The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2014),1/ by failing to secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage as alleged in the Stop-work Order and 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and if so, the amount of the penalty that should be assessed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement in chapter 440 that employers in the state of Florida secure the payment of workers' compensation insurance covering their employees. Respondent, Bargain Bob's Carpets, Inc., is a corporation registered to do business in Florida. Its principal business address is 3954 Byron Drive, Riviera Beach, Florida. The Compliance Investigation As the result of an anonymous referral, Petitioner's compliance investigator, Peter Sileo, investigated Respondent to determine whether it had secured workers' compensation coverage for its employees as required by chapter 440. Before Sileo visited Respondent's business location, he checked the State of Florida Coverage and Compliance Automated System ("CCAS") computer database, which contains information regarding workers' compensation insurance policies that have been obtained by employers. The CCAS database showed no record of any workers' compensation policies covering Respondent's employees having been issued. On Sileo's first visit to Respondent's business location, he observed a man loading carpeting into a van. Upon being questioned, the man identified himself as Gary Persad. He told Sileo that he was a carpet installation subcontractor for Respondent. Sileo checked CCAS and determined that Persad was covered by workers' compensation insurance. On January 23, 2015, Sileo again visited Respondent's business location, which is a warehouse housing large rolls of carpeting and other flooring materials. There, Sileo met John Charles, an owner and corporate officer of Respondent. Charles claimed that he did not know that Respondent was required to have workers' compensation coverage for its employees. Charles told Sileo that Respondent sold flooring but did not install it and that all installation was performed by subcontractors. At the time of the inspection, Sileo determined that Respondent employed five employees: Charles and Calideen, each of whom own more than ten percent of Respondent's business; Alex Stark; Peter Phelps; and Anthony Frenchak. Sileo served a Stop-work Order, ordering Respondent to cease all business operations in the state pending demonstrating compliance with the workers' compensation coverage requirement. Sileo also served a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation. Respondent subsequently demonstrated compliance with the workers' compensation coverage requirement, and Petitioner lifted the Stop-work Order.2/ Respondent also produced business records consisting of spreadsheets showing quarterly payroll, transaction listings, affidavits, insurance coverage documents, and other records. The Penalty Assessment Eric Ruzzo, a penalty auditor with Petitioner, used these records to calculate the penalty to be assessed against Respondent. The $31,061.68 penalty is reflected in the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, issued April 23, 2015, that is the subject of this proceeding. To calculate the applicable penalty, Petitioner determines the employer's gross payroll for the two-year period preceding the noncompliance determination——the so-called "penalty period"——from a review of the employer's business records. For days during the penalty period for which records are not provided, Petitioner imputes the gross payroll based on the average weekly wage for the state of Florida. Here, the penalty period commenced on January 24, 2013, and ended on January 23, 2015, the day on which the compliance inspection was conducted, and Respondent was determined to not be in compliance with the workers' compensation coverage requirement. Initially, Respondent produced payroll records that did not identify the subcontractors Respondent hired to install the carpeting. Ruzzo identified the subcontractors using Respondent's transaction records. Respondent subsequently provided information, including affidavits and certificates of exemption regarding the subcontractors it had hired during the penalty period. At all times during the penalty period, Respondent employed four or more non-construction employees, including Charles and Calideen.3/ Based on the business records produced, Ruzzo compiled a list of the persons, including the subcontractors and non-construction employees who were on Respondent's payroll, but not covered by workers' compensation insurance during the penalty period. This list of employees and the penalty computation for each is set forth on the Penalty Calculation Worksheet attached to the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. Using the National Council on Compensation Insurance ("NCCI") workers' compensation insurance occupation class codes set forth in the NCCI Scopes Manual, Ruzzo determined the occupation class code applicable to each employee listed on the Penalty Calculation Worksheet. Respondent's subcontractors were classified in NCCI class code 5478, which is the class code for the flooring installation industry. This is consistent with Florida's construction industry class code rule, Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.021(2)(kk), which identifies the installation of carpet and other floor covering as NCCI class code 5478. Alex Stark, Amber Krembs, Jacquelyn Skwarek, and Monica Stahl were classified in NCCI class code 8018, which applies to workers engaged in selling merchandise, including carpeting and linoleum, at the wholesale level. Calideen, Frenchak, and Phelps were classified in NCCI class code 8742, which applies to outside salespersons primarily engaged in sales off of the employer's premises. Charles was classified in NCCI class code 8810, which applies to clerical office employees. Ruzzo then determined the period of Respondent's noncompliance for each employee listed on the Penalty Calculation Worksheet. For each of these employees, Ruzzo determined the gross payroll paid to that employee for the period during which Respondent was noncompliant, divided the employee's gross payroll by 100 pursuant to Petitioner's calculation methodology, then multiplied that amount by the numeric rate set by NCCI for that employee's specific occupation class code. This calculation yielded the workers' compensation coverage premium for that specific employee for which Respondent was noncompliant during the penalty period. The premium amount then was multiplied by two, as required by statute, to yield the penalty to be imposed for failure to provide workers' compensation coverage for that specific employee. Respondent did not provide records covering Charles, Calideen, Stark, Frenchak, or Phelps for the period between January 1, 2015, and January 23, 2015. For this period, Ruzzo imputed the gross payroll for each of these employees using the statewide average weekly wage as defined in section 440.12(2),4/ multiplied by two. Ruzzo then performed the same computations discussed above to determine the penalty amount to be imposed for Respondent's failure to provide workers' compensation for those employees during this time period. Ruzzo added the penalty determined for each employee using actual gross payroll and imputed payroll, as applicable, to arrive at the total penalty assessment amount of $31,061.68. Respondent's Defense Respondent is engaged in the retail sale of various types of flooring, such as carpeting, and hires subcontractors to install the flooring. The evidence did not establish that Respondent engaged in wholesale sales of flooring. Charles testified that Respondent had attempted to operate its business as a "cash and carry" operation in which Respondent would sell the flooring to retail customers, who would take the purchased flooring from Respondent's premises and would be solely responsible for securing their own installation services. In Charles' words, "[t]hat didn't work. The public demanded that we provide them, as part of the sale, installers—— I might be saying it wrong legally, but they demanded that it all be done in one shot." Thus, Respondent began hiring subcontractors to do the installation work. Charles explained that Respondent makes retail sales of flooring to customers, either on Respondent's premises or at the customer's premises through its outside sales people. The flooring is then cut from the roll on Respondent's premises and placed in the installer's vehicle. The installer transports the purchased flooring to, and installs it at, the customer's premises. Charles estimated that Respondent currently does approximately five percent of its business as "cash and carry" sales, and the remaining 95 percent consists of sales requiring installation. Charles testified that he and Calideen, as corporate officers of Respondent, previously had obtained exemptions from the workers' compensation coverage requirements for themselves; however, they were unaware that the exemptions had to be renewed, so their exemptions had expired. As of the date of the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, neither Charles nor Calideen possessed valid certificates of exemption from the workers' compensation coverage requirement. Charles testified that Respondent always had tried to operate in compliance with the law. He was of the view that because he and Calideen were exempt from the worker's compensation coverage requirement, Respondent effectively employed only three employees——one fewer than the workers' compensation coverage requirement threshold of four employees applicable to non-construction industry businesses. Charles and Calideen testified that when Respondent initially hired subcontractors, they required copies of their insurance policies, including proof of workers' compensation coverage or exemption therefrom. Calideen testified that thereafter, he and Charles assumed that the subcontractors were in compliance with the workers' compensation laws, and they did not know that they needed to obtain updated certificates of workers' compensation exemption or coverage from the subcontractors. On that basis, Charles asserted that Respondent should not be required to "babysit" its subcontractors to ensure that they are in compliance with the workers' compensation law. Respondent thus asserts that it should not be responsible for securing workers' compensation coverage for subcontractors whose workers' compensation policies or exemptions had expired during the penalty period. The undisputed evidence establishes that Charles' employment entails clerical work. Calideen testified, credibly, that Stark's employment duties entail selling flooring on Respondent's business premises, and that he does not engage in sales off the premises. Calideen testified, credibly, that Frenchak and Phelps primarily are engaged in outside sales off of Respondent's premises. Calideen testified, credibly, that he performs clerical duties rather than sales duties. Calideen and Charles both testified, credibly, that employees Krembs, Skwarek, and Stahl performed computer-related duties for Respondent, such as entering business information into Respondent's computer databases, and that they did not work on Respondent's business premises. Calideen testified, credibly, that subcontractor Mike Smith was hired on a one-time basis to paint parking place stripes at the newly-repaved parking lot behind Respondent's business premises. Findings of Ultimate Fact The credible, persuasive evidence establishes that Respondent is engaged in the retail sale of carpeting and other flooring materials and that Respondent itself does not install the flooring. The credible, persuasive evidence establishes, and