The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by failing to secure the payment of workers’ compensation, as alleged in the Stop-Work Order and 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and, if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation (Department), is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement that employers in the State of Florida secure the payment of workers' compensation for their employees and corporate officers. Respondent, Po’ Boys, Inc. (Po’ Boys), is a Florida corporation engaged in business operations as a restaurant in the State of Florida from January 31, 2010, through January 30, 2013. Respondent employed more than four non-exempt employees during the periods January 31 through February 24, 2010; June 8 through September 3, 2010; and July 11, 2012, through January 30, 2013. Respondent was an "employer" as defined in chapter 440, Florida Statutes, throughout the penalty period. All of the individuals listed on the Penalty Worksheet of the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment were "employees" (as that term is defined in section 440.02(l5)(a), Florida Statutes) of Respondent during the periods of noncompliance listed on the penalty worksheets. None of the employees listed on the Penalty Worksheet can be classified as independent contractors, as defined in section 440.02, Florida Statutes. Mr. Jonas Hall is a workers’ compensation compliance officer who has worked for Petitioner for about four years. He has been involved with between 200 and 300 cases. On the morning of January 30, 2013, Mr. Hall received a “referral” report that Po’ Boys was not securing the payment of workers’ compensation for its employees. Po’ Boys operates three “traditional” restaurants in Tallahassee, which provide wait-service to their customers. Mr. Hall checked the Florida Department of State’s “Sunbiz” website, which gave him information on Po’ Boys’ legal structure, corporate officers, and principal location. He also checked workers’ compensation information for Po’ Boys, Inc., by accessing the Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) maintained by the Department. It indicated that Po’ Boys’ last coverage, which had become effective on February 6, 2012, had ended on July 11, 2012. He determined that active workers’ compensation exemptions were on file for four individuals, including Mr. Carmen Calabrese and Mr. Jon Sweede, co-owners of Po’ Boys. Information in the CCAS is submitted by insurance companies and the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI). Mr. Hall drove to the College Avenue location of Po’ Boys to conduct a site visit, but it did not appear open because there were no vehicles present and the lights were off. Mr. Hall proceeded to the West Pensacola Street location. There were vehicles present and he saw an individual who appeared to be arranging chairs on the patio. Mr. Hall introduced himself and explained what he was doing there, and was then referred to Mr. Carmen Calabrese, the manager. It was about 10:00 a.m. Payroll records indicate that employees reported for work between 10:00 and 11:00 and that the restaurant was open to serve lunch and dinner. Mr. Calabrese took Mr. Hall to a “Broken Arm” poster which had a workers’ compensation sticker on the bottom. The sticker contained a workers’ compensation policy number and periods of coverage, as well as contact information for Zenith Insurance Company. Mr. Hall contacted Zenith Insurance Company, and they confirmed that coverage had not been in effect since July 11, 2012. In response to Mr. Hall’s questions, Mr. Calabrese indicated that Po’ Boys had between 50 and 60 employees working at its three locations. Mr. Calabrese told Mr. Hall that he had no knowledge that coverage was not in effect and that Mr. Hall would have to talk to Mr. Sweede, who handled the workers’ compensation for the business. Mr. Calabrese was a credible witness. Mr. Hall called Mr. Sweede, who in turn told Mr. Hall to contact Mr. Wade Shapiro, his insurance agent for providing workers’ compensation coverage. Mr. Sweede then called Mr. Shapiro as soon as he completed his telephone call with Mr. Hall. When Mr. Hall later telephoned Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Shapiro confirmed that Po’ Boys had no policy in effect, but said that he was in the process of obtaining coverage for them. Mr. Hall contacted his supervisor, Ms. Michelle Newcomer, who provided him with a Stop-Work Order Number. Mr. Hall served the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment on Mr. Calabrese, along with a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation, at about 11:15 a.m. Although some records indicated that the Stop-Work Order was served at 10:30, other records and the testimony of the witnesses that it was served at 11:15 were more credible. Mr. Sweede testified that he was unaware until January 30, 2013, that his workers’ compensation coverage was not in effect. He testified that the Electronic Funds Transfer payment “came back” in July, but that he had been unaware of this. He testified, “I must not have found the paperwork, must not have looked at the envelopes, take all the heat for that in this business.” Mr. Sweede testified that he later learned Mr. Shapiro was not only aware that Po’ Boys’ coverage was not in effect, but that he had already been working to get Po’ Boys new coverage before Mr. Sweede telephoned him on January 30, 2013, all without the knowledge or authorization of Mr. Sweede. Mr. Sweede entered into an agreement to obtain workers’ compensation coverage for Po’ Boys sometime on January 30, 2013. Several documents were required, at least one with a notary’s signature. Mr. Sweede signed a letter stating that there had been no workers’ compensation claims since his previous coverage had been canceled on July 11, 2012, joined the Florida United Businesses Association (FUBA), filled out an application for coverage, and made a down payment from the Po’ Boys bank account to the (FUBA sponsored) Florida Citrus, Business, and Industries Fund. Under the terms of the agreement, coverage was made effective retroactively to 12:01 a.m. on January 30, 2013. Mr. Sweede testified that Mr. Shapiro notified him, although he could not remember exactly how, that workers’ compensation coverage was obtained for Po’ Boys at around 11:00 a.m. on January 30, 2013, about 15 minutes before the Stop-Work Order was served. Mr. Sweede’s testimony as to how he came to be satisfied that his coverage at Zenith was actually not in effect, determined how and why it had been canceled, decided to obtain insurance elsewhere, and arranged for people in at least three different locations to prepare and execute all of the required documents in approximately 45 minutes, from about 10:15 a.m. until 11:00 a.m., was unclear. The transcript reflects the following exchange: Q: Okay. So this is another –- this is something else. Obviously when Wade Shapiro came by you brought this check, right, and then he also had you sign these documents? A: I really couldn’t tell you. I couldn’t tell you which way, you know, I mean, obviously, you know, like I said, I was stressed. I got him the check. Whether he ran the check up, brought this stuff back, I probably couldn’t –- I can’t remember which chronology it was. It was, you know, a pretty stressful morning. But I know it was all fast, fortunately. Although it does not contain a jurat or notarial certificate,1/ the application for insurance does contain the signature and stamp of a notary public beneath the signatures of Mr. Sweede and Mr. Shapiro. All signatures on the document are followed by a handwritten notation of “1-30-13” in the space provided for a date. The signature and seal provide credible evidence that the document was signed sometime on January 30, 2013. Regardless of the time when coverage became effective, there is clear and convincing evidence in this case that Petitioner had no information reasonably available to it indicating that Respondent had obtained workers’ compensation coverage in the last minutes before the Stop-Work Order was issued. Respondent concedes it did not have coverage at the time of Mr. Hall’s site inspection, and does not claim that when coverage was obtained, it notified Petitioner, or even attempted to do so. Mr. Hall wrote a “Narrative” in a Department database on the afternoon of January 30, 2013, describing the events of the morning. Although Respondent demonstrated that the description was “modified” several days later on on February 5, 2013, the Department put on no evidence to explain what was modified, or why. The testimony of witnesses that Mr. Hall served the Stop-Work Order at 11:15 a.m. was deemed more credible under all of the circumstances than the notation in the Narrative that it was served at 10:30 a.m. Respondent executed a Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty and was issued an Order of Conditional Release from the Stop-Work Order on February 6, 2013. Po’ Boys failed to secure the payment of workers’ compensation for its employees from January 31 through February 24, 2010; June 8 through September 3, 2010; and July 11, 2012, through January 29, 2013. It obtained coverage sometime on January 30, 2013. Respondent would have paid an amount less than $11,565.68 in premiums for those periods during which it failed to secure the payment of workers’ compensation, because that figure should be reduced by the premium paid for coverage on January 30, 2013. Payroll records submitted by Po’ Boys indicate several employees were paid for varying hours after 11:15 a.m. on January 30, 2013. The parties stipulated that the Department has assigned the appropriate class code and manual rates to Respondent's employees from the NCCI SCOPES Manual.