and that McCary did not provide them until December 12, 2016. The Division’s investigation and analysis resulted in the evidence admitted in this proceeding. The evidence proved the allegations of the Division’s Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, including its attached Penalty Calculation Worksheet. McCary did not comply with workers’ compensation insurance coverage requirements for the period May 1 through November 18, 2016. During that period, McCary employed Arcenio Rosado, Domingo Esteves, Javier Restrepo, Jose Alfredo Fuentes, Carlos Toledo, Edwin Valle, Kelly Alvarez, Kyle Shiro, Claudia Florez, and Nelson Geovany Melgar Rodenzo and that they performed work for it. McCary would have paid $4,744.06 in insurance premiums to provide workers’ compensation coverage for these employees during that period. During that period, McCary also used the services of two subcontractors, Star Debris Removal and E C Roofing, LLC. These subcontractors did not have workers’ compensation insurance for their employees during the May 1 through November 18, 2016, period. Premiums to provide coverage to the employees of the two subcontractors who worked on McCary’s projects would have totaled $100,771.09. From May 1 to November 18, 2016, McCary made cash payments of $195,856.02 that its documents could not confirm to be for a valid business expense. Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.035(1)(k) requires that 80 percent of that amount be deemed wages or salaries paid employees when calculating the premiums used to determine the ultimate penalty. Eighty percent of McCary’s unaccounted-for cash payments is $156,684.82. That amount is legally deemed to be a payroll expense. McCary would have paid $29,143.38 to provide coverage for the employees represented by the cash payments. Altogether, McCary would have paid $134,658.53 to provide workers’ compensation coverage to the uncovered employees represented by the actual and deemed payroll during the May 1 to November 18, 2016, period.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, enter a final order finding that John McCary General Contractor, Inc., failed to secure payment of required workers’ compensation insurance coverage from May 1 to November 18, 2016, in violation of section 440.107, Florida Statutes, and imposing a penalty of $269,317.06, reduced by $1,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of July, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of July, 2018.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent was an employer in the State of Florida, required to secure the payment of workers' compensation insurance coverage pursuant to the appropriate provisions of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2007); whether the Respondent secured such coverage, if required; and whether the proposed penalty, if any, is warranted.
Findings Of Fact The Department is an agency of the State of Florida charged with enforcing the various requirements of Chapter 440 Florida Statutes. This includes the requirement, in Section 440.107(3) Florida Statutes, that employers in the State of Florida, as defined by statute, secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage for all employees, as provided in Sections 440.10(1)(a), 440.38(1), and 440.107(2), Florida Statutes (2007). The Respondent is a closely held Florida corporation with a principal business address of record at 1815 West Detroit Boulevard, Pensacola, Florida 32534. The president of the Respondent Corporation is Richard Longoria. On October 29, 2008, an investigator for the Department, Michelle Newcomer, observed construction work being conducted at a site at 4111 Baisden Road in Pensacola, Florida. Ms. Newcomer stopped at that address and encountered Richard Longoria, the Respondent's president. In the course of their conversation, Mr. Longoria told Investigator Newcomer that he was sanding and caulking window frames in preparation for painting them. He also was engaged in painting shutters at that address. The so-called "Scopes Manual" is a manual published by the National Counsel on Compensation Insurance, Inc. (NCCI). In that manual are certain codes, related to the construction industry and trades considered to be within that industry. Painting is considered to be "construction" under the relevant codes in this manual. The manual, with its codes and classifications is relied upon in the insurance industry and has been adopted by the State of Florida, and the Department, in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.021. The preparation of surfaces for painting is contemplated as being included in the construction trade or industry in that manual, under the painting classification code. Mr. Longoria performs a significant amount of painting, but also does general construction, wallpapering, general maintenance and carpentry work. He has three different occupational licenses: maintenance, carpentry and painting/wallpapering. The trades or types of work Mr. Longoria had disclosed in the course of obtaining his construction industry exemption, which was effective April 13, 2006, through April 12, 2008, included paperhanging, wallpapering and carpentry. During his conversation with Investigator Newcomer, Mr. Longoria disclosed that he did not have workers' compensation coverage because he had an exemption from such coverage. He provided her with a workers' compensation Exemption card for the construction industry. Ms. Newcomer observed that the workers' compensation exemption held by Mr. Longoria, as an officer of the Respondent, had actually expired some months previously, on April 12, 2008. Ms. Newcomer consulted the Department's automated database, called the Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS). That system is routinely used and lists workers' compensation insurance policy information for each corporation, which insurance companies are required to provide to the Department, as well as the workers' compensation exemptions for corporate officers, if any. The database confirmed that Mr. Longoria's most recent exemption had expired on April 12, 2008. He thus did not have a current workers' compensation exemption on October 29, 2008, when he encountered Investigator Newcomer. That database also revealed that there was no record of a workers' compensation insurance policy in effect for the Respondent, and this was confirmed by Mr. Longoria's testimony during his deposition (in evidence). Corporate officers who qualify for a