the parties stipulated, that Respondent is not a member of the construction industry. The credible, persuasive evidence establishes that at all times during the penalty period, Respondent employed more than four employees who were engaged in non-construction employment. Accordingly, Respondent was required to secure workers' compensation coverage for its employees, including Charles and Calideen, whose previously-issued certificates of exemption had expired and were not in effect during the penalty period. The undisputed evidence establishes that at certain times during the penalty period, Respondent employed subcontractors who performed floor installation. The evidence clearly establishes that the subcontractors, in installing the flooring, perform a service that is integral to Respondent's business and that they work specifically at Respondent's direction for each particular installation job. Even though Respondent is not classified as a member of the construction industry, it nonetheless is a "statutory employer" of its subcontractors, who are members of the construction industry. Thus, Respondent is responsible for securing workers' compensation coverage for its subcontractors who failed to secure an exemption or coverage for themselves.5/ The credible, persuasive evidence establishes that Petitioner correctly calculated the penalty attributable to flooring installation subcontractors for which Respondent was noncompliant during the penalty period. However, the unrebutted evidence establishes that subcontractor Mike Smith was hired on a one-time basis to paint parking lot stripes in Respondent's parking lot. Thus, Petitioner's classification of Smith in NCCI class code 5478—— which is a construction industry code that applies to workers engaged in flooring installation——obviously is incorrect, and no evidence was presented showing the correct NCCI class code in which Smith should be classified. Accordingly, Smith should not be included in Petitioner's calculation of the penalty to be assessed against Respondent. The credible, persuasive evidence establishes that Petitioner correctly calculated the penalty attributable to Respondent's noncompliance with respect to Charles, Frenchak, and Phelps during the penalty period. The credible, persuasive evidence establishes that Stark is engaged in retail sales on Respondent's business premises. However, in calculating the penalty, Petitioner classified Stark in NCCI class code 8018, which applies to salespersons engaged in selling merchandise at the wholesale level, rather than at the retail level. Thus, Petitioner incorrectly classified Stark in NCCI class code 8018. There is no evidence in the record identifying the correct NCCI class code in which Stark should be classified. Accordingly, Stark should not be included in Petitioner's calculation of the penalty to be assessed against Respondent. The credible, persuasive evidence establishes that Calideen performs clerical employment duties and does not perform sales duties, so he should be classified in NCCI class code 8810, rather than in class code 8742. Accordingly, Petitioner should recalculate the portion of the penalty attributable to Respondent's noncompliance for Calideen using NCCI class code 8810. The credible, persuasive evidence establishes that Krembs, Skwarek, and Stahl are not employed as salespersons at the wholesale level. Thus, Petitioner incorrectly classified these employees in NCCI class code 8018. In its Proposed Recommended Order, Petitioner contends that because Respondent disputes the classification of these employees in class code 8018, Respondent is responsible for identifying the correct applicable class code, which it has not done. This position disregards that in this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proof, by clear and convincing evidence, to show that its proposed penalty assessment against Respondent is accurate. Thus, Petitioner——not Respondent——is responsible for correctly identifying the NCCI class codes applicable to Respondent's employees. Here, the credible, persuasive evidence establishes that in calculating the penalty, Petitioner incorrectly classified Krembs, Skwarek, and Stahl in class code 8018,6/ and no evidence was presented showing the correct NCCI class code applicable to these employees. Accordingly, Krembs, Skwarek, and Stahl should not be included in Petitioner's calculation of the penalty to be assessed against Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, issue a final order amending the penalty to be assessed against Respondent as follows: Subtracting the penalty assessed for subcontractor Mike Smith, as shown on the Penalty Calculation Worksheet; and Subtracting the penalties assessed for Respondent's alleged noncompliance with respect to employees Amber Krembs, Jacquelyn Skwarek, and Monica Stahl, as shown on the Penalty Calculation Worksheet; and Reclassifying employee Andy Calideen in NCCI class code 8810 and recalculating the portion of the penalty attributable to Respondent's noncompliance for Calideen using this class code; and Reclassifying employee Alexander Stark in NCCI class code 5784 and recalculating the portion of the penalty attributable to Respondent's noncompliance for Stark using this class code. DONE AND ENTERED this 22 day of January, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22 day of January, 2016.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent violated Chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2009), by failing to secure the payment of workers' compensation, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that Florida employers secure the payment of workers' compensation for the benefit of their employees. See § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Respondent is a Florida for-profit corporation providing pharmacy services. Respondent has business locations at 842 West Plymouth Avenue, Deland, Florida, and 112 East First Avenue, Pierson, Florida. Respondent's Pierson business site sells a small amount of food like bubble gum and other sundries. Activities at the Pierson location include filling prescriptions, compounding and blending drugs, and dispensing drugs or medicine to walk-in customers and patients. The patients are referred from a health care clinic known as Northeast Florida Health Services (NEFHS). The patients are federally qualified as indigent pursuant to a federal poverty calculation. Respondent's Deland location deals solely with prescription drug transactions to indigent patients who are referred by NEFHS. The Deland business site is very small and has no walk-in customers or food or other sundries for sale. At the end of the month, Respondent sends a bill to NEFHS for the prescriptions dispensed by Respondent at both locations. NEFHS than reimburses Respondent for its services. Respondent pays its employees at both locations out of a single checking account. Only one tax identification number is used for both business locations. On October 27, 2009, Hector Beauchamp, one of Petitioner's workers' compensation compliance investigators, received a referral, indicating that Respondent was operating without workers' compensation insurance coverage for its employees. After receiving the referral, Mr. Beauchamp used the website of the Department of State, Division of Corporations, to obtain Respondent's federal employer identification number. The Department of State website showed that Respondent became Pierson Community Pharmacy, Inc., on March 3, 2005. The website also indicated that Respondent had two corporate officers, John Eidt and Hanan Francis. Next, Mr. Beauchamp contacted Samantha Nixon, one of Petitioner’s penalty calculators, to research Respondent's unemployment compensation tax information on the Department of Revenue's website. Ms. Nixon's research revealed that Respondent employed in excess of four employees for each quarter in the past three years. Mr. Beauchamp also consulted Petitioner's Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) database. The CCAS database lists the workers' compensation insurance policy information for Florida employers together with any workers' compensation exemptions for corporate officers. The CCAS database accurately revealed that Respondent had no workers' compensation insurance policy in place for its employees and no workers' compensation exemptions for either Mr. Eidt or Ms. Francis as corporate officers. This was true from October 29, 2006, through October 28, 2009. Additionally, the CCAS database did not reveal any utilization of employee leasing by Respondent. Mr. Beauchamp also researched the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc. (NCCI) on-line database. Using Respondent's name and federal employer identification number, the database showed no record of a Florida workers' compensation insurance policy for Respondent. On October 28, 2009, Mr. Beauchamp visited both of Respondent's business locations. At the Pierson location, Mr. Beauchamp observed five individuals working behind a Plexiglas partition filling prescriptions. Mr. Beauchamp spoke with Mr. and Mrs. Francis. They confirmed that Respondent did not have workers' compensation insurance in place. Mr. Beauchamp then issued and served a Stop-Work Order. He also issued and served a records request. On October 29, 2010, Respondent provided Petitioner with the following records: (a) corporate tax records for 2007 and 2008; (b) a workers' compensation insurance application submitted after the issuance of the Stop-Work Order; and (c) payroll summaries for October 2006 through October 2009. The records confirmed that Respondent had employed more than four employees for the prior three years. On October 30, 2009, Petitioner issued and served the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. That order was followed by the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on March 15, 2010. Ms. Nixon calculated the gross payroll for Respondent's employees for the relevant time period. The gross payroll amounts for Ms. Francis from January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2008, and April 1, 2009, through June 30, 2009, were limited to the average weekly wage in effect at the time the Stop-Work Order was issued, multiplied by 1.5 for those periods pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L- 6.035(2). As a corporate officer, Ms. Francis' actual earnings were in excess of these amounts. However, Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.035(2) limits the amount of a corporate officer's income upon which workers' compensation penalties may be assessed to 1.5 times the average weekly wage in effect at the time a Stop-Work Order is issued or actual earnings, whichever is less. Using the classification codes in the NCCI Scopes® Manual, Petitioner accurately assigned the occupation classification code 8045, which corresponds to "Store: Drug Retail." Classification code 8045 is "applicable to store locations where the employer's books of accounts reflect at least 40 percent gross receipts in prescription sales and less than 50 percent gross receipts in the service of food." Prescription sales intended for the patients of health care facilities are included even though the facility is billed instead of the individual patient. Ms. Nixon then divided the payroll for each year by 100 and multiplied that figure by the approved manual rates adopted by the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation for 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 for classification code 8045. That product was then multiplied by 1.5 to find the penalty for the period for the three-year period. The total penalty is $13,996.60.