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, enter a final order determining that Respondent, Po’ Boys, Inc., violated the requirement in chapter 440, Florida Statutes, that it secure workers' compensation coverage for its employees, and imposing upon it a total penalty assessment of $17,349.70, reduced by the amount attributable to lack of coverage on January 30, 2013. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of May, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of May, 2013.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner was required to carry workers' compensation insurance coverage for its employees, and if so, the penalty that should be assessed. Whether the Petitioner violated the Stop Work Order entered May 18, 2005, and, if so, the penalty that should be assessed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of enforcing the requirement of Section 440.107, Florida Statutes, that employers in Florida secure workers' compensation insurance coverage for their employees. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Tak-A-Way is a Florida corporation which engages in the business of performing small jobs such as removing trash and debris, digging up small driveways, and excavation. Tak-A-Way owns several dump trucks, and it maintains a permanent storage yard for materials and equipment. Tak-A-Way's payroll records for the period January 2003 through May 2005 establish that several persons were listed as "Help" and received regular checks from Tak-A-Way during this period. Donald Oppenheim is the owner and president of Tak-A-Way. He is exempted from workers' compensation coverage. On May 18, 2005, during a routine investigation, an investigator employed by the Department observed two men ripping up an asphalt driveway and loading the asphalt into a truck at a private residence in Pompano Beach, Florida. One man was operating a backhoe, and the other was operating a bobcat. The equipment and trucks being used at the site displayed the name “Tak-A-Way”, and the two men confirmed that they were employed by Tak-A-Way. The men were identified as Andy Oppenheim and Kevin McManus. The Department did not find any record of workers’ compensation insurance in its database for employees of Tak-A- Way, and Mr. Oppenheim confirmed during a conversation with the Department’s investigator that Tak-A-Way had no workers' compensation coverage for any of its employees. The Department's investigator issued a Stop Work Order against Tak-A-Way on May 18, 2005, because it did not have workers’ compensation coverage for its employees; the Stop Work Order was hand-delivered to Mr. Oppenheim on the date of issue. The Stop Work Order required that Tak-A-Way "cease all business operations in this state" and advised that a penalty of $1,000.00 per day would be imposed if Tak-A-Way were to conduct any business in violation of the Stop Work Order. Finally, the Stop Work Order included the following: "This Stop Work Order shall remain in effect until the Division issues an order releasing the Stop Work Order, or until the Division issues an order of conditional release from Stop Work Order pursuant to the employer entering into a payment agreement schedule for periodic payment of penalty." Penalty Assessment for Failure to Have Workers' Compensation Insurance Coverage At the same time that she delivered the Stop Work Order to Mr. Oppenheim, the Department's investigator delivered a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation, in which Mr. Oppenheim was directed to produce business records for the period extending from November 3, 2003, through May 18, 2005.2 Mr. Oppenheim produced Tak-A-Way's business records as requested, and the Department's investigator used the payroll information in the records for calculating the penalty to be assessed for Tak-A-Way's failure to have workers' compensation insurance coverage for its employees. The Department uses the National Council of Compensation Insurance, Inc. ("NCCI") Scopes Manual, which includes risk classifications and definitions used to determine rates for workers' compensation insurance coverage. The payroll records provided by Mr. Oppenheim did not indicate the workers' compensation classification codes assigned to Tak-A-Way's employees, so, in accordance with the NCCI Basic Manual for Workers Compensation and Employers Liability Insurance ("Basic Manual"), the Department's investigator assigned all of Tak-A-Way's operations to what she determined to be the highest- rated classifications of its business operations. As shown in the worksheets attached to both the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment and the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, the Department's investigator classified all of Tak-A-Way's employees under the classification "Excavation," Code 6217, for the period extending from November 3, 2003, through December 31, 2004, which had an approved manual rate of $13.79 per $100.00 in payroll for that period; she classified all of Tak-A-Way's employees under the classification "Concrete," Code 5213, for the period extending from January 1, 2005, through May 18, 2005, with an approved manual rate of $24.66 per $100.00 in payroll for that period; and she classified all of Tak-A-Way's employees under the classification "Erection Permanent Yard," Code 8227, for the period extending from January 1, 2005, through May 18, 2005, with an approved manual rate of $9.38 per $100.00 in payroll for that period. The worksheets showed the premium calculation for each classification to be $19,248.91, $10,130.08, and $365.82, respectively, for a total premium of $29,744.81. The penalty, calculated as 1.5 times the premium for each classification, was shown on the worksheets as $28,873.37, $15,195.12, and $548.73, respectively, for a total penalty for the failure to have workers' compensation insurance coverage of $44,617.22. The operations included in the NCCI Scopes Manual classification "Excavation & Drivers," Code 6217, describe most closely the business operations of Tak-A-Way during the period of time covered by the penalty assessment for the failure to have workers' compensation insurance coverage. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the nature of Tak-A-Way's operations changed on or about January 1, 2005, nor did the Department's investigator provide any explanation for the change in classification from "Excavation" to "Concrete" effective January 1, 2005.3 In the absence of any evidence to support the change in classification, the Department has failed to sustain the $44,617.22 penalty assessment for the failure of Tak-A-Way to carry workers' compensation insurance coverage from November 3, 2003, through May 18, 2005. Rather, the premium calculation for the period from January 1, 2005, through May 18, 2005, should be based on the classification of "Excavation," Code 6217, which carried the approved manual rate of $12.77 for that period, and not on the classification of "Concrete," Code 5213.4 Tak-A-Way maintained a permanent storage yard in which its material and equipment was stored during the times material to this proceeding. The Department's investigator correctly included a premium calculation for "Erection Permanent Yard," Code 8227, as part of the calculation of the penalty against Tak-A-Way for failure to carry workers' compensation insurance coverage for its employees. Tak-A-Way obtained workers' compensation insurance coverage from Florida Citrus, Business & Industry, effective June 1, 2005. Penalty Assessment for Violating Stop Work Order On May 24, 2005, the Department’s investigator observed a Tak-A-Way truck traveling in front of her on the street and concluded that Tak-A-Way was conducting business in violation of the Stop Work Order issued May 18, 2005. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment against Tak-A- Way issued on June 1, 2005, included a penalty of $1,000.00 for Tak-A-Way's violation of the Stop Work Order from May 24, 2005, to May 25, 2005, for a total penalty of $45.617.22. Tak-A-Way conducted business operations after the Stop Work Order was issued. Mr. Oppenheim rented dump trucks owned by Tak-A-Way to Preston Contractors. Mr. Oppenheim, who was the only Tak-A-Way employee involved in the business operations at the time, would drive a truck to one of Preston Contractors' construction sites, towing his pickup truck. He would park the truck and leave the site, and employees of Preston Contractors would fill the truck with construction debris. Mr. Oppenheim would return to the construction site and drive the truck to the landfill and dump the load of debris. At times, there were several Tak-A-Way dump trucks at the Preston Contractors' construction site. According to invoices maintained by Preston Contractors, it paid Tak-A-Way for truck rental and dump fees from February 2005 to September 2005. On November 22, 2005, the Department issued a Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, increasing the penalty for Tak-A-Way's violation of the Stop Work Order to $73,000.00, covering the period extending from May 19, 2005, through September 21, 2005, for a total penalty of $117,617.22. Based on the evidence presented, Tak-A-Way was conducting business operations in violation of the Stop Work Order during the period for which the penalty was assessed and had not obtained either an order releasing the Stop Work Order or an Order of Conditional Release from Stop Work Order.