workers' compensation coverage exemption are not automatically exempt, but must submit a Notice of Election to Be Exempt. They submit a form, along with a $50 fee, to apply for an exemption. Upon receipt of a Notice of Election to Be Exempt, the Department makes a determination as to whether the applicant for the exemption meets the relevant eligibility requirements. The exemption request is then processed by the Department and a Notice of Granting the Exemption, or denial, or a Notice of Incompletion, and the necessity for more information, is sent to the applicant. A workers' compensation exemption has a duration of two years from its effective date. Its effective date is the date that is entered into the CCAS system. The only Notice of Election to Be Exempt the Department received from Mr. Longoria, as of the October 29, 2008, inspection date, was the application received on April 10, 2006. It became effective on April 13, 2006, and thus was effective until April 13, 2008. Before October 29, 2008, Mr. Longoria had three construction industry exemptions which were renewed. One exemption was as a sole proprietor and was effective from July 4, 1993, through July 4, 1995. He had another exemption extending from April 13, 2004, through April 13, 2006, and then an exemption from April 13, 2006, through April 12, 2008. Mr. Longoria stated to Ms. Newcomer, in their conversation on October 29, 2008, that he had not received notice of his April 13, 2006 exemption's expiration prior to the expiration date of April 13, 2008. Ms. Newcomer thereupon consulted the CCAS system to determine when the notification of expiration of the exemption had been sent to Mr. Longoria or the Respondent. That database revealed that a letter notifying him of the expiration of his exemption had been sent on January 29, 2008. The CCAS entry shows that the expiration notice had been mailed out to Mr. Longoria to his address of record, 1815 West Detroit Boulevard, Pensacola, Florida 32354. That is the same address which had been shown on Mr. Longoria's exemption certificate, effective on April 13, 2006. Mr. Longoria's wife was stricken with cancer. She is a veteran and sought treatment and therapy for her cancer at a Veteran's Administration facility in Tennessee. Consequently, Mr. and Mrs. Longoria moved to Tennessee in May 2006, soon after the effective date of his exemption. Mr. Longoria filed a mail-forwarding form with the United States Postal Service in Pensacola so that his mail would be forwarded to his residence and address in Tennessee. Mail was forwarded for approximately one year, but no mail originally sent to his Pensacola address was forwarded to his address in Tennessee after sometime in August 2007. Mr. Longoria did not notice this fact until April 2008. None of the later mail addressed to the Pensacola address was forwarded to Tennessee, even after he renewed his forwarding application with the postal service in April of 2008. In fact, he testified that "99 percent of whatever mail was sent to the Florida address between 2007 and April 2008 was never forwarded to [Mr. Longoria] in Tennessee." Mr. Longoria, however, did not file a change of address notification with the Department prior to submitting his new Notice of Election to be Exempt, which he filed on October 31, 2008. The Respondent did not change his mailing address with the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations until April 9, 2008. On October 29, 2008, after the discussion between Mr. Longoria and Investigator Newcomer, concerning the matter of workers' compensation coverage, Ms. Newcomer issued a Stop Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment, and served it on Mr. Longoria and the Respondent. These were issued because of the Respondent's failure to secure payment of workers' compensation in purported violation of Sections 440.10(1), 440.38(1) and 440.107(2), Florida Statutes. Upon issuance of the Stop Work Order, Mr. Longoria promptly complied. Investigator Newcomer also requested production of certain business records in order to perform the relevant penalty assessment calculations. Mr. Longoria promptly provided the necessary business records to the Department. The parties stipulated that work was being performed by the Respondent between the dates of April 12, 2008, and October 29, 2008. This was the period of time when the exemption was in an expired state. Based upon the Respondent's records, Investigator Newcomer calculated an amended penalty, for the period of noncompliance with the workers' compensation law (the period of expiration of the exemption) using the penalty calculation worksheet adopted in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.027. The total penalty based upon that formula resulted in an assessment of less than $1,000. The penalty assessed was therefore $1,000, pursuant to Section 440.107(7)(d), Florida Statutes, which provides that the penalty to be assessed will be based on the formula provided in the referenced provision of Section 440.107, Florida Statutes, and the above-cited rule, or a minimum of $1,000, whichever is greater. The parties stipulated that the penalty assessed is accurate, if it is ultimately determined that the penalty was properly and lawfully assessed. After being served with the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on October 31, 2008, Mr. Longoria promptly paid the penalty in full, in the form of a cashier's check. He submitted a new Notice of Election to Be Exempt for himself, as a corporate officer of the Respondent, which exemption became effective on that same date. The Respondent was subsequently issued an Order of Release from the Stop Work Order and an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, which allowed the Respondent to resume working. The expiration of the exemption, for the number of months referenced above, occurred because the Respondent, through Mr. Longoria, inadvertently failed to renew the exemption. Mr. Longoria had not been reminded of his expiration because he had not received the Notice of Impending Expiration from the Department. There is no dispute that Mr. Longoria and the Respondent corporation qualified for the exemption and were thus not required to secure the payment of workers' compensation, if the exemption had been effective at times pertinent hereto. This is because of the corporate business entity under which the Respondent and Mr. Longoria operated, with Mr. Longoria as the sole employee and sole corporate officer and owner.