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusion of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, issue a final order affirming the Stop- Work Order and Second Amended order of Penalty Assessment in the amount of $13,996.60. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of April, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of April, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: John C. Eidt Pierson Community Pharmacy Inc. 112 East 1st Avenue Pierson, Florida 32180 Justin H. Faulkner, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Julie Jones, CRP, FP Agency Clerk Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 Benjamin Diamond, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307 Honorable Alex Sink Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes,1/ by failing to secure the payment of workers’ compensation, as alleged in the Stop-Work Order and Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and if so, what is the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure workers’ compensation coverage for the benefit of their employees. Respondent is a Florida, for-profit corporation with its principal office located at 3539 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 3-204, Tallahassee, Florida 32311. Respondent was incorporated on October 26, 2012, and has been engaged in the construction industry in Florida as a roofing company since October 31, 2012. From Respondent’s inception, Richard Paul Morejon has been Respondent’s president, secretary, and treasurer, and has received compensation from Respondent’s roofing contract proceeds. In July or August 2013, the Department received a complaint alleging that Respondent was not in compliance with Florida's Workers' Compensation Law. The Department assigned investigation of the complaint to then-Department investigator Carey Horn. Based upon materials apparently gathered and reports purportedly authored by Investigator Horn, the Department issued a stop-work order dated September 23, 2013, to Respondent alleging that Respondent did not secure workers’ compensation coverage for its employees as required. The Department, however, did not call Investigator Horn as a witness, and, despite Mr. Morejon’s attempt to subpoena her to testify in this case, Investigator Horn could not be found. The Department’s delay in referring this case for a final hearing either caused or contributed to Investigator Horn’s unavailability as a witness in this proceeding. The reports and conclusions of Investigator Horn were prepared in anticipation of litigation and are hearsay.2/ Therefore, they have not been used to support factual findings in this Recommended Order unless corroborative of non-hearsay evidence.3/ In addition, on October 20, 2014, the Department filed a document entitled "Joint Prehearing Stipulation" signed by the Department’s counsel and Mr. Morejon purporting to contain a number of stipulated facts and factual admissions by Mr. Morejon on behalf of Respondent. However, at the final hearing, the manner in which the Joint Prehearing Stipulation was procured was brought into question when Mr. Morejon advised that he was told to sign it and that the stipulation would be “ironed out” at the final hearing. The Department’s counsel confirmed that the conversation occurred regarding the correct classification code to be utilized in calculating the penalty against Respondent. Accordingly, it was ruled at the final hearing that the Joint Stipulation would not be used to support a finding regarding the classification. Upon further consideration of Mr. Morejon’s comments and the Department’s counsel’s admission as to the manner in which at least one of the stipulated facts was secured, the undersigned has not utilized and otherwise rejects as untrustworthy the document entitled "Joint Prehearing Stipulation" filed in this case on October 20, 2014, finding that it does not represent any bona fide stipulations or admissions. Nevertheless, in his testimony during his deposition and at the final hearing in this case, Mr. Morejon admitted a number of factual matters demonstrating that Respondent was not in compliance with Florida’s Workers’ Compensation Law on September 23, 2013. The factual findings in this Recommended Order are derived from Mr. Morejon’s testimony, non-hearsay evidence, and corroborative hearsay submitted during the final hearing. On September 23, 2013, Investigator Horn visited a jobsite at a residence located at 5747 Sioux Drive, Tallahassee, Florida (Jobsite), where Respondent, through employees, was performing roofing and related activities. On that date, Mr. Morejon was on the ground supervising two men on the roof engaged in roofing activities and two men on the ground picking up debris, for a total of five men, including Mr. Morejon, at the Jobsite working for Respondent. There was another man sitting in a vehicle at the Jobsite that day who never did any work for Respondent. There is no evidence that Respondent provided workers’ compensation coverage for any of the men working at the Jobsite that day. The two men working on the roof were Guadalupe Perez- Martinez and Hermilo Perez-Martinez. At the time, Guadalupe Perez-Martinez had an exemption from the requirements for workers’ compensation through his company, Lupe Builders, LLC. Although Hermilo Perez-Martinez previously had an exemption from the requirements of workers’ compensation through Perez Builders, LLC, that exemption expired the previous month, on August 3, 2013. There is no evidence that the two men picking up debris, Hermilo Pantaleon Paz and Timotio Aguilar, qualified for an exemption from workers’ compensation coverage that day. Although Mr. Morejon had an exemption from the requirements of Florida's Workers' Compensation Law for a separate and unaffiliated company, Comerxio, Mr. Morejon did not have an exemption from the coverage requirements of Florida's Workers' Compensation Law for Respondent on September 23, 2013, or during the relative time periods of this case. According to Mr. Morejon, other than Guadalupe Perez- Martinez, none of the other workers at the Jobsite that day had ever performed work for Respondent. Mr. Morejon also recalled that another person on the Jobsite that day, David Amaro- Rodriguez, just sat in a car and performed no work. Mr. Morejon’s recollections are unrefuted. The Department’s delay in referring this case undoubtedly affected the ability of either party to call other witnesses, including a number of the workers or the investigator, who were at the Jobsite that day. During the relevant time periods, Respondent did not maintain a bank account to pay its employees and it did not directly pay Mr. Morejon or other employees. Rather, historically, proceeds from roofing contracts performed by Respondent were deposited into a bank account held by another corporation named "A 2 Z Roofing, Inc." After paying various expenses, including permit fees, materials, and other costs associated with the roofing contracts, A 2 Z Roofing, Inc., paid Mr. Morejon, and any others performing work under the contracts, by check. On September 23, 2013, the Department personally served the Respondent with a stop work order (Stop Work Order) and a request for production of business records for penalty assessment calculation (Records Request). The Records Request requested Respondent’s corporate records, licenses, payroll documents, account documents, disbursements, contracts for work, employee leasing information, subcontractors, and workers' compensation coverage or exemptions "for the period from 10/31/2012 through 09/23/2013 [the Non- Compliance Period]." The Records Request further stated, in part: The employer should scan and email the records requested herein to the investigator with the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation for examination within 5 business days after receipt of this Request for Production of Business Records. If the employer fails to provide the required business records sufficient to enable the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation to determine the employer’s payroll for the period requested for the calculation of the penalty provided in section 440.107(7)(d), F.S., the imputed weekly payroll for each employee, corporate officer, sole proprietor, or partner shall be the statewide average weekly wage as defined in section 440.12(2), F.S. multiplied by 1.5. The Department shall impute the employer’s payroll at any time after ten, but before the expiration of twenty business days after receipt by the employer of a written request to produce such business records. (FAC 69L-6.028) If the employer is unable to scan and email these documents, please mail or deliver copies to our office located at 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL, 32399-4228. The next day, September 24, 2013, Mr. Morejon hand delivered Respondent’s business records to the Department in response to the Records Request. The business records delivered by Mr. Morejon included roofing permit applications; roofing permits issued to A to Z Roofing, Inc.; several contracts between homeowners and A to Z Roofing, Inc., identifying Mr. Morejon as project manager; five checks from A 2 Z Roofing, Inc. (not Respondent), payable to the City of Tallahassee; and 24 checks from A 2 Z Roofing, Inc., payable to "Mr. Morejon – Petty Cash." The 24 checks from A 2 Z Roofing, Inc., to Mr. Morejon totaled $55,955.4/ The checks, dated from November 17, 2012, to August 23, 2013, constitute all of the money paid to Mr. Morejon from Respondent’s roofing contract proceeds during the Non- Compliance Period. In addition to the 24 checks payable to Mr. Morejon, it is evident that the Department also received other checks from A 2 Z Roofing, Inc., from the records requests made in this case and in DOAH Case No. 14-2829, made payable to Lupe Builders, LLC, Gene Pfund, and perhaps others, during the Non- Compliance Period. The Department, however, did not utilize those records in its determinations in this case. In fact, the Department’s penalty auditor did not utilize payments made by A 2 Z Roofing, Inc., in calculating the penalty because, in the Department’s penalty auditor’s opinion, Respondent was not compliant because it did not have a bank account. Final Hearing Transcript, pp. 232-233. The determination of payroll, however, is not dependent on whether an employer has a bank account or whether the employer is the entity that pays its employees. Rather, the Department’s own rule defining payroll considers "[p]ayments, including cash payments, made to employees by or on behalf of the employer" in determining payroll. See Fla. Admin. Code Rule 69L-6.035(1)(b)(emphasis added). During the hearing, the Department, through counsel, stated that the payments from A 2 Z Roofing to Lupe Builders, LLC, or Gene Pfund were not considered because those entities had valid exemptions from the requirements of workers’ compensation. In addition, the Department complained that their receipt of bank records from A 2 Z Roofing, Inc., had been delayed and took the position that bank records from A 2 Z Roofing, Inc., would not be utilized in this case. The Department’s own discovery tactics, however, were responsible for delays in responses to its requests for records from A 2 Z Roofing, Inc.5/ Considering the records produced by Respondent introduced into evidence in this case, the testimony of Mr. Morejon regarding the checks payable to him from A 2 Z Roofing, Inc., the Department’s unwillingness to utilize other records from A 2 Z Roofing, Inc., in its possession, and evidence of the total payments to Mr. Morejon during the Non- Compliance Period, it is found that the Department’s decision to impute payroll is unfounded. Imputation of payroll would improperly allow the Department to benefit from its own lack of analysis. The imputed