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 Tak-A-Way, Inc., failed to have workers' compensation insurance coverage for its employees, in violation of Sections 440.10(1)(a) and 440.38(1), Florida Statutes; Finding that Tak-A-Way, Inc., engaged in business operations during the pendency of a Stop Work Order, in violation of Section 440.107(7)(a), Florida Statutes; Assessing a penalty against Tak-A-Way, Inc., equal to 1.5 times premium based on the approved manual rate for the classification "Excavation," Code 6217, for the period extending from November 3, 2003, through May 18, 2005, and on the approved manual rate for the classification "Construction & Erection - Permanent Yard," Code 8227, for the period extending from January 1, 2005, through May 18, 2005 as provided in Section 440.107(7)(a) and (d), Florida Statutes; and Assessing a penalty of $73,000.00, against Tak-A-Way, Inc., for engaging in business operations in violation of the May 18, 2005, Stop Work Order, as provided in Section 440.107(7)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of March, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S PATRICIA M. HART 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 8th day of March, 2006.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Respondent was operating its business without workers' compensation coverage for employees in violation of the below-referenced provisions of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, whether it continued its business operations in violation of a Stop Work Order issued August 11, 2005, in purported violation of Section 440.107(7)(a), Florida Statutes (2005), and what, if any, penalty is warranted.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation (Department) is an agency of the State of Florida charged with enforcing the statutory requirements requiring employers to secure the payment of workers' compensation benefits by obtaining insurance coverage therefor for employees, as mandated by Section 440.107, Florida Statutes (2005). The Respondent, Krashco, Inc., d/b/a J. Krash's Sports Bar (Krashco, Inc.) is a Florida corporation domiciled in Panama City, Florida. On August 11, 2005, it was engaged in the business of operating J. Krash's Sports Bar at 1508 Calhoun Avenue in Panama City, Florida. Patricia Krossman is a Workers' Compensation Investigator for the Department. She conducts investigations into all types of business to verify that they have required workers' compensation insurance coverage or are statutorily exempt. She visited J. Krash's Sports, Bar accompanied by her supervisor, William Dorney, and another investigator on August 11, 2005. J. Krash's Sports Bar is a business owned by the Respondent Krashco, Inc. Upon entering the bar, Ms. Krossman, observed several customers and a bartender. She inquired of the bartender whether the owner was present. She was then introduced to Mr. Matthew McDonough who identified himself as the accountant for Krashco, Inc. Mr. Dorney was present and witnessed this encounter with Mr. McDonough. Mr. Krossman interviewed Mr. McDonough who stated that he handled all the business for Krashco, Inc., and that Krashco, Inc., had one full-time employee and six hourly employees. Mr. McDonough provided the names of those employees to Ms. Krossman and told her that Krashco, Inc., had no workers' compensation insurance policy to cover those employees. This revelation was corroborated by Mr. Dorney who was also present. Mr. McDonough identified Ms. Janis Kay Porter-Krasno as the sole officer of the corporation, Krashco, Inc. He provided the telephone number for Ms. Krasno and Investigator Krossman telephoned Ms. Krasno. She confirmed the number and the names of the employees of Krashco, Inc., and J. Krash's Sports Bar. She also confirmed that Krashco, Inc., had no workers' compensation coverage. In accordance with Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, insurance carriers report to the Department the issuance to businesses of workers' compensation insurance policies. The Department issues workers' compensation insurance exemptions also. The Department maintains an electronic database of employer coverage and exemptions in its Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS), which allows investigators to determine whether an employer has secured workers' compensation insurance coverage or whether that employer has an exemption from coverage. This database is used in the normal course of the Department's investigations. Ms. Krossman utilized the CCAS data base in the subject investigation. This database confirmed that the Respondent had no workers' compensation coverage and no exemption from coverage from any officer of the Respondent corporation at the time of the investigation. (See Department exhibits three and four in evidence). The Department has a policy or statutory interpretation which it carries out, concerning its duties under Section 440.107(7)(a), Florida Statutes (2005), requiring that if an employer who is required to secure payment of workers' compensation benefits has failed to do so, that failure is deemed an immediate serious danger to public health safety or welfare and results in the issuance of a "Stop Work Order" by the Department. In view of her investigation as described, Investigator Krossman determined that the Respondent was in violation of the workers' compensation law. This was because it employed more than four individuals, for whom the Respondent was required to secure the payment of workers' compensation and yet had no workers' compensation for any of its employees. Investigator Krossman's supervisor, Mr. Dorney, reviewed the results of Ms. Korssman's investigation and agreed with her and authorized her to issue a Stop Work Order to the Respondent due to its failure to comply with the relevant requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. Indeed, the Respondent ultimately stipulated its liability for the charge that it violated Section 440.107(7), Florida Statutes (2005), by not securing the payment of workers' compensation for the employees in question. The Stop Work Order was served on Krashco, Inc., on August 11, 2005, alerting that employer in accordance with Section 440.107(7)(d), Florida Statutes (2005), that a penalty would be assessed and that the penalty might be amended based on further information obtained, including the production of business records by the employer. The Stop Work Order also advised that if the employer conducted any business operations in violation of the Stop Work Order that a penalty of $1,000.00 per day of violation would be assessed. Under the mandate of Section 440.107(5), Florida Statutes (2005), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.015, Florida employers are required to maintain business records that enable the Department to determine whether an employer is complying with the workers' compensation law. On August 11, 2005, Ms. Krossman issued and hand served on Krashco, Inc., a written request for production of business records for purposes of a penalty assessment calculation. On September 14 and 19, 2005, the Respondent's accountant provided business records to the Department. After reviewing those business records, Investigator Krossman again consulted with her supervisor Mr. Dorney, who authorized her to issue an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is the Department's Exhibit 9 in evidence. The Amended Order was issued and served on Respondent on September 26, 2005, and assessed a total penalty of $49,979.79 under the authority of Section 440.107(7)(d)1. and (c), Florida Statutes (2005). The penalty calculations pertaining to each of the employees listed appeared in a three page worksheet attached and incorporated as part of Department's exhibit nine in evidence. Investigator Krossman selected the appropriate NCCI class code for Krashco Inc.'s business, and its corresponding premium rate, in order to apply that to each employee's wages. The Department relies on these premium rates and the classification codes for these purposes in the normal course of its regulation of such matters.1/ Ultimately, at hearing, the Respondent stipulated that it did not dispute the charge in the Amended Order and does not dispute the accuracy of the penalty calculation.2/ In light of the requirements of Section 440.107(7)(d)1., Florida Statutes (2005), Investigator Krossman calculated the penalty for the period of non-compliance back to September 1, 2002, pursuant to the three year "reach back standard" in the statute. The premium which had thus been evaded which the Respondent would have paid had it secured workers' compensation insurance was thus shown to be $7,986.43. The statutorily provided penalty on that amount of evaded premium multiplied by the statutory standard of 1.5 times resulted in a penalty amount of $11,979.79. Respondent also stipulated at the hearing that it had violated the Stop Work Order issued on August 11, 2005, by continuing to conduct its business operations of J. Krash's Sports Bar through September 19, 2005. This engendered an additional penalty as provided in Section 440.107(7)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes (2005). Investigator Krossman calculated the additional penalty at $1,000.00 per day of violation time from August 12, 2005 through September 19, 2005, at $38,000.00. This results in a total aggregate assessed penalty, pursuant to the Amended Order, of $49,979.79. The business of Respondent Krashco, Inc., is J. Krash's Sports Bar. Its principal place of business is 1508 Calhoun Avenue, Panama City, Florida 32405. Section 440.107(7)(a), Florida Statutes (2005), requires a cessation of all business operations by an employer when a Stop Work Order is issued by that employer by the Department. The Stop Work Order "shall remain in effect until the Department issues an order releasing the Stop Work Order upon a finding that the employer has come into compliance with the coverage requirements of this Chapter and has paid any penalty assessed under this section."3/ Krashco, Inc., has never paid any part of the assessed penalty pursuant to the Amended Order or the Second Amended Order filed later. The Department has never issued an Order of Release from the Stop Work Order. Nevertheless, the Respondent Krashco, Inc., after September 19, 2005, continued the business operations of J. Krash's Sports Bar. Officers of corporations may elect an exemption from coverage under the workers' compensation law as an employee (see Section 440.05). This exemption is effective, however, only for the corporation listed in the eligible officer's Notice of Election to be Exempt and which is paying that officer's salary or wages. Three new corporations were formed whereby the previous employees of Krashco, Inc., d/b/a J. Krash's Sports Bar became officers of Krashco, Inc., and those three new corporations. This is because Krashco, Inc., needed people to operate the bar on its behalf to buy goods and services to sell and dispense at its business, J. Krash's Sports Bar. Krashco, Inc.'s former employees became officers of these three newly created corporations and two of the former employees became officers of the Respondent Krashco, Inc. Krashco, Inc., d/b/a J. Krash's Sports Bar verbally contracted with these new officers of the new corporations to perform the same services for its business, J. Krash's