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, finding that the Respondent failed to properly secure workers' compensation insurance coverage for its employee in violation of Sections 440.10(1)(a) and 440.38(1), Florida Statutes, and that a penalty in the amount of $1,000 be assessed, as mandated by Section 440.107(7), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of May, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Tracey Beal, Agency Clerk Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 Benjamin Diamond, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307 Honorable Alex Sink Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Justin H. Faulkner, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Samuel W. Bearman, Esquire Law Office of Samuel W. Bearman, L.C. 820 North 12th Avenue Pensacola, Florida 32501
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent failed to abide by the coverage requirements of the Workers' Compensation Law, Chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2002), by not obtaining workers' compensation insurance for her employees; and whether Petitioner properly assessed a penalty against Respondent pursuant to Section 440.107, Florida Statutes (2002).
Findings Of Fact Based upon observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying; documentary materials received in evidence; stipulations by the parties; evidentiary rulings made pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes (2003); and the record evidence submitted, the following relevant and material finding of facts 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 for their employees. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. (2002).1 On August 8, 2003, Respondent was a sole proprietor in the construction industry by framing single-family homes. On that day, Respondent was the sub-contractor under contract with Marco Raffaele, general contractor, providing workers on a single-family home(s) located on Navigation Drive in the Panther Trace subdivision, Riverview, Florida. It is the responsibility of the Respondent/employer to secure and maintain workers' compensation coverage for each employee. During the early morning hours of August 8, 2003, Donald Lott, the Department's workers' compensation compliance investigator, was in the Panther Trace subdivision checking on site workers for potential violations of the workers' compensation statute. While driving down Navigation Drive in the Panther Trace subdivision, Mr. Lott approached two houses under construction. There he checked the construction workers on site and found them in compliance with the workers' compensation statute. Mr. Lott recognized several of the six men working on the third house under construction next door and went over to investigate workers' compensation coverage for the workers.2 At the third house Mr. Lott interviewed Darren McCarty, Henry Keithler, and Mike Sabin, all of whom acknowledged that they worked for Respondent, d/b/a Riopelle Construction. Mr. Lott ascertained through Southeast Leasing Company (Southeast Leasing) that three of the six workers, Messrs. Keithler, Sabin, and McCarthy were listed on Southeast Leasing Company's payroll through a valid employee lease agreement with Respondent as of August 8, 2003. The completed employee lease agreement provided for Southeast Leasing Company to provide workers' compensation coverage for only those employees whose names, dates of birth, and social security numbers are contained in the contractual agreement by which Southeast Leasing leased those named employees to the employing entity, Respondent, d/b/a Riopelle Construction. Mr. Lott talked with the other three workers on site, Ramos Artistes, Ryan Willis, and Robert Stinchcomb. Each worker acknowledged working for (as an employee) Respondent on August 8, 2003, in the Panther Trace subdivision. In reply to his faxed inquiry to Southeast Leasing regarding the workers' compensation coverage status for Messrs. Artistes, Willis, and Stinchcomb, Southeast Leasing confirmed to Mr. Lott that on August 8, 2003, Southeast Leasing did not have a completed employee leasing contractual agreement with Respondent for Messrs. Artistes, Willis or Stinchcomb. Southeast Leasing did not provide workers' compensation coverage for Messrs. Artistes, Willis or Stinchcomb on August 8, 2003.3 Southeast Leasing is an "employee" leasing company and is the "employer" of "leased employees." As such, Southeast Leasing is responsible for providing workers' compensation coverage for its "leased employees" only. Southeast Leasing, through its account representative, Dianne Dunphy, input employment applications into their system on the day such application(s) are received from employers seeking to lease employees. Southeast Leasing did not have employment applications in their system nor did they have a completed contractual employment leasing agreement and, therefore, did not have workers' compensation coverage for Messrs. Artistes and Willis at or before 12:08 p.m. on August 8, 2003. After obtaining his supervisor's authorization, Mr. Lott served a Stop Work and Penalty Assessment Order against Respondent on August 8, 2003, at 12:08 p.m., requiring the cessation of all business activities and assessing a penalty of $100, required by Subsection 440.107(5), Florida Statutes, and a penalty of $1,000, as required by Subsection 440.107(7), Florida Statutes, the minimum penalty under the statute. On August 12, 2003, the Department served a Corrected Stop Work and Penalty Assessment Order containing one change, corrected federal identification number for Respondent's business, Riopelle Construction. Mr. Stinchcomb, the third worker on the construction job site when Mr. Lott made his initial inquiry, was cutting wood. On August 8, 2003, at or