payroll determined by the Department in the amount of $347,334.69 exceeds Respondent’s total revenue for the Non- Compliance Period by more than $100,0006/ and is based, at least in part, upon hearsay evidence prepared by a witness whose unavailability was likely caused by the Department’s undue delay in referring Respondent’s Request for Hearing. Furthermore, the records produced by Respondent and the evidence in this case are sufficient to determine Respondent's payroll for use in the calculation of a penalty pursuant to section 440.107(7)(d)l. The evidence demonstrated that the $55,955 reflected in checks payable to Mr. Morejon from A 2 Z Roofing, Inc., represent all of the payments to Respondent’s employees who were not covered by workers’ compensation while performing services for roofing contracts during the Non-Compliance Period, other than payments reflected in records the Department may have in its possession but did not present at the final hearing. It was also shown, however, that the $55,955 was paid to Mr. Morejon without the maintenance of a cash log or cash journal and without securing the payment of workers' compensation coverage for Mr. Morejon or others receiving cash payments from those funds. And, there is no evidence that any of those employees were exempt from the requirements of workers’ compensation. Respondent was required to secure workers' compensation coverage and failed to secure that coverage under Florida’s Workers’ Compensation Law for its employees who were paid $55,955.00 during the Non-Compliance Period. Therefore, the Department was justified in issuing the Stop Work Order delivered to Mr. Morejon on September 23, 2013. Although the Department failed to show that Respondent’s payroll should be imputed, the evidence adduced at the final hearing demonstrated that a penalty should be imposed against Respondent for failure to pay workers’ compensation for its employees who were paid a total of $55,955 during the Non- Compliance Period. For determining the appropriate penalty, the Department has adopted a penalty calculation worksheet to aid in calculating penalties against employers pursuant to section 440.107, Florida Statutes. See Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.027. The classification codes listed in the National Council on Compensation Insurance ("NCCI") Scopes® Manual have been adopted by the Department through Florida Administrative Code Rules 69L-6.021 and 69L-6.031. Classification codes are four-digit codes assigned to occupations by NCCI to assist in the calculation of workers' compensation insurance premiums. Under the descriptions listed in the NCCI Scopes® Manual, the proper classification code for Respondent’s employees is 5551, which corresponds to "Roofing - All Kinds and Drivers." The Department has adopted the approved manual rates in the Florida Administrative Code, as authorized by section 440.107(7). Rule 69L-6.027 adopts form number DFS-F4-1595, the Penalty Calculation Worksheet, which specifically incorporates approved manual rates. As accurately set forth in the Penalty Calculation Worksheets attached to the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, the approved manual rates for the following periods of Non- Compliance were: From 10/31/2012 to 12/31/2012 the rate was 17.10; From 01/01/2013 to 06/30/2013 the rate was 18.17; From 07/01/2013 to 09/23/2013 the rate was 18.03. A breakdown of Respondent’s total payroll of $55,955 based upon check dates corresponding to the manual rates in effect during the Non-Compliance Period, is as follows: From 10/31/2012 to 12/31/2012 payroll totaled $6,300; From 01/01/2013 to 06/30/2013 payroll totaled $33,655; From 07/01/2013 to 09/23/2013 payroll totaled $16,000. Calculation of the penalty, using the Penalty Calculation Worksheet and Respondent’s payroll based on records (as opposed to imputed) during the Non-Compliance Period, results in a total penalty of $15,116.12, as follows: Calculation Method (a) Class Code (b) Non-Compliance period (c) Gross Payroll (d) /100 (e) Approved Rates (f) Premium (d)X(e) (g) Penalty (f)X 1.5 Records 5551 10/31/12 12/31/12 6,300 63 17.10 1,077.30 1,616.25 Records 5551 01/01/13 06/30/13 33,655 336.55 18.17 6,115.11 9,172.67 Records 5551 07/01/13 09/23/13 16,000 160 18.03 2,884.80 4,327.20 Totals: $55,955.00 $15,116.12 The clear and convincing evidence in this proceeding demonstrated that Respondent was in violation of Florida’s Workers’ Compensation law because it employed one or more uninsured employees in the construction industry throughout the Non-Compliance Penalty, and that the appropriate penalty, based upon Respondent’s payroll, is in the amount of $15,116.12.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department enter a Final Order consistent with this Recommended Order upholding the Stop Work Order, and reducing the penalty set forth in the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to $15,116.12 by recalculating the penalty based upon Respondent’s payroll of $55,955.00 during the Non-Compliance Period. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of February, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of February, 2015.
The Issue Whether respondent discharged petitioner on account of his national origin? Whether respondent refused to rehire petitioner on account of his national origin and/or because he filed a complaint alleging discrimination?
Findings Of Fact Born in Uvalde, Texas, petitioner Nicasio Guadalupe Ramos, 42 years old at the time of the hearing, is an American citizen of Hispanic or Mexican race, ancestry, heritage and national origin, who, since 1971, has lived in Defuniak Springs, county seat of Walton County, Florida. Walton County's written personnel policies refer to a "PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT" and to a "personnel department . . . under the direction . . . of the personnel director," Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, but other County employees or county commissioners themselves effectively decide before the Commission officially hires and fires. Responsibility is diffuse. E.g., T.284, 309. Hard Worker Mr. Ramos started work at the Walton County landfill on February 2, 1988, at $3.35 an hour. At first he spent most of his time picking up stray paper, opening the gate for garbage trucks, and "tripping" trailers to unload the garbage. Like other landfill employees, Mr. Ramos worked more or less steadily while the landfill supervisor, Clinton Earl "Frog" Ward was at the landfill. After three or four months, Mr. Ward, Clarence Johnson and John "Big John" Curry began teaching petitioner to use heavy equipment including the excavator or "pan," the "chipper" and the "dozer" ("how to work the blade, how to spread the dirt.") T.237. According to a co-worker, Mr. Ramos performed "different jobs like all the rest of us." T.31. When the sign maker quit, Mr. Ramos was assigned that job. If "somebody was missing on the dump truck or the garbage boxes," (T.240) he filled in there. He never turned down requests to work as a night guard, requests that sometimes came only near the end of a full day's work. He once operated the excavator every day for two successive work weeks. On September 16, 1988, he was promoted to "Landfill Equipment Operator." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 11. He became a "permanent" instead of a "temporary" employee, and his wages increased to $5.15. T.240. A cost of living increase in the fall of 1988 raised his wages to $5.35 an hour. T.258. Unfriendly Overseer With one exception, Mr. Ramos got along well with his fellow workers, none of whom was Hispanic. "Nick was one of the boys." T.44. The exception was James Ellis, the assistant landfill supervisor who had moved to Walton County from Lake Placid, Florida. Mr. Ellis once expressed the opinion that "the only thing [Mexicans are] good for is to knock their heads [off]." T.255, 280. He referred to Mr. Ramos as a "gook," a "dago" (T.85) and "that Mexican." T.96. A "long time before" (T.42) it happened, Billy Franklin Reynolds heard Mr. Ellis "say that he was going to get rid of Nick Ramos as soon as he got in a position to do that." T.42. Another co-worker, Harold Ross Daughtery, heard Mr. Ellis say that "whenever he got to be in charge . . . the first one he would fire would be Mr. Ramos." T.44. Harold Eugene Floyd heard Mr. Ellis say "if he ever got to be boss, he would run [Mr. Ramos] off." T.68, 74. Mr. Curry, who heard Mr. Ellis make such remarks (T.77-8) four or five times (T.82), "didn't figure he was joking." T.83. Unlike Mr. Curry (or Mr. Floyd who was uncertain), Messrs. Reynolds and Daughtery testified that they did not take seriously Mr. Ellis' threat to get Mr. Ramos fired. But, in this regard, events proved Mr. Ellis' sincerity. 1/ Mr. Ellis' used racial or ethnic epithets repeatedly to refer to petitioner. Perhaps that is what led Mr. Ramos to ask him one day why he did not like him. When, in the course of the same conversation, Mr. Ramos asked Mr. Ellis whether he had "ever met any Mexicans that [he] like[d]," (T.256) Mr. Ellis answered abusively, in the negative. If Mr. Ward left Mr. Ellis in charge of the landfill, many of the men loafed inside a shed while Mr. Ramos continued working, doing "the dirty stuff" (T.256) that Mr. Ellis assigned him. On such occasions, Mr. Ramos was often "the only one picking up papers or being in the pit, pulling tires out" (T.255) of garbage. T.86. At hearing, nobody except Mr. Ellis had anything unfavorable to say about Mr. Ramos' job performance. In fact, Mr. Ramos did a good job despite the unfair treatment he received at Mr. Ellis' hands. Petitioner was never disciplined, counseled or warned about his work performance even by Mr. Ellis. T. 251. Highly reliable, he "worked in the tire pit" (T.252) the day after the doctor drained his knee. On another occasion, to avoid infection, he wanted to follow his doctor's advice to take "a couple of days" (T.252) off after he had some "lumps" surgically excised. But, even though he arranged to swap shifts with Dewey Collinsworth, Mr. Ellis refused to allow the exchange, and Mr. Ramos reported for work. Reduction In Force In the summer of 1989, the Walton County Commission decided to reduce expenses by discharging County employees. T.11. It fell to Charles R. "Ronnie" Hudson who, as Walton County's public works director for the last three and a half years, reports directly to the Walton County Commission, and is responsible for (among other things) the County's landfill, to lay off landfill workers. Mr. Hudson asked Mr. Ward, the landfill supervisor, to list four employees he could do without (T.151) and to "make an evaluation on the men . . . [explaining] that there was going to probably be a layoff." T.91. The "next day probably," (T.216) Mr. Ward gave Mr. Hudson a written list and evaluation, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, and "told him [he] could get by with three men laid off, but . . . couldn't get by with any more than that." T.220. They talked about the three men Mr. Ward had selected. When Mr. Ward handed Mr. Hudson the list and evaluation, he understood Mr. Hudson to agree that "there needed to be three men laid off" (T.220) instead of four. On one page and a fraction of another (T.153) from a legal pad, Mr. Ward had written: Clarence Hobbs Harold Daughtry Earl Robinson NO COMPLAINT Earl Griggs ON THESE MEN John Mann KEEP THESE MEN Dewey Collinsworth Nick Ramos E.B. Phillips Billy Reynolds Clarence Hobbs truck driver Harold Daughtry operator Earl Robinson operator Earl Griggs clerk and signs maker Dewey Collinsworth clerk and sign maker John Mann operator Nick Ramos operator John Curry truck driver or Lee S. Campbell I need to keep 8 of these men until something