Sports Bar, that those same individuals had been performing before becoming officers of these corporations, performing security, catering, and bartending services. Krashco, Inc.'s, principals were of the belief that it was necessary to secure the services in this manner in order to continue the operation of its business, without employees, so that it would no longer be required to have workers' compensation coverage for them. After August 11, 2005, and through most of the remainder of 2005, Ms. Janis Krasno, the President of Krashco, Inc., continued to pay these new officers, the former employees, directly with checks drawn on Krashco Inc.'s account and made payable to the individual officers as payees (not to their corporation) for the same services they had performed for the benefit of J. Krash's Sports Bar.4/ Keith Larson, an employee of Krashco, Inc., became an officer of the original Krashco, Inc., as well as Crashco, Inc., one of the three newly created corporations. Keith Larson elected an exemption from Chapter 440 as an officer of Krashco, Inc. Larson's election of exemption with Krashco, Inc., however, did not become effective until November 2, 2005. Consequently, Keith Larson continued to be paid by Krashco, Inc., as an employee through at least November 1, 2005. Six other Krashco, Inc., employees were granted exemptions (as officers of the other corporations) by the Petitioner from the requirement of workers' compensation coverage, which were all effective on August 22, 2005. This reduced the number of employees of record to less than the compliment of four (or more) for which coverage is required. This would seem, under only these circumstances, to represent the expiration of liability by the Respondent for failure to secure payment of workers' compensation and to also be the date the Stop Work Order should be rescinded and further penalties tolled. The fact is, however, that Ms. Krasno and the Respondent, Krashco, Inc., as found below, continued to pay these "former employees" with Krashco, Inc., checks made to them individually (not to their corporations), for the same job duties, until December 15, 2005. Thus they continued to function as employees of the Respondent, Krashco, Inc., until that date. After that date they were paid by a new corporation, Crashco, Inc. Ms. Janis Krasno, President of Krashco, Inc., continued to operate and run J. Krash's Sports Bar as an officer of and on behalf of Krashco, Inc., through April 28, 2006. This included payment of Krashco's expenses occasioned in the operation of the business. Ms. Krasno, President of Krashco, Inc., wrote checks through December 15, 2005, drawn on Krashco, Inc.'s bank account to pay for Krashco, Inc.'s business operation expenses, all of which were for the benefit of operating J. Krash's Sports Bar. Ms. Krasno as President of Krashco, Inc., issued checks through December 15, 2005, drawn on that corporation's account to pay the individual officers of the three new corporations which had been formed, and of Krashco, Inc., for those officers' bartending, security, and catering services, all of which were performed to continue and perpetuate the operation of J. Krash's Sports Bar. Ms. Krasno issued checks through December 15, 2005, on Krashco, Inc.'s account, to promote sales, by the promotion of upcoming activities to be held at the bar, or to purchase goods for sale at J. Krash's Sports Bar, from various vendors, for non-alcoholic drinks, restaurant supplies, food and other goods for parties. Such payments were also used to pay vendors such as Goldring Gulf Distributing Company and other distributors for alcoholic beverages to be sold in the operation of J. Krash's Sports Bar, and for incidental expenses. From August 12, 2005 through December 15, 2005, and through April 28, 2006, J. Krash's Sports Bar was generally open for business seven days a week from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 a.m. Since September 19, 2005 through April 28, 2006, Ms. Krasno still controlled the management and operations of Krashco, Inc., d/b/a J. Krash's Sports Bar. On December 21, 2005, however, Krashco, Inc.'s, president, Ms. Krasno, who also became president of Crashco, Inc., began issuing checks drawn on the bank account of Crashco, Inc., to pay for expenses occasioned in the operation of the Respondent's business J. Krash's Sports Bar. These were payments to the same officers she had been paying since September 19, 2005, for their bartending, security, and catering services, as well as to essentially the same vendors for purchases of alcoholic beverages, etc. for sale at J. Krash's Sports Bar. Through the date of the final hearing Ms. Krasno, with checks drawn on the account of Crashco, Inc., purchased alcoholic beverages on behalf of Krashco, Inc., the holder of liquor license BEV1301819, in order to continue the business operations of Krashco, Inc., d/b/a J. Krash's Sports Bar. After December 21, 2005 and through April 28, 2006, income of sales at J. Krash's Sports Bar was deposited in Crashco, Inc.'s account. After entry of the Amended Order on September 26, 2005, the Respondent timely filed its request for a formal proceeding on October 14, 2005. This rendered the initial agency action to be non-final, to await the outcome of this de novo, proceeding.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, the conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation assessing, under the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment and the Stop-Work Order, a penalty in the total amount of $136,979.80, together with an additional assessment for failure to secure coverage for the period of September 19, 2005 through December 15, 2005, in the manner provided in Subsection 440.107(7)(d)1., Florida Statutes (2005). DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of January, 2007, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of January, 2007.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment previously imposed against Yzaguirre Enterprises, Inc., was properly applied to Respondent as a successor-in-interest to Yzaguirre Enterprises, Inc.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner (also referred to herein as the "Department") is the state agency responsible for, inter alia, monitoring businesses within the state to ensure that such businesses are providing the requisite workers' compensation insurance coverage for all employees. The Department's headquarters are located in Tallahassee, Florida, but its investigators are spread throughout the state in order to more effectively monitor businesses. The Department is authorized to impose penalties against any businesses failing to maintain the proper insurance coverage for its employees. Workers' compensation coverage is required if a business entity has one or more employees and is engaged in the construction industry in Florida. Workers' compensation coverage may be secured via three non-mutually exclusive methods: 1) the purchase of a workers' compensation insurance policy; 2) arranging for the payment of wages and workers' compensation coverage through an employee leasing company; or 3) applying for and receiving a certificate of exemption from workers' compensation coverage, if certain statutorily-mandated criteria are met. Respondent is a sole proprietorship and is a duly- certified general contractor (License No. CGC1505393) in the State of Florida. Respondent was engaged in the work of carpentry on August 4, 2009. Carpentry has a construction industry classification code of 5654. Respondent's sole proprietorship is a successor-in- interest to a corporation known as Yzaguirre Enterprises, Inc. (YEI). Tammy Yzaguirre was the vice-president and a director of YEI. That corporation was administratively dissolved on September 25, 2009, for failure to file its annual report. YEI was primarily engaged in the business of carpentry. On October 13, 2008, the Department conducted an investigation of a job site in Immokalee, Florida, where YEI was engaged in work. During its investigation, the Department ascertained that several employees of YEI were not covered by a valid workers' compensation insurance policy, nor were those workers exempt from coverage. A Stop-Work Order was issued by the Department against YEI and posted on the work site. The Stop-Work Order, along with an Order of Penalty Assessment, was also given to Esequiel Yzaguirre (by hand- delivery) on November 12, 2008. Meanwhile, an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was issued by the Department and sent to Respondent via certified mail. The Amended Order imposed a penalty in the amount of one hundred fifty-one thousand, seven hundred fifty-eight dollars and forty-six cents ($151,758.46). Neither the Stop-Work Order, nor the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, was timely challenged by YEI. While Respondent did engage in some discussions and exchange of documents with the Department concerning the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, she did not avail herself of the appeal rights stated in the Order. Respondent did not enter into a settlement agreement or payment plan with the Department, because she did not have any money to make payments. As of the date of the final hearing in this matter, the Stop-Work Order and Amended Order of Penalty Assessment had not been released. Instead of paying the amount set forth in the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, Respondent formed a sole proprietorship in her name, obtained the necessary licenses and certifications to operate, and began to engage in the work of general construction again. Prior to commencing this work, Respondent obtained a workers' compensation insurance policy in an effort to satisfy all state requirements. Respondent did not intentionally attempt to break or circumvent any laws by the commencement of her new business. Respondent did not know that starting a new business in her name would be deemed improper by the Department. On August 4, 2009, the Department was engaged in a "sweep" in Immokalee, Florida. A sweep entails a large number of investigators working together in one place at one time for the purpose of determining whether employers in the area were complying with workers' compensation insurance requirements. During its sweep, a Department investigator noticed a YEI truck parked at a job site. The investigator took action to determine who was working out of the truck and obtained information about Respondent, i.e., that Respondent's new sole proprietorship may be engaged in on-going work at that site. Respondent argues that the truck was not being used by the new sole proprietorship. Rather, the truck had been loaned to some individuals who were working on their own or with other employers. Thus, claims Respondent, the Department should not be allowed to take any action against the sole proprietorship. There is no valid basis for Respondent's position. Upon further investigation, the Department ascertained that Respondent was operating under an entity that was deemed a successor-in-interest to YEI. That being the case, the Department issued its Order, which was served via hand-delivery to Respondent on August 5, 2009. At final hearing, Respondent attempted to object to the Department's findings relating to the initial Stop-Work Order from 2008. However, inasmuch as that Stop-Work Order was never formally challenged and became final by operation of law, the time for objections to it has passed. Thus, Respondent's testimony concerning whether or not all the workers listed in the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment were actually YEI's employees was not accepted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, affirming the Order Applying Stop-Work Order and Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to Successor Corporation or Business Entity. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of February, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 4th day of February, 2010.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent violated Sections 440.10 and 440.38, Florida Statutes (1997), by not securing workers' compensation insurance for its Florida employees; and if so, whether Petitioner properly issued a Stop Work Order and assessed civil penalties pursuant to Sections 440.107(5) and 440.107(7), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1998).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency that is charged with the responsibility of enforcing the statutory requirements for employers to provide their employees with workers' compensation coverage. Respondent is a business, located in Savannah, Georgia, that supplies workers on a temporary basis to client businesses. The services that Respondent provides to its client businesses include the payment of payroll, taxes, and workers' compensation insurance for the temporary employees. American Interstate Insurance Company (AIIC) provided Eastern Personnel Services II, Federal Employers Identification Number (FEIN) 58-2340211, with workers' compensation insurance from November 18, 1997, through November 18, 1998, in the state of Georgia. AIIC's policy number 97WAGA1109996 did not provide coverage for any of Respondent's workers in Florida. AIIC is not authorized in Florida to write insurance for an employer with Respondent's assigned risk classification. Safeco Insurance Company of America (SICA) provided Respondent, FEIN 58-2340211, with workers' compensation insurance from December 29, 1998, through December 29, 1999, in the states of Georgia and South Carolina only. SICA's policy number WC7260735 as originally drafted, and as it existed on March 2, 1999, did not provide coverage for any workers in Florida. Paul Day is Respondent's president and sole officer and shareholder. He is also the owner of Eastern Personnel Services II, a sole proprietorship. According to AIIC's and SICA's insurance policies, both entities have the same FEIN. The record here indicates that there is no substantive difference between Respondent and Eastern Personnel Services II. Respondent's testimony to the contrary is not persuasive. 1/ For all practical purposes, Respondent and Eastern Personnel Services II were under the exclusive management and control of Mr. Day at all relevant times. Beginning as early as August 28, 1997 and continuing through March 2, 1999, Respondent provided employees to Foley & Associates Construction Co., Inc. (Foley) at one or more work sites on Amelia Island, Florida. Respondent did not secure workers' compensation insurance for these workers. Stanley Benner was one of the first of Respondent's employees to begin working at Foley's Amelia Island job site. On November 9, 1998, Mr. Benner was injured while working for Respondent. Mr. Benner filed a workers' compensation claim against Respondent and AIIC seeking compensation for his injuries. He subsequently learned that AIIC did not provide workers' compensation insurance for Respondent in Florida. Mr. Benner has received no compensation from Respondent or any insurance carrier for his work-related injury. On March 2, 1999, Mr. Benner's attorney filed a complaint with Petitioner regarding Respondent's lack of workers' compensation coverage. Robert Lambert, Petitioner's investigator immediately went to Foley's job site to investigate the complaint. Upon his arrival at the construction site, Mr. Lambert learned that Respondent had 21 employees performing general contract labor for Foley that day. Foley's office manager informed Mr. Lambert that Respondent had provided Foley with between 15 and 20 laborers per day for one year. Next, Mr. Lambert called Mr. Day who provided a certificate of insurance from SICA by facsimile transmission. However, the certificate listed Saxon and Associates, a business located in Georgia, as the certificate holder. It did not reference coverage for employees provided to Foley in Florida. Mr. Lambert then called Linda Burtchett of HGI, Inc. She is an insurance agent and the authorized representative of SICA. HGI, Inc. is the producer of SICA's policy number WC7260735. Ms. Burtchett informed Mr. Lambert that SICA's policy number WC7260735 did not cover Respondent's employees in the state of Florida. To her knowledge, Respondent had never reported any wages on a Florida payroll. Mr. Lambert issued a Stop Work Order dated March 2, 1999. The Stop Work Order required Respondent to immediately cease all work at the Foley construction site. It advised Respondent that a civil penalty in the amount of $100 would be assessed for each day that it failed to provide the required workers' compensation coverage. Later on March 2, 1999, Respondent requested HGI, Inc. to provide coverage for its Florida employees working at the Foley job site under SICA's policy number WC7260735. HGI, Inc. complied with Respondent's request. Accordingly, Petitioner correctly assessed Respondent with a civil penalty in the amount of $100 in conjunction with the Stop Work Order. Mr. Day testified that the endorsement to the SICA policy provided coverage for Respondent's Florida employees retroactive to September 29, 1998. He also testified that another of Respondent's Florida employees was injured at the Foley construction site on January 18, 1999, and received compensation under the SICA policy. Mr. Day's testimony is not credited in light of Ms. Burtchett's testimony. On March 2, 1999, Petitioner informally requested Respondent to provide business records to establish the value of its Florida payroll during the three years before Petitioner issued the Stop Work Order. Respondent refused to provide Petitioner with any payroll records. Petitioner obtained records maintained by Foley regarding Respondent's employment activities at the Amelia Island job site. Foley's records showed the number of employees that Respondent employed, the number of hours worked by each employee, and their hourly rate of pay. Respondent admitted and Foley's records confirmed that Respondent's payroll at the Foley construction site was $209,249.86 between January 5, 1998 and March 1, 1999. The National Council of Compensation Insurance (NCCI) classifies Respondent as a temporary labor service. According to the NCCI, the employment activities conducted by Respondent's employees at the Foley construction site have an assigned insurance premium rate in the conservative amount of $22.34 for each $100 of payroll. Therefore, Respondent's evaded insurance premium on a payroll of $209,249.86 is $46,746. The administrative penalty is twice the evaded premium of $46,746 or $93,492. On March 31, Petitioner properly issued a Notice and Penalty Assessment Order requiring Respondent to pay an administrative penalty in the amount of $93,492. Respondent's untimely discovery responses indicated that its Florida payroll was $196,701.62 in 1998 and $65,165.36 in 1999. Petitioner could have assessed Respondent with an administrative penalty in the amount of $115,743.26.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order affirming the Stop Work Order and Notice and Penalty Assessment Order with their associated penalties, plus any lawful interest. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of October, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 12th day of October, 1999.
The Issue Whether the Respondent was required to carry workers' compensation insurance coverage for its employees and, if it failed to do so, whether the Amended Notice and Penalty Assessment Order is correct.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Petitioner, the Department of Labor and Employment Security, Division of Workers’ Compensation was the state agency charged with the responsibility of administering compliance with state laws governing workers’ compensation (WC). The Respondent, A. J. Interiors, Inc., is a Florida corporation doing business at 1825 Mears Parkway, Margate, Florida. At all times material to this case, Robert Barnes was an investigator employed by the Department to perform compliance investigations for WC. On July 6, 2000, Investigator Barnes performed a random construction site inspection at a new construction project located at 16687 Jog Road, Delray Beach, Florida. While at that location, Investigator Barnes observed two men wearing T-shirts bearing the company name "A. J. Interiors, Inc." along with its telephone number. The men were installing metal framing in order to hang and finish drywall. The field interview with the two men, identified in this record as Sergio and Jaime Gonzalez, revealed that neither was covered by WC insurance. This information was later confirmed by Investigator Barnes. Additionally, neither man had obtained an exemption from coverage as the sole proprietor of a business. Based upon the field interview of the two men, a review of Department records, and contact with the Respondent's insurance agent, Investigator Barnes correctly determined that the men were the Respondent’s "employees” as that term is defined by the WC law. The men did not supply materials to the job site but agreed to perform work based upon a price described as a "per board" industry standard rate. In other words, the men would hang the drywall at a flat rate (established by and consistent with the local industry standard) for each job accepted through the Respondent. If the work were completed, the men expected to be paid by the Respondent. The men did not contract with or work for the general contractor of the job. The only requirement for payment was the performance of the work. The only risk incurred by the workers related to their relationship with the Respondent. Having concluded that the workers were not covered by WC and were not exempt, Investigator Barnes caused a stop work order to be issued against the Respondent. In conjunction with that order, the Department requested copies of the Respondent's business records. A review of the "vendor accounts” supplied by the Respondent established that its workers were paid amounts presumably based upon the number of boards hung per job identified. The payments were not always the same amount as the number of boards hung for a given job could vary. Additionally, the Respondent allowed workers to receive "draws" against the expected payments for uncompleted jobs. The Respondent’s claim that the workers were independent contractors has not been deemed credible. Based upon the testimony of the Respondent's witness all of the workers performed as outlined by the men interviewed by Investigator Barnes. The Respondent did not have a valid WC policy during the three years preceding the stop work order. The Amended Notice and Penalty Assessment Order prepared by Investigator Barnes accurately calculates the amounts owed by the Respondent for the three-year period.