before 12:00 p.m., Mr. Stinchcomb was not on the Southeast Leasing payroll as a leased employee covered for workers' compensation; he did not have individual workers' compensation coverage; and he did not have a workers' compensation exemption. On that day and at that time, Mr. Stinchcomb worked as an employee of Riopelle Construction and was paid hourly by Riopelle Construction payroll check(s). Respondent's contention that Mr. Stinchcomb, when he was working on the construction job site between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. on August 8, 2003, was an independent contractor fails for the lack of substantial and competent evidence in support thereof. On August 8, 2003, the Department, through Mr. Lott, served an administrative request for business records on Respondent. Respondent failed and refused to respond to the business record request. An Order requiring Respondent to respond to Petitioner's discovery demands was entered on December 1, 2003, and Respondent failed to comply with the order. On December 8, 2003, Respondent responded that "every effort would be made to provide the requested documents by the end of the day" to Petitioner. Respondent provided no reliable evidence and Mr. Stinchcomb was not called to testify in support of Respondent's contention that Mr. Stinchcomb was an independent contractor as he worked on the site on August 8, 2003. Respondent's evidence, both testamentary and documentary, offered to prove that Mr. Stinchcomb was an independent contractor on the date in question failed to satisfy the elements required in Subsection 440.02(15)(d)1, Florida Statutes. Subsection 440.02(15)(c), Florida Statutes, in pertinent part provides that: "[f]or purposes of this chapter, an independent contractor is an employee unless he or she meets all of the conditions set forth in subparagraph(d)(1)." Subsection 440.02(15)(d)(1) provides that an "employee" does not include an independent contractor if: The independent contractor maintains a separate business with his or her own work facility, truck, equipment, materials, or similar accommodations; The independent contractor holds or has applied for a federal employer identification number, unless the independent contractor is a sole proprietor who is not required to obtain a federal employer identification number under state or federal requirements; The independent contractor performs or agrees to perform specific services or work for specific amounts of money and controls the means of performing the services or work; The independent contractor incurs the principal expenses related to the service or work that he or she performs or agrees to perform; The independent contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of work or services that he or she performs or agrees to perform and is or could be held liable for a failure to complete the work or services; The independent contractor receives compensation for work or services performed for a commission or on a per-job or competitive-bid basis and not on any other basis; The independent contractor may realize a profit or suffer a loss in connection with performing work or services; The independent contractor has continuing or recurring business liabilities or obligations; and The success or failure of the independent contractor's business depends on the relationship of business receipts to expenditures. The testimony of Respondent and the testimony of her husband, Edward Riopelle, was riddled with inconsistencies, contradictions, and incorrect dates and was so confusing as to render such testimony unreliable. Based upon this finding, Respondent failed to present evidence sufficient to satisfy the requirement of Subsection 440.02(15)(d)1, Florida Statutes, and failed to demonstrate that on August 8, 2003, Mr. Stinchcomb was an independent contractor. Petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that on August 8, 2003, Mr. Stinchcomb, while working on the single-family construction site on Navigation Drive in the Panther Trace subdivision was an employee of Respondent and was not an independent contractor. Petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Stinchcomb did not have workers' compensation coverage on August 8, 2003. On August 8, 2003, Mr. Willis was a laborer on the single-family construction site on Navigation Drive in the Panther Trace subdivision as an employee of Respondent, who paid him $7.00 per hour. Mr. Willis was not listed on the employee list maintained by Southeast Leasing, recording those employees leased to Respondent. Mr. Willis did not have independent workers' compensation coverage on August 8, 2003. Mr. Willis had neither workers' compensation coverage nor a workers' compensation exemption on August 8, 2003. Petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Willis did not have workers' compensation coverage on August 8, 2003. On August 8, 2003, Mr. Artises was a laborer on the single-family construction site on Navigation Drive in the Panther Trace subdivision and was an employee of Respondent. Mr. Artises had been in the employment of Respondent for approximately one week before the stop work order. Mr. Artises did not have independent workers' compensation coverage on August 8, 2003. Mr. Artises did not have a workers' compensation coverage exemption on August 8, 2003. Petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Aristes did not have workers' compensation coverage on August 8, 2003.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleading 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, affirming and adopting the Corrected Stop Work and Penalty Assessment Order dated August 12, 2003. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRED L. BUCKINE 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 29th day of March, 2004.