changes need men [fo]r now Johnny Peters E.B. Phillips night guards Billy Reynolds I need to keep these men for now if I use another man to replace one of the Night Guards it will short me to[o] bad. We can let 3 men go but any more than that will short me to[o] much when something change[s] I can get by with less men Harold Floyd - operator Not dependable calls in sick a lot and has been siding around on roads and don't give notice until the day he is going to be off and won't do any thing unless we tell him to do something and don't look after the equipment at all John Curry - operator a good worker but keeps confusion between the other men and that causes lot of trouble he has already got one complaint form turned in on him Lawton Mathews - garbage truck he is a good worker and reports to work but he is old enough to retire he is failing fast he works with Clarence Hobbs on Garbage truck Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. On what may have been the other part of the second or evaluation sheet of Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, see Appendix A, 2/ Mr. Ward wrote: Lee S. Campbell Garbage truck he has been parked at his house on truck when he was on job it takes him to[o] long to go from box to the other and don't see after his truck to[o] good but he shows up to work good Johnny Peters - Night Guard he has had one complaint form turned in on him becuase there was about 48 or 50 gallons of Fuel went missing out of the DU cat ? on the night he was there Respondent's Exhibit No. 2. Whatever Respondent's Exhibit No. 2's origin, Mr. Ward did not give it to Mr. Hudson. Mr. Ward did not and would not have recommended Mr. Ramos' layoff, even if convinced that four men had to be laid off. If Mr. Hudson had asked him to suggest a fourth candidate for a layoff, Mr. Ward would have suggested John Scott Mann, (T.214) or so he testified at hearing. 3/ Later on, when Mr. Ramos asked, Mr. Ward told him not to worry about being laid off. Having "heard there was a layoff coming" (T.244), Mr. Ramos also spoke to Walton County Commissioner Wilson Holley, and asked him if there were vacancies on the road crew he supervises. Commissioner Holley, who had known Mr. Ramos for several years and had employed him on a road crew for about a week once, when over 16 inches of rain fell and "they needed some help," (T.242), told petitioner "that he had been checking up on [him], that [he] was doing good out there and not to worry about it." T.244. Meanwhile, without discussing the matter with Mr. Ward, Mr. Ellis also prepared and furnished Mr. Hudson a list of names and evaluations. Three of the evaluations had a familiar ring but the fourth was all Mr. Ellis' work: Harold Floyd: Not dependable. Days out of work, and when he is out, he does so without notice. In my opinion when he is at work, he don't give 100%. His work ability if fair. John Curry: He keeps confusion among the men and also between the foreman and the asst. foreman. He has also been written up once concerning the matter. His work ability is good. Nick Ramos: Was hired on as a laborer, then transferred to chipping machine, then to sign machine. He's been on the sign machine four weeks now, and he's not catching on to it very fast. I have tried him on the equipment, and he didn't catch on to it either. His work ability is fair. Lawton Mathews: He is eligible for retirement. He has talked about retiring. His work ability is fair. We may talk to him about cutting back and he may go ahead and retire. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. Mr. Hudson recommended that the Walton County Commission let all four men go. Mr. Ramos did not stop to pay for his coffee on his way out of the restaurant to see Ronnie Bell the morning the news broke. Like other men who were fired, Mr. Ramos first learned about the decision when he read about it in the newspaper on July 12, 1991. Not Rehired Mr. Bell, Walton County's administrative supervisor, had nothing to do with the decision to discharge Mr. Ramos, and told him as much. Mr. Ramos then left Mr. Bell's office in the courthouse annex for the landfill where Mr. Ward assured him he had not recommended his layoff. When he tried to talk to Mr. Ellis about it, "he walked off and he mumbled something." T.247. Mr. Ramos and the three other landfill employees laid off at the same time received official notification in letters dated July 13, 1989, that their employment would end on July 31, 1989. Mr. Mathews decided to retire. The letter to Mr. Ramos stated: Please be advised that if any openings become available in the future for which you are qualified, you will be one of the first considered to fill that opening. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5. Mr. Ramos again sought out Commissioner Holley to ask for work, and also approached Commissioner W. F. "Rabbit" Miles, asking him if work was available. Some weeks after the layoff, Commissioner Holley telephoned with news of an opening for a night guard at the landfill. The next day, petitioner spoke first to Mr. Bell then to Mr. Hudson, to whom Mr. Bell referred him, about the position. Mr. Hudson said he knew nothing about an opening, but suggested Mr. Ramos check back. Mr. Ramos returned that afternoon, the next morning and every morning thereafter "for about a week." T.161, 247. Each time Mr. Hudson professed ignorance of the job vacancy, until the last time, when he told Mr. Ramos that "they had done hired Harold." T.249. Not only was Mr. Hudson in fact aware of the opening, he was actively recruiting to fill it. He offered the job to John Curry (T.184), who turned it down because he had found other, better-paying work. "Why don't you call Nick?" Mr. Curry asked Mr. Hudson at the time. "I wouldn't hire him back," was Mr. Hudson's answer. T.87. Harold Floyd got the job. T.163. Complaint Filed Mr. Ramos retained a lawyer who wrote the Walton County Commission on August 4, 1989, requesting petitioner's reinstatement, or in the alternative, a grievance hearing. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 9. (The request was never honored, although a like request by a non-Hispanic employee was.) Harold Burkett began work as a night guard on September 13, 1989. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 14. On November 8, 1989, Mr. Ramos filed a complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. The number of "personnel at the landfill now [not counting prisoners assigned to work there after County employees were laid off (T.270)] is roughly fifty per cent of what it was at the time of Nick and them's layoff." T.175 But Walton County has "replaced, . . . transferred . . . [and] hired," id., employees at the landfill since then, rehiring Harold Floyd temporarily and adding Harold Burkett, Danny Burgess, Timmy Ray Jones and Russell Floyd, all "white Americans" given jobs for which petitioner is qualified, or would have been (T.257) but for his wrongful termination. Messrs. Burgess, Jones and Russell Floyd began work after County officials learned that Mr. Ramos had complained to the Florida Commission on Human Relations. Asked why petitioner was not offered the job given to Mr. Burgess, who was hired as an equipment operator, Mr. Hudson testified that there was no reason "that I know of, you know, other than - - well, no one ever said anything about Nick, you know, being interested . . . ." T.172. In fact, Mr. Hudson was well aware that petitioner wanted a job with Walton County government, as were Mr. Ellis, who succeeded Mr. Ward as landfill supervisor, Mr. Bell and more than one county commissioner. Asked why petitioner was not offered the job Mr. Russell Floyd was given, Mr. Hudson said he knew of no reason. T.173. Commissioner Miles told Mr. Ramos 4/ that Commissioner Sam Pridgen "wouldn't hire [him] back . . . since [he] had filed a complaint against the County." T.284-5. Commissioner Holley testified, "Nick has a record of suing people that he's worked for and that weighs heavy on people's mind, I would imagine." T.310. (No Walton County Commissioner ever said anything to petitioner about his race. T.285.) Lost Wages County employees got a four percent raise on October 1, 1989, another four percent raise on October 1, 1990, and a three percent raise on October 1, 1991. The County made unspecified contributions to the Florida Retirement System at all pertinent times. For single employees, the County paid monthly insurance premiums of $120.10 in 1989, $123.66 in 1990 and $132.12 ($126.62 + $5.50) in 1991. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. Assuming no promotions and only cost of living raises, if petitioner had continued working for the County in the same position through the date of the final hearing, he would have received pay and insurance benefits totalling $33,015.60. Instead, after Mr. Ramos lost his job, he mowed grass, cut trees down, painted houses, washed cars and did other odd jobs to make what money he could. T.251, 282. He earned about $2,000 from such jobs in the last five months of 1989. His 1990 income was more than $2,800 but less than $2,900; and his 1991 income was "three thousand." T.282. He has been unable to find regular employment, but has "never been on food stamps or any kind of assistance." T.251. Before the final hearing began, one of petitioner's two attorneys, Mary Koch Polson, had reasonably expended 14.95 hours, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 16, pursuing this claim, and costs aggregating $234.49 had reasonably been incurred. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 17. Ms. Polson bills her time at $125 an hour, and the reasonableness of this rate was not called into question. (Mr. Ramos paid his first attorney $1500, but the reasonableness of this fee was not stipulated and has not been established by evidence.) Aside from the first attorney's fees, prehearing costs and fees aggregate $1868.75.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That the FCHR enter a final order (a) directing respondent to rehire petitioner as soon as an opening arises that he is qualified to fill that pays at least $5.95 an hour plus benefits; (b) awarding back wages (net of offsets) in the amount of twenty-five thousand, two hundred fifteen dollars and fifty- nine cents ($25,215.59) plus interest; (c) awarding costs and fees in the amount of eighteen hundred sixty-eight dollars and seventy-five cents ($18,868.75); and (d) awarding such additional amounts as are necessary to compensate him for lost wages including interest until he returns to work with the County or spurns a suitable offer, plus attorney's fees and costs reasonably incurred since the final hearing began. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of April, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of April, 1992.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment filed February 2, 2006, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