The Issue Did Respondent fail to comply with Sections 440.10 and 440.38, Florida Statutes, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency of the State of Florida government responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement, pursuant to Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, that employers secure the payment of workers' compensation for the benefit of their employees. Respondent works in the construction industry, specifically as it relates to drywall services. On February 25, 2004, Petitioner's investigator, David Kunz, visited Respondent's worksite at 400 West Bay Street in Jacksonville, Florida (also known as the Bennett Federal Building). Petitioner's investigator observed 12 workers engaged in drywall construction. Mr. Kunz spoke with Respondent's project foreman at the worksite, and with the assistance of a Spanish-speaking colleague, he interviewed all of Respondent's workers at the site. A representative of the general contractor, Skanska, U.S.A., furnished Petitioner's investigator with a certificate of workers' compensation insurance which had been provided to the general contractor by Respondent as a subcontractor on the Bennett Federal Building job. The address listed for Respondent was in North Carolina, and the producer of the policy also had a North Carolina address. The next day, Petitioner's investigator obtained a copy of Respondent's workers' compensation insurance policy. After reviewing the policy, the investigator concluded that Respondent had violated Florida's Workers' Compensation Law, because an endorsement applying Florida premium rates was not a part of the policy. Mr. Kunz then issued a Stop Work Order to Respondent on February 26, 2004. The Stop Work Order required Respondent to cease its business operations immediately, due to its lack of compliance with Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. By the Stop Work Order, Respondent was charged with failure to secure the payment of workers' compensation that met the requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and the Florida Insurance Code, because North Carolina premium rates, rather than Florida premium rates, had been applied. The Stop Work Order indicated that the penalty amount assessed against Respondent would be subject to amendment based on further information provided by Respondent, including the provision of business records. St. Paul's Insurance Companies maintain a presence in Orlando, Florida, but the documents subsequently provided by Respondent to the investigator as purported proof of Respondent's compliance with Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, did not meet all necessary Florida requirements. The carrier on Respondent's policy is St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company. The "producer" was "Insur A Car Commercial" in North Carolina. The "producer" is the agent responsible for processing the policy for the insurance carrier. Respondent's workers' compensation insurance policy lists U & M Contractors, Inc., 9036 Arborgate Dr., Apt. A, Charlotte, NC 28273 in the "Insured" column. The policy number is 6S16UB-0130B52-8-03. Respondent's insurance policy was "produced" outside Florida. Respondent had procured workers' compensation insurance from an insurance carrier which was appropriately licensed to do business in Florida, but Respondent did not maintain at all times a Florida endorsement to its policy indicating that the applicable premium rates were Florida premium rates. Respondent's workers' compensation insurance policy includes no Florida endorsement showing the application of Florida premium rates. Only North Carolina is listed in Item 3A of Respondent's workers' compensation policy. The endorsement (WC 00 03 26 (A)) for "Other States Insurance" in Respondent's policy specifically states that it "does not satisfy the requirements of that state's workers' compensation law" for any state not listed in Item 3A. Florida is not listed in Item 3A. The "Extension of Information" page of Respondent's workers' compensation insurance policy indicates the type of work that Respondent intends to perform, pursuant to the policy. The type of work is indicated by a class code, or number, assigned to the type or category of work. The Extension of Information page assigns class code 5445 (drywall installation) as to the work Respondent would be performing under the policy. The source for the class codes is the SCOPES Manual, published by the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI). Petitioner's Agency's adoption of the SCOPES Manual was accomplished by Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.021. Respondent's policy's Extension of Information page further indicates that a premium rate (rate per $100.00 of remuneration provided to Respondent's employees) of $10.20 had been applied by the insurer for class code 5445, and that the premium rate was for North Carolina, not Florida. By contrast, the approved Florida premium rate for class code 5445 is $20.88 per $100.00 of remuneration. The source for Florida premium rates is the NCCI Basic Manual. Mr. Kunz testified that the Basic Manual is used regularly by workers' compensation investigators. Mr. Kunz issued an Agency Request for Business Records on February 26, 2004, the same date as the Stop Work Order. He specifically sought Respondent's payroll records, because Chapter 440 requires Petitioner "to calculate the penalty of an employer who is in noncompliance based on the employer's payroll." Some payroll records were forwarded to Mr. Kunz by Respondent. Some payroll records were provided to one of Petitioner's fellow investigators by a general contractor for whom Respondent had subcontracted drywall installation at the Bennett Federal Building worksite. The latter records were part of a separate investigation, but were shared between the two investigators. However, several weeks of Respondent's payroll records were not initially provided from any source. Respondent's payroll records include, among other entries, the names of its workers and the dates and amounts of remuneration provided to those workers. The records indicate that Respondent provided remuneration to its workers in the years 2003 and 2004. The penalty period assigned by Petitioner against Respondent is from November 17, 2003, through February 25, 2004, because November 17, 2003, was the day that work on the Bennett Federal Building began, and February 25, 2004, was the date listed in the Stop Work Order. Mr. Kunz used the payroll records he had to calculate an initial penalty amount of $74,479.90. Payroll for weeks not accounted for in Respondent's first production of payroll records was imputed by Mr. Kunz in the initial penalty amount, pursuant to Chapter 440, by calculations based on the first records he had. He issued the First Amended Penalty Assessment Order (Amended Order) to Respondent on March 3, 2004, in the amount of $74,479.90. A subsequent production of records by Respondent caused Petitioner to recalculate the penalty for some weeks for which payroll previously had only been imputed. The recalculation caused the assessed penalty amount to decrease to $51,779.50, and on March 9, 2004, a second Amended Order in the amount of $51,779.50 was issued to Respondent. The second Amended Order included the imputation of payroll for Respondent's two owners, Juan Mitchell (Mitchell) and Hector Urbina (Urbina). Mr. Kunz had received no payroll records at any time for the two owners, though he had twice specifically requested those records. He determined that the owners were named on Respondent's insurance policy and had actually been present on the Florida worksite. Mitchell and Urbina are classified under code 5445 (drywall installation). Their respective average weekly wages for the entire penalty period was imputed according to Chapter 440, and the penalty amount for Mitchell and Urbina was calculated by first multiplying the evaded premium amount by the premium rate for class code 5445. The evaded premium amount was determined by taking the amount of wages for a penalty period, dividing it by one hundred (100), and multiplying it by the premium rate for the pertinent class code. The evaded premium amount was then multiplied by 1.5 to arrive at the penalty amount assessed for Mitchell ($4,434.72) and for Urbina ($4,434.72). The 1.5 multiplier is specifically required by Section 440.107(7)(d)1., Florida Statutes. Wages were similarly imputed for the following employees for February 23, 24, and 25, in 2004, because records did not exist for that partial work week: Alex Rosales; Jose Jimenez: Julio Betata; Orlin Betata; Erick Estrada; Melvin Landaverde; Neptale Lopez; and Jose Valentin. In calculating the penalty for the remainder of Respondent's workers for whom payroll records were provided, Petitioner's investigator similarly applied the foregoing methodology.