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. Twin City is a Minnesota corporation that registered to do business in Florida on October 24, 2004. During the times material to this proceeding, Twin City was engaged in the roofing business. On July 8, 2004, an investigator employed by the Department stopped at Twin City's office in Jupiter, Florida, because he had observed vehicles parked around the office that had signs indicating that the company engaged in roofing work. He arrived at the office early, and waited about 15 minutes, when individuals began arriving in the office parking lot. Most of the individuals wore shirts that carried the name "Twin City Roofing." When he consulted the database routinely used by the Department to determine whether businesses operating in Florida had workers' compensation insurance coverage as required by Florida law, the Department's investigator found no record that Twin City had obtained a Florida policy providing workers' compensation insurance coverage for its employees. Twin City did, however, have workers' compensation insurance coverage through the Minnesota Workers' Compensation Assigned Risk Plan, which issued a Standard Workers' Compensation and Employers' Liability Policy covering Twin City only under the Workers' Compensation Law of Minnesota. Pursuant to Section 3.C. of the policy, the policy did not apply in any state other than Minnesota. The Department's investigator issued a Stop Work Order and an Order of Penalty Assessment on July 8, 2004, and personally delivered them to the Twin City office. The Stop Work Order required that Twin City "cease all business operations in this state" and advised that a penalty of $1,000.00 per day would be imposed if Twin City were to conduct any business in violation of the Stop Work Order. Twin City violated the Stop Work Order by continuing to engage in business activities on July 12 and 13, 2005. At the same time he delivered the Stop Work Order and the Order of Penalty Assessment to Twin City's office, the Department's investigator hand-delivered a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation. Identification of Twin City's employees The Department's investigator questioned a number of the individuals he saw in Twin City's parking lot on the morning of July 8, 2005, and asked if they were employed by Twin City. On the basis of a "Turn Around Report" provided later in the day by Twin City, the Department's investigator verified that, except for Aaron Colborn, Jimmy Benegas, and Jaime Andrade, the individuals he questioned in the parking lot were leased employees and that the leasing company provided these employees with workers' compensation insurance coverage, as required by Florida law. Aaron Colborn and Jimmy Benegas were not leased employees, and, based on the admission of Twin City, Aaron Colborn and Jimmy Benegas were employees of Twin City during the period extending from October 24, 2004, through July 8, 2005.3 Jaime Andrade was one of the individuals standing outside the Twin City office on the morning of July 8, 2004. Unlike the other individuals, Mr. Andrade was not wearing a shirt bearing Twin City's name. Mr. Andrade told the investigator that he was a Twin City employee, that he had been employed for only two days, and that he had not yet been paid. His name did not appear on the list of leased employees provided in the Turn Around Report. The Department's investigator included Mr. Andrade as an employee of Twin City based on Mr. Andrade's statements. The evidence presented by the Department is not sufficient, however, to establish that Jaime Andrade was an employee of Twin City during this period. The investigator also spoke with several individuals in the Twin City office during his early-morning visit on July 8, 2004, and during a visit later that morning. The investigator spoke with James Geisen, the president of Twin City, and Jeffrey Willett, Mr. Geisen's stepson, who both identified themselves as Twin City employees. The investigator also observed Karen Geisin, James Geisen's wife, apparently working at a desk in the office, and he assumed that Mrs. Geisen was also an employee of Twin City. Twin City does not dispute that Mr. Geisen and Mr. Willett were employed by Twin City during the time it did business in Florida.4 Mr. Geisen worked in Florida with Twin City for approximately half of the period extending from October 24, 2004, through July 8, 2005, and was paid a salary by Twin City during this period. Mr. Willett worked in Florida with Twin City for approximately half of the period extending from January 1, 2005, through July 8, 2005, and was paid a salary by Twin City during this period. Mr. Geisen and Mr. Willett were, therefore, imputed to be employees of Twin City for the period extending from October 24, 2004, through July 8, 2005. Mrs. Geisen often accompanied her husband to Florida during the period extending from October 24, 2005, through July 8, 2005. She sometimes worked for Twin City in Florida, but she did not receive any salary or other remuneration for her services. Based on the admission of Twin City, however, Mrs. Geisen was an employee of Twin City during the period at issue.5 The employees of Twin City for the period at issue, therefore, were James Geisin, Karen Geisin, Jeffrey Willett, Aaron Colborn, and Jimmy Benegas. Penalty assessment for failure to secure workers' compensation coverage. The penalty for failure to secure the workers' compensation insurance coverage required by Florida law is 1.5 times the premium that would have been charged for such coverage for each employee. The premium is calculated by applying the approved manual rate for workers' compensation insurance coverage for each employee to each $100.00 of the gross payroll for each employee. Twin City failed to provide payroll records on which the Department's investigator could base his calculation of the penalty for Twin City's failure to obtain the workers' compensation insurance coverage required by Florida law within 45 days of the date of the July 8, 2005, request. Based on his observations and because of the lack of payroll records for Twin City, the Department's investigator included as employees in his calculation the six individuals he observed at Twin City on July 8, 2005, who were not identified as leased employees: James Geisen; Karen Geisen; Jeff Willett; Aaron Colborn; Jimmy Benegas, and Jaime Andrade. Because Twin City failed to provide payroll records from which the Department's investigator could determine the gross payroll for these six individuals, the Department's investigator applied Florida's official statewide average weekly wage to determine the gross payroll to be imputed to each of the six individuals. Florida's official statewide average weekly wage was $626.00 per week for the period extending from October 24, 2004, through December 31, 2004, and $651.38 for the period extending from January 1, 2005, through July 8, 2005. The gross payroll imputed to each of the six employees was, therefore, $9,770.70 from October 24, 2004, through December 31, 2004, and $26,380.89 from January 1, 2005, through July 8, 2005. In calculating the premium for workers' compensation insurance coverage, the Department's investigator used the risk classifications and definitions of the National Council of Compensation Insurance, Inc. ("NCCI") SCOPES Manual. Because Twin City provided no payroll records, the Department's investigator classified all six individuals under the highest- rated classification for Twin City's business operations, which was classification code 5551, the classification code assigned to employees of businesses engaged in roofing activities of all kinds. The approved Florida manual rate assigned to Scopes classification code 5551 was $46.17 per $100.00 of payroll for the period extending from October 24, 2004, through December 31, 2004, and $37.58 per $100.00 of payroll for the period extending from January 1, 2005, through July 8, 2005. The Department's investigator used these figures to calculate the workers' compensation insurance coverage premium for each of Twin City's employees as $4,511.13 for the period extending from October 24, 2004, through December 31, 2004, and $9,913.94 for the period extending from January 1, 2005, through July 8, 2005, for a total premium of $86,550.42. The penalty assessment was calculated by multiplying the total premium by 1.5, for a penalty of $129,825.66. Because the evidence establishes that Twin City had five rather than six employees during the period at issue herein, the penalty calculation must be modified as follows: The total penalty must be reduced by $21,637.61 ($6,766.70 + $14,870.91), for a revised total penalty of $108,188.05 ($129,825.66 - $21,637.61).
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 Twin City Roofing Construction Specialists, Inc., failed to have Florida workers' compensation insurance coverage for five of its employees, in violation of Sections 440.10(1)(a) and 440.38(1), Florida Statutes; Assessing a penalty against Twin City in the amount of $108,188.05, which is equal to 1.5 times premium based on imputed payroll for these five employees and on the approved manual rate for the classification code 5551 for the period extending from October 24, 2004, through December 31, 2004, and from January 1, 2005, through July 8, 2005, as provided in Section 440.107(7)(a), (d), and (e), Florida Statutes; Finding that Twin City engaged in business operations for two days during the pendency of the Stop Work Order issued July 8, 2005, in violation of Section 440.107(7)(a), Florida Statutes, and imposing a penalty of $2,000.00, against Twin City for engaging in business operations on July 12 and 13, 2005, as provided in Section 440.107(7)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of August, 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 30th day of August, 2006.
Findings Of Fact Standard Specifications are a part of every DOT construction contract issued. Subsection 8-1.1 of these standard Specifications provides that a subcontractor shall be recognized only in the capacity of an employee or agent of the Contractor, and his removal may be required by the Engineer, as in the case of any employee (Exhibit 1). Subsection 8-5 thereof provides the Contractor shall assure that all superintendents, foreman and workman employed by him are competent, careful and reliable (Exhibit 3). All contracts entered into by DOT provide for a contract completion time and provide for adjustment to the contract period for delays in construction due to factors beyond the contractor's control which could not be reasonably anticipated at the time bids for the contract were received (Exhibit 4). Requests for extension of contract time are made by the Contractor to DOT, and each request is evaluated on its merits. Often these requests for extension of contract time are made after the contract is completed and the contractor is seeking relief from penalties accrued as a result of his failure to complete the contract in the time allocated. Prior to 1987, all contracts entered into by DOT contained built-in delays based on average weather conditions expected during the contract period. Since mid-1987, contract delays due to expected adverse weather are not included in the contract time, but the period is subsequently adjusted based on daily recording of weather conditions during the contract period. There is no policy by DOT, as suggested by Petitioner, that delays due to weather outside the initial contract period but within the extension granted due to weather delays will not be considered by DOT in granting extensions of contract time. Federal Department of Transportation grants to Florida DOT for road construction in Florida contain a provision that a certain percentage of the contract must be subcontracted to DBE's. This provision is included in the contracts on which the prime contractors submit bids. In order to qualify as a responsible bidder on these contracts, the Contractor must show compliance with the DBE quota for the job at the time his bid is submitted or show that despite good faith efforts the Contractor was unable to meet the DBE goals. DOT certifies individuals and companies which meet the minority business standards needed for certification and maintains a current list of all potential subcontractors who can be used by the Contractor to meet the DBE quota for the specific contract on which the Contractor bids. These DBE subcontractors are not qualified by DOT as capable to perform the work for which they hold themselves out as able to perform. DOT qualifies no subcontractors, either DBE or non-DBE. In the event the Contractor needs to replace a subcontractor for any reason, his application to replace a non- DBE subcontractor is routinely approved by DOT. However, if the Contractor proposes to replace a DBE subcontractor, the Contractor must replace him with another DBE subcontractor (if this is necessary to retain the required DBE participation) and show to DOT that the replacement was for just cause and does not constitute unlawful discrimination. Accordingly, it is more likely to delay a project if a DBE subcontractor is replaced for failure to perform the work for which he subcontracted than if a non-DBE subcontractor has to be replaced for the same reason. Although DOT individually considers each request for extension of contract time, it treats delays resulting from DBE subcontractor performance the same as it treats delays resulting from non-DBE subcontractor performance. As noted in finding 2 above, the contract provides that subcontractors are agents or employees of the Contractor. Accordingly, extensions of time for completion of the contract are not generally granted when the delay is due to the agents or employees of the Contractor. It is the refusal of DOT to treat DBE subcontractors different from non-DBE subcontractors that forms the basis of Petitioner's challenge to this "policy" that extensions of contract time are not granted when the delay was due to the DBE subcontractor failing to comply with his subcontract which failure was "beyond the control" of the Contractor.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (“Petitioner” or “Department”) properly issued a Stop-Work Order and Penalty Assessment against Respondent, Barber Custom Builders, Inc. (“Respondent” or “Barber”) for failing to obtain workers' compensation insurance that meets the requirements of chapter 440, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On January 31, 2014, the parties filed a Joint Pre- hearing Stipulation, by which the parties stipulated to the facts set forth in the following paragraphs 2 through 12. Those facts are accepted and adopted by the undersigned. The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure the payment of workers’ compensation for the benefit of their employees and corporate officers. Respondent, a Florida corporation, was engaged in business operations in the construction industry in the State of Florida from June 6, 2010 through June 5, 2013. Respondent received a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment from the Department on June 5, 2013. The Department had a legal basis to issue and serve Stop-Work Order 13-273-1A on Respondent. Respondent contests the validity of the Department’s Stop-Work Order as a charging document. Respondent received a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation from the Department on June 5, 2013. Respondent received an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment from the Department on June 17, 2013. Respondent executed a Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty and was issued an Order of Conditional Release from Stop-Work Order on August 6, 2013. Respondent received a 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment from the Department on September 25, 2013. Respondent employed more than four non-exempt employees during the periods of June 10, 2010 through June 30, 2010; July 2, 2010 through December 31, 2010; January 14, 2011 through December 29, 2011; January 30, 2012 through December 16, 2012; and January 4, 201[3] through June 5, 2013. Respondent was an “employer” as defined in chapter 440. All of the individuals listed on the Penalty Worksheet of the [2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment], except Buffie Barber and Linda Barber, were “employees” in the State of Florida (as that term is defined in section 440.02(15)(a), Florida Statutes), of Respondent during the periods of non- compliance listed on the penalty worksheets. In addition to the foregoing, in their March 12, 2014, Joint Stipulations and Status Report, the parties stipulated to the facts set forth in the following paragraphs 14 and 15. Those facts are accepted and adopted by the undersigned. Based on business records received from Respondent, the Department has recalculated the assessed penalty. The penalty has been reduced from $36,387.03 to $2,272.31. The 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is calculated correctly, if the manual rates were properly adopted by rule. A review of the stipulated 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment reveals assessed penalties for employees engaged in work described as class code 5403 (carpentry - NOC) and class code 8810 (clerical office employees - NOC). Given the stipulations of the parties, further findings are unnecessary.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation enter a final order assessing a penalty of $2,272.31 against Respondent, Barber Custom Builders, Inc., for its failure to secure and maintain required workers’ compensation insurance for its employees. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 2014.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues presented, Respondent was a registered residential contractor under license number RR 0024559, issued to Kenneth Rowland qualifying Phoenix Construction Services, Inc., issued in April 1975. On May 12, 1977, Angela Close entered into a contract with C & C Roofing Company of Longwood, Florida, to enclose and make a room of the carport on her home located at 215 Ulysses Drive, Apopka, Florida. The contract, which detailed the work to be done, called for a contract price of $2,500 and stipulated the work was to be completed in approximately three weeks from start date. The amount of $1,150 was to be paid when the job was started, and the balance was to be paid upon completion and acceptance. This agreement was signed by Angela Close and J. D. Carver. Ms. Close had given the contract to Carver because she worked with his wife at Seminole Community College and had been advised by her that Carver was in financial difficulty and needed the work. The contract was signed at Close's house, where Carver came with his wife, bringing the contract to be signed. Carver did the preliminary measuring work, but when actual construction began, Respondent was present and accomplished the majority of the work. On May 26, 1977, 14 days after the contract was signed, Respondent pulled a building permit #99146 to accomplish the work called for in the contract, from the Orange County Building Department. Several weeks after the work was started, Respondent asked Ms. Close for some additional progress payments on the job. Since she had already paid Carver in full according to the terms of the contract with him, she refused to pay Respondent, telling him she had paid all that was called for under the terms of her contract with Carver. When she said this, Respondent appeared quite surprised to learn of the contract and angry as well. On June 30, 1977, Respondent wrote a letter to the Orange County Building Department notifying that office that he had stopped work on that project because of nonpayment and requesting his name and license number be removed from the permit. As a result, the permit was cancelled on July 7, 1977. In an interview with Bobby J. Hunter, Sr., an investigator for the Department of Professional Regulation (DPR) several years later, Respondent indicated he agreed to do the job in question for Ms. Close, a friend of Carver, for $3,500. He pulled the permit and commenced work without ever talking to Ms. Close or without having a contract from her to do it, relying on the word of Carver that it was proper to do so. He received several payments from Ms. Close, transmitted through Carver. Two were in cash, and one was a check. When Respondent found out that Ms. Close had a contract with Carver for $2,500 and had paid him in full, he realized he would not receive funds to satisfy the work he had put in on the job, and he ceased work. The investigative report prepared by Mr. Hunter includes summaries of the interviews with both Carver and Respondent which state that Carver and Respondent were partners. Rowland, in his testimony at the hearing, denied any partnership relation. In light of the fact that these summaries are second-hand hearsay, contradicted by sworn testimony of the Respondent that he was not a partner of Carver, I resolve that dispute in favor of the Respondent and find that he was not a partner of Carver. Respondent contends under oath, and I so find, that he pulled the permit to do the work without knowledge of the prior contract between Close and Carver, as a favor to Carver who was reportedly a friend of Close. It was his understanding that, though Carver made the arrangements, it was his, Respondent's contract with Close for the figure he had quoted to Carver after his first survey of the job site, $3,500. He had been told by Carver not to talk with Close, as she did not speak English well, and he admitted to having made a grand mistake in proceeding without a contract from the owner Close. Carver's reliability is not the best. Mr. Hunter, investigator for DPR, indicated that Carver made some false statements to him in other cases. As a result, though Carver alleges he and Respondent were partners, and even Respondent's statement to Hunter seems to so indicate, there was, in reality, no partnership requiring Respondent to qualify C & C Roofing on his license, though there was plans to do so in the future.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED That Petitioner enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of August, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of August, 1983 COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas A. Shropshire, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Kenneth Rowland 4403 North Powers Drive Orlando, Florida 32808 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue Whether Royal Roofing and Restoration, Inc. (Respondent or Royal Roofing), failed to secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage for its employees; and, if so, whether the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (Petitioner or Department), correctly calculated the penalty to be assessed against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with enforcing the requirement of chapter 440, that Florida employers secure workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Respondent is a Florida for-profit corporation organized on July 28, 2015, and engaged in the business of roofing and storm damage restoration. The company was formed, and initially conducted business, in Tallahassee, Florida, but expanded to the Panama City area in 2016. Traci Fisher is Respondent’s President and Registered Agent, with a mailing address of 1004 Kenilworth, Tallahassee, Florida 32312. DOAH Case No. 17-0879 On May 4, 2016, Department Compliance Investigator Jesse Holman, conducted a routine workers’ compensation compliance inspection at 374 Brown Place in Crestview, Florida. Mr. Holman observed four men removing shingles from the roof of a residential structure at that address. Mr. Holman first interviewed a worker who identified himself as Dustin Hansel and reported that he and the other three workers on site were a new crew for Respondent, the permit for the job had not yet been pulled, and the workers were not aware of the rate of pay for the job. Mr. Hansel telephoned Respondent’s sales manager, Dillon Robinson, who then spoke directly with Mr. Holman via telephone. Mr. Robinson informed Mr. Holman that Respondent obtained workers’ compensation coverage through Payroll Management Inc. (PMI), an employee-leasing company. Mr. Holman identified the three