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 that affirms the Stop Work Order and assesses the $51,779.50 penalty cited in the Second Amended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of April, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Joe Thompson Assistant General Counsel Department of Financial Services Division of Workers' Compensation 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Juan Carlos Mitchell U & M Contractors 1912 Southwest 67th Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33068 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Pete Dunbar, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issues are whether nine workers were employees of Respondent, during part of the audit period; whether Respondent failed to secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage in violation of Section 440.107, Florida Statutes (2003); and whether Petitioner should impose a penalty against Respondent in the amount of $123,960.23.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure the payment of workers' compensation for the benefit of their employees. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. (2002). Respondent is a closely held corporation domiciled in Florida and engaged in the sale and installation of floor coverings. Mr. Dennis Davison and Mrs. Lynne Davison, a married couple, own all of the outstanding stock of Respondent (the owners). Respondent has five in-office employees, including the owners, and had a net worth of approximately $100,000 before paying the proposed penalty. On April 2, 2004, Petitioner's compliance officer conducted a random site inspection of a single-family residence at 213 Northwest 3rd Place, Cape Coral, Florida. Mr. John Walega and Mr. Mike Stephens were laying carpet in the residence (Walega and Stephens, respectively). Walega was a sole proprietor who employed Stephens. The compliance officer determined that Walega was an employee of Respondent because Walega had an expired exemption and no proof of workers' compensation insurance coverage. The compliance officer issued separate stop work orders against Walega and Respondent. The stop work order against Walega is not at issue in this proceeding. The compliance officer issued the stop work order against Respondent even though: she knew that Respondent had compensation coverage for Respondent's five employees through a leasing company; and she had no knowledge that Respondent had subcontractors other than Walega working for Respondent. The compliance officer requested Respondent's business records for the three years from April 2, 2001, through April 2, 2004 (the audit period). Respondent fully complied with the request in a timely manner. The stop work order issued against Respondent on April 2, 2004, also assessed a penalty stated as the greater of $1,000 or 1.5 times the premium Respondent would have paid in premium charges during the period Respondent allegedly failed to secure the payment of workers' compensation insurance. Sometime between April 2 and 16, 2004, Petitioner amended the penalty assessment to $137,820.72. On April 16, 2004, the owners mortgaged their personal residence to pay the amended penalty assessment. Petitioner released the stop work order, but the owners lost business in an unspecified dollar amount while the stop work order was in effect and continue to incur monthly interest expense in the amount of $500 to service the mortgage on their home. On June 28, 2004, Petitioner issued a Seconded Amended Order of Penalty Assessment No. 04-157-D7-2 that reduced the assessed penalty to $123,960.23 (the Seconded Amended Order). Respondent is entitled to a refund in the amount of $13,860.49, but Petitioner had not paid the refund as of the date of hearing. The Second Amended Order is the proposed agency action at issue in this proceeding. The compliance officer is the only employee for Petitioner who investigated and developed the substantive information that forms the basis of Petitioner's proposed agency action. Other employees calculated the actual amounts of the proposed penalties. Respondent does not challenge the mathematical accuracy of the penalty calculations by Petitioner, but challenges the legal and factual basis of Petitioner's determination that nine workers were Respondent's employees. The nine workers are identified in the record as Walega; Messrs. James Allan, Bertin Flores, Cliff Hill, David Lancaster, Earl Lancaster, Jeff Dozier, Anthony Gioe; and Ms. Patricia Lancaster. The statutory definition of an employee for that part of the audit period before January 1, 2004 (the relevant period), was different than the statutory definition that became effective on January 1, 2004. Factual findings concerning the nine workers at issue are driven by one statutory definition during the relevant period and another statutory definition thereafter. Any of the nine workers that satisfied the statutory definition in former Subsection 440.02(15)(d)1, Florida Statutes (2003), of an independent contractor should not have been included in that part of the proposed penalty attributable to the relevant period. Effective January 1, 2004, however, Subsection 440.02(15)(d)1, Florida Statutes (2003), no longer excludes independent contractors in the construction industry from the definition of an employee. Thus, a determination of whether a worker was an independent contractor is not relevant to that portion of the proposed penalty covering any part of the audit period after December 31, 2003. Effective January 1, 2004, Subsection 440.02(15)(c)2, Florida Statutes (2003), no longer excludes a subcontractor, including those that would have satisfied the former definition of an independent contractor, from the definition of an employee unless the subcontractor either executes a valid exemption election or otherwise secures payment of compensation coverage as a subcontractor. There is insufficient evidence to support a finding that any of the nine workers at issue in this proceeding either elected a valid exemption or otherwise secured payment for compensation coverage after December 31, 2003. The nine workers at issue in this proceeding are not excluded from the definition of an employee after December 31, 2004, even if they were independent contractors throughout the audit period. Except for constitutional arguments raised by Respondent over which DOAH has no jurisdiction, Respondent owes that part of the penalty attributable to any period after December 31, 2003. It is undisputed that the nine workers included in that part of the penalty assessment attributable to the relevant period were subcontractors throughout the audit period. Respondent's ledger clearly treated the workers as subcontractors and reported their earnings on Form 1099 for purposes of the federal income tax. Petitioner treated the workers as subcontractors in the penalty calculation. Customers of Respondent paid Respondent for installation of floor coverings they purchased from Respondent, and Respondent paid each of the nine workers to install the floor coverings. The Workers' Compensation Law in effect during the relevant period did not expressly exclude from the definition of an employee those subcontractors who executed a valid exemption election or otherwise secured payment of compensation coverage as a subcontractor. Findings concerning the existence of an exemption election or payment of compensation coverage are neither relevant nor material to the statutory definition of an employee during the relevant period. During the relevant period, the nine workers at issue were excluded from the definition of an employee only if they satisfied the definition of an independent contractor in former Subsection 440.02(15)(d)1, Florida Statutes (2003). Each of the nine workers were required to satisfy all of the following requirements: 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 preponderance of evidence shows that each of the nine workers at issue was an independent contractor during the relevant period. Respondent conducted the ordinary course of its trade or business with each of the nine workers in substantially the identical manner. None of the workers shared office space with Respondent. Each worker used his or her own truck, equipment, and tools to transport the floor coverings sold by Respondent and to install them in a customer's premises. Petitioner admits that Walega was a sole proprietor. Each of the other workers either held a federal employer identification number or was a sole proprietor who was not required to obtain a federal employer identification number. Each worker agreed to perform specific services or work for specific amounts of money and controlled the means of performing the services or work. Each worker incurred his or her own expenses to install floor coverings. Each worker transported floor coverings and necessary materials to the work site in the worker's own truck and used his or her own tools to perform the work. Each worker exercised independent professional judgment to perform the work. Respondent did not perform any pre-installation site inspection and did not perform any site preparation. Respondent did not train workers, instruct workers on how to perform their work, did not supervise their work while it was being performed, and did not perform any post-installation site inspection unless Respondent received a customer complaint. Each worker was responsible for the satisfactory completion of work or services that he or she performed. Each worker was liable to Respondent and the customer for any failure to complete the work or services or for inferior workmanship. Each worker warranted his or her work to the customer's satisfaction and absorbed the costs of rework and any damage to the customer's premises. Respondent paid each worker for work or services performed on a per-job or competitive-bid basis rather than any other basis. Respondent negotiated the price paid to a worker on a square-foot basis. The price did not change regardless of the amount of time the job required or the number of helpers the worker paid to assist the worker on the job. Each worker realized a profit or suffered a loss in installing floor coverings sold by Respondent. Each worker performed work for other vendors and had continuing or recurring business liabilities or obligations apart from installing floor coverings for Respondent. Each worker depended on the relationship of business receipts of expenditures for the success or failure of the worker's business. Each worker maintained his or her own occupational and professional licenses. Each worker maintained his or her own liability insurance. Respondent required each worker to sign a written form stating that the worker was an independent contractor. The form acknowledged the workers' warranty obligations and his or her obligations for their own taxes and insurance. Each form disclosed the workers' social security number or federal employer identification number. Respondent did not withhold federal income taxes from the payments to workers. Petitioner did not explicate the basis for reducing the proposed assessment in the Second Amended Order. However, the evidence reveals that the penalty reduction resulted from the exclusion of corporate subcontractors from the penalty base. The business relationship between Respondent and its corporate subcontractors during the relevant period was substantially the same as that between Respondent and the nine workers at issue. Early in this administrative proceeding on April 8, 2004, the compliance officer advised the owners that she was unable to release the stop work order against Respondent unless she could verify in Petitioner's data base, in relevant part, that the nine workers at issue each had a valid exemption or had insurance. However, Petitioner's database would not have disclosed compensation coverage maintained by a subcontractor through a leasing company. The compliance officer's advice to the owners did not reflect the law in effect during the relevant period. The Workers' Compensation Law in effect during the relevant period did not expressly exclude from the definition of an employee those workers who executed a valid exemption election or otherwise secured payment of compensation coverage as a subcontractor. The law excluded subcontractors from the definition of an employee only if the subcontractors satisfied the statutory definition of an independent contractor. The compliance officer made no effort to determine whether any of the workers she included in the penalty base satisfied the definition of an independent contractor. The compliance officer never advised the owners that establishing a subcontractor as an independent contractor would avoid part of the assessment against Respondent during the relevant period. The compliance officer never advised the owners that Respondent was free to choose to be represented by counsel during the audit process. The compliance officer told the owners that the only thing Respondent could do to avoid the assessment was to provide a certificate of insurance or an exemption for each of the subcontractors included in the penalty base. The compliance officer admitted that she was unaware that a subcontractor who was an independent contractor during the relevant period was legally excluded from the penalty base. Counsel for Respondent advised the compliance officer of the correct legal standard on April 12, 2004, but the compliance officer refused to release the stop work order unless Respondent paid the assessed penalty. The compliance officer knew that Walega had held a valid exemption at various times in the past as a sole proprietor. She knew Walega had renewed the exemption on October 29, 2003, for five years. However, Petitioner's database showed the exemption had expired on January 1, 2004, by operation of new law. Walega provided Respondent with a copy of the exemption he renewed on October 29, 2003. The exemption stated on its face that it was effective for five years. The owners had no actual knowledge that the exemption expired on January 1, 2004, as a result of a change in the Workers' Compensation Law. Petitioner admits that it issued the exemption to Walega knowing that the exemption would expire on January 1, 2004. Petitioner issued the exemption so that Walega could use it until January 1, 2004.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order dismissing the disputed charges against Respondent for the relevant period, refunding any overpayment by Respondent, and sustaining the remaining allegations and penalties against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of August, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of August, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: David C. Hawkins, Esquire Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 Susan McLaughlin, Esquire Law Offices of Michael F. Tew Building 800, Suite 2 6150 Diamond Center Court Fort Myers, Florida 33912 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Pete Dunbar, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent’s request for an administrative hearing was timely filed by virtue of the doctrine of equitable tolling.
Findings Of Fact The Division 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. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. Respondent is a Florida limited liability company engaged in the construction business. Its offices are located at 2474 Ambassador Avenue, Spring Hill, Florida. To enforce this requirement, the Division performs random inspections of job sites and investigates complaints concerning potential violations of workers’ compensation rules. On June 6, 2018, James Acaba, a Division compliance inspector, conducted a compliance investigation at a job site in Lutz, Florida. Mr. Acaba observed two individuals working at the job site: Respondent’s owner, Mr. Smith; and Mr. Smith’s step- son. Mr. Smith claimed he had an exemption for himself. Mr. Acaba ascertained that Mr. Smith’s exemption expired on January 19, 2017. Mr. Acaba determined that: Mr. Smith’s step-son was working for $12.00 an hour; had been working for Respondent for about a week; and did not have workers compensation coverage. On June 6, 2018, a Stop-Work Order and a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation purposes were hand-served on Mr. Smith at the job site. The Stop-Work Order contained an Order of Penalty Assessment, which explained how a penalty is calculated, but gave no specific amount pending a review of Respondent’s financial records. Mr. Smith was advised to provide the requested business records within 10 business days or by June 16, 2019. Mr. Smith requested information on how to have the Stop- Work Order removed. Mr. Acaba explained to Mr. Smith several options available to him to have the Stop-Work Order released: obtain a workers’ compensation policy; engage an employee leasing company; or terminate the step-son’s employment. On June 14, 2018, Mr. Smith provided Mr. Acaba a letter reflecting Respondent’s “reduction in (its) workforce.” On June 15, 2018, Mr. Smith secured the reinstatement of his exemption to work for Respondent. However, Mr. Smith did not provide the requested business records. On November 10, 2018, the Division served an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment (Amended Order) at the address Mr. Smith provided during the June 6, 2018, job site encounter. This Amended Order provided the total penalty amount of $35,769.16. According to Mr. Smith, his girlfriend, Samantha Nigh, signed for the Amended Order on November 10, 2018, saw the large amount of the penalty assessment, and “decided not to show” it to Mr. Smith. Ms. Nigh did not testify during the hearing. The Amended Order contained a Notice of Rights, which stated that, if Respondent wished to contest the penalty, a petition seeking a hearing had to be filed with the Division within twenty-one calendar days of the Amended Order. It also stated that the petition “must be filed with Julie Jones, DFS Agency Clerk, Department of Financial Services, 612 Larson Building, 200 East Gaines Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399- 0300.” The Amended Order included the following: FAILURE TO FILE A PETITION WIHTIN TWENTY-ONE(21) CALENDAR DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THIS AGENCY ACTION CONSTITUTES A WAIVER OF YOUR RIGHT TO ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OF THIS AGENCY ACTION. This meant that a petition had to be filed, and in the hands of the Agency Clerk no later than December 3, 2018. Although the actual due date was Saturday, December 1, 2018, Respondent could have filed the petition by the close of business on Monday, December 3, 2018. Florida Administrative Code Rule 18.106.103. Mr. Smith did not provide the date on which he became aware of the Amended Order. However, once he was aware of it, Mr. Smith knew the 21-day period to file a petition had expired, and admitted at hearing “it was already too late.” On December 14, 2018, 33 days after the Division served the Amended Order, and 11 days after the actual due date, the Division received Respondent’s hearing request. As a result of the late filing, the Division issued an Order to Show Cause (OTSC) on January 10, 2019. The OTSC required Respondent to show cause why the December 14, 2018, hearing request should not be dismissed as untimely. In the written response to the OTSC, Mr. Smith asserted that his brother, Edward Unger, “was only on the job site for the one day,” and Mr. Unger could “provide proof of employment elsewhere further (sic) showing he was not of our employment at the time.” Additionally, the response provided that “due to [an] emergency family situation where Byron Smith, owner, had to take a minor leave of absence to be with a close family member who had emergency open heart coronary bypass surgery. . ., the days and dates got scrambled with emotions clouding what needed to be done promptly.” The Division construed this conversation as possibly excusing the late filing and forwarded the matter to DOAH to resolve that narrow issue. During the hearing, Mr. Smith testified that his girlfriend, Ms. Nigh, prepared the OTSC response, but that his signature was on the document. Mr. Smith never clarified or corrected that Mr. Unger was his brother or step-son, and he merely reiterated the family problem and personal issues, without further detail or explanations, as his excuse. Lastly, Mr. Smith admitted that at the time Mr. Acaba observed the two working on June 6, 2018, he was breaking the rules, but “it was a huge penalty.” There is no credible evidence that Mr. Acaba gave Respondent’s owner, Mr. Smith any information that would cause him to miss the deadline for filing the petition.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, enter a final order dismissing Respondent’s request for a hearing as untimely. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of May, 2019. COPIES FURNISHED: Mattie Birster, Esquire Department of Financial Services Office of the General Counsel 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Byron K. Smith, Jr. Smith's Interior Finishes, LLC 17829 Laura Lee Drive Shadyhills, Florida 34610 Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 (eServed)
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent had sufficient or complete workers' compensation coverage for his employees pursuant to Chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2006).1
Findings Of Fact Respondent owns and operates a business engaged in the practice of installing flooring, including carpets, tile, hardwood, etc. He is a sole proprietor with no one else on his payroll. His work is performed by subcontractors whom he hires for each individual job. Respondent has been involved in the construction industry for many years and is generally aware of the concept of workers' compensation coverage. He has always operated under the assumption that an employer is only responsible for providing workers' compensation coverage for persons who are directly employed, i.e., that contracted employees (subcontractors) were exempt or had to pay their own coverage. Respondent did not make workers' compensation contributions for the subcontractors who did work for him. He acted on a good faith belief that such coverage was not his responsibility. On April 7, 2006, an investigator for Petitioner conducted a compliance investigation at Pegasus Point apartments in Orlando, Florida, pursuant to a public request. In Apartment J of the complex, the investigator observed a man (later identified as Jeff Menendez), who stated he was installing carpet. When asked about workers' compensation coverage, he replied that he was a subcontractor and did not believe he needed coverage. He said he got this job from "Allied" (the Petitioner in this case). As a result of this encounter, Petitioner contacted Respondent and asked for certain records in order to determine whether appropriate coverage was in place for its employees. When the requested records were not forthcoming, Petitioner entered a Stop Work Order. This prompted another request for business records so that Petitioner could calculate the appropriate penalty. Once it received the necessary records from Respondent, Petitioner determined there were several employees (as that term is defined in statute) working for Respondent for whom workers' compensation coverage had not been paid for the period of May 3, 2003, through May 3, 2006. When those workers were checked against Petitioner's data base--called the Coverage & Compliance Automated System, or CCAS--no coverage was found for Respondent or the identified employees for that period of time. One or more of the named employees had exemptions in place for a portion of the time they did work for Respondent. After taking that into consideration, Petitioner calculated a penalty of $28,619.97 against Respondent. The penalty was calculated using the Scopes Manual, a tool promulgated by rule. Respondent's business was identified in the Scopes Manual as Code 5478: carpet or flooring installation. The assigned rate for this code was then compared to the designated insurance rate. Once the amount was determined, it was multiplied by 1.5 to ascertain the penalty amount. The Stop Work Order was lifted by Petitioner after Respondent signed a "Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty" on June 1, 2006. At that time, Respondent made a down payment of $2,867.19 and agreed to pay the sum of $403.08 per month for 60 months. Upon reaching agreement with Petitioner to pay the fine, Respondent also terminated all "employees" doing subcontract work for him at that time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Financial Services upholding the Penalty assessed against Respondent for failure to provide workers' compensation coverage for employees. Inasmuch as the parties have already agreed to a payment plan, it is RECOMMENDED that the plan remain in effect until the penalty has been paid. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of March, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of March, 2007.