remaining workers at the jobsite as Milton Trice, Winston Perrotta, and Kerrigan Ireland. Mr. Holman contacted PMI and secured a copy of Respondent’s then-active employee roster. None of the workers at the jobsite, including Mr. Hansel, were included on Respondent’s employee roster. Upon inquiry, Mr. Holman was informed that PMI had no pending employee applications for Respondent. Mr. Holman consulted the Department’s Coverage Compliance Automated System (CCAS) and found Respondent had no workers’ compensation insurance policy and no active exemptions. During Mr. Holman’s onsite investigation, the workers left the jobsite. Mr. Holman could not immediately reach Ms. Fisher, but did speak with her husband, Tim Fisher. Mr. Fisher informed Mr. Holman that the crew was on their way to the PMI Fort Walton office to be enrolled on Respondent’s employee roster. On May 5, 2016, based on his investigation, and after consultation with his supervisor, Mr. Holman issued Respondent Stop-Work Order (SWO) 16-148-1A, along with a Business Records Request (BRR) for records covering the audit period of July 27, 2015 through May 4, 2016. Later that day, Mr. Holman spoke to Ms. Fisher, who informed him the crew did not have permission to begin the work on that date, as she had not yet pulled the permit for the reroof. Ms. Fisher further explained that the crewmembers had been instructed to complete applications with PMI prior to departing Tallahassee for Crestview. Ms. Fisher confirmed the crewmembers were completing applications at PMI Fort Walton that same day. Mr. Holman met with Ms. Fisher the following day and personally served SWO 16-148-1A. Ms. Fisher delivered to Mr. Holman an updated employee roster from PMI which included Mr. Hansel, Mr. Perrotta, and Mr. Ireland; a letter documenting Mr. Trice was not employed by Respondent; and a $1000 check as downpayment on the penalty. Respondent initially submitted business records in response to the BRR on May 23 and 25, 2017. DOAH Case No. 17-1558 On June 8, 2016, Mr. Holman conducted a random workers’ compensation compliance inspection at 532 Rising Star Drive in Crestview. The single-family home at that address was undergoing renovations and Mr. Holman observed three men on the roof removing shingles. None of the men on the roof spoke English, but a fourth man, who identified himself as Jose Manuel Mejia, appeared and stated he worked for Respondent, and that all the workers onsite were paid through PMI at a rate of $10.00 per hour. Mr. Mejia admitted that one of the worker’s onsite, Emelio Lopez, was not enrolled with PMI and explained that Mr. Mejia brought him to the worksite that day because he knew Mr. Lopez to be a good worker. The remaining workers onsite were identified as Juan Mencho and Ramon Gonzalez, both from Atlanta, Georgia. Mr. Mejia produced some PMI paystubs for himself and Mr. Mencho. Mr. Mejia stated that he and his crews also received reimbursement checks directly from Respondent for gas, rentals, materials, and the like. Mr. Holman contacted PMI, who produced Respondent’s then-active employee roster. Mr. Mejia and Mr. Mencho were on the roster, but neither Mr. Gonzalez nor Mr. Lopez was included. Mr. Holman next contacted Ms. Fisher, who identified Mr. Mejia as a subcontractor, but was not familiar with any of the other men Mr. Holman encountered at the worksite. Mr. Holman consulted via telephone with his supervisor, who instructed him to issue an SWO to Respondent for failing to secure workers’ compensation coverage for its employees. Mr. Holman issued SWO 16-198-1A by posting the worksite on June 8, 2016. Department Facilitator Don Hurst, personally served Ms. Fisher with SWO 16-198-1A in Tallahassee that same day. SWO 16-148-1A Penalty Calculation1/ Department Penalty Auditor Eunika Jackson, was assigned to calculate the penalties associated with the SWOs issued to Respondent. On June 8, 2016, Ms. Jackson began calculating the penalty associated with SWO 16-148-1A. Ms. Jackson reviewed the documents submitted by Respondent in response to the BRR. The documents included Respondent’s Wells Fargo bank statements, check images, and PMI payroll register for the audit period.2/ Based on a review of the records, Ms. Jackson identified the following individuals as Respondent’s employees because they received direct payment from Respondent at times during the audit period: David Rosinsky, Dylan Robinson, Jarod Bell, Tommy Miller, and David Shields. Ms. Jackson determined periods of non-compliance for these employees based on the dates they received payments from Respondent and were not covered for workers’ compensation via PMI employment roster, separate policy, or corporate officer exemption. Ms. Jackson deemed payments to each of the individuals as gross payroll for purposes of calculating the penalty. Based upon Ms. Fisher’s deposition testimony, Ms. Jackson assigned National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) class code 5551, Roofing, to Mr. Miller; NCCI class code 5474, Painting, to Mr. Rosinsky; NCCI class code 8742, Sales, to Mr. Bell and Mr. Robinson; and NCCI class code 8810, clerical office employee, to Mr. Shields. Utilizing the statutory formula for penalty calculation, Ms. Jackson calculated a total penalty of $191.28 associated with these five “employees.” Ms. Jackson next calculated the penalty for Dustin Hansel, Kerrigan Ireland, Milton Trice, and Winston Perrotta, the workers identified at the jobsite as employees on May 4, 2016. The Department maintains that the business records submitted by Respondent were insufficient to determine Respondent’s payroll to these “employees,” thus, Ms. Jackson used the statutory formula to impute payroll to these workers. Ms. Jackson calculated a penalty of $14,970.12 against Respondent for failure to secure payment of workers’ compensation insurance for each of these four “employees” during the audit period. The total penalty associated with these four “employees” is $59,880.48. Ms. Jackson calculated a total penalty of $60,072.96 to be imposed against Respondent in connection with SWO 16-148- 1A. Business Records In compliance with the Department’s BRR, Respondent submitted additional business records on several occasions-- March 21, May 3 and 31, June 7, and August 15 and 24, 2017--in order to establish its complete payroll for the audit period. While the Department admits that the final documents submitted do establish Respondent’s complete payroll, the Department did not issue amended penalty assessment based on those records in either case. The Department maintains Respondent did not timely submit records, pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.028(4), which allows an employer 20 business days after service of the first amended order of penalty assessment to submit sufficient records to establish payroll. All business records submitted by Respondent were admitted in evidence and included as part of the record. The undersigned is not limited to the record before the Department at the time the amended penalty assessments were imposed, but must determine a recommendation in a de novo proceeding. The undersigned has relied upon the complete record in arriving at the decision in this case. Penalty Calculation for Ireland, Trice, and Perrotta For purposes of workers’ compensation insurance coverage, an “employee” is “any person who receives remuneration from an employer” for work or services performed under a contract. § 440.02(15)(a), Fla. Stat. Respondent did not issue a single check to Mr. Ireland, Mr. Trice, or Mr. Perrotta during the audit period. Mr. Ireland, Mr. Trice, and Mr. Perrotta are not included on any PMI leasing roster included in the record for the audit period. The uncontroverted evidence, including the credible and unrefuted testimony of each person with knowledge, established that Mr. Ireland, Mr. Trice, and Mr. Perrotta were newly hired for the job in Crestview on May 4, 2016, and began working that day prior to submitting applications at PMI, despite Ms. Fisher’s directions otherwise. Petitioner did not prove that either Mr. Ireland, Mr. Trice, or Mr. Perrotta was Respondent’s employee at any time during the audit period. Petitioner did not correctly calculate the penalty of $44,911.26 against Respondent for failure to secure workers’ compensation insurance for Mr. Ireland, Mr. Trice, and Mr. Perrotta during the audit period. Penalty Calculation for Hansel Ms. Fisher testified that Mr. Hansel has owned several businesses with which Respondent has conducted business over the years. Originally, Mr. Hansel owned a dumpster rental business, now owned by his father. Mr. Hansel also owned an independent landscaping company with which Respondent occasionally transacted business. When Respondent expanded business into the Panama City area, Ms. Fisher hired Mr. Hansel as a crew chief to supervise new crews in the area. The job on May 4, 2016, was his first roofing job. A review of Respondent’s records reveals Respondent issued the following checks to Mr. Hansel during the audit period: December 4, 2015, in the amount of $360, $300 of which was for “dumpster rental” and the remaining $60 for “sod”; May 4, 2016, in the amount of $200 for “sod repair”; May 6, 2016, in the amount of $925 as reimbursement for travel expenses; May 9, 2016, in the amount of $1,011.50 (with no memo); and May 21, 2016, in the amount of $100 for “7845 Preservation.” Mr. Hansel was included on Respondent’s PMI leasing roster beginning on May 13, 2016. Petitioner proved that Mr. Hansel was Respondent’s employee at times during the audit period. Petitioner did not prove that Respondent’s records were insufficient to determine payroll to Mr. Hansel during the audit period, which would have required an imputed penalty. Petitioner did not correctly calculate the penalty of $14,970.42 against Respondent for failure to secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage for Mr. Hansel during the audit period. Sod repair by Mr. Hansel is a service performed for Respondent during the audit period. Reimbursement of travel expenses is specifically included in the definition of payroll for purposes of calculating the penalty. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L- 6.035(1)(f) (“Expense reimbursements, including reimbursements for travel” are included as remuneration to employees “to the extent that the employer’s business records and receipts do not confirm that the expense incurred as a valid business expense.”). Dumpster rental is neither work performed on behalf of, nor service provided to, Respondent during the audit period. The correct uninsured payroll amount attributable to Mr. Hansel is $2,296.50. Petitioner correctly applied NCCI class code 5551, Roofing, to work performed by Mr. Hansel based on the observation of Mr. Holman at the worksite on May 4, 2016. With respect to Mr. Hansel’s services for sod and sod repair, Petitioner did not correctly apply NCCI class code 5551. Petitioner did not introduce competent substantial evidence of the applicable NCCI class code and premium amount for landscaping services performed during the audit period.3/ Uninsured payroll attributable to Mr. Hansel for roofing services during the audit period is $2,036.50. The approved manual rate for workers’ compensation insurance for NCCI class code 5551 during the period of non- compliance--May 9 and 21, 2016--is $18.60. The premium amount Respondent would have paid to provide workers’ compensation insurance for Mr. Hansel is $378.79 (One percent of Mr. Hansel’s gross payroll during the non-compliance period--$20.36--multiplied by $18.60). The penalty for Respondent’s failure to secure worker’s compensation coverage insurance for Mr. Hansel during the period of non-compliance is calculated as two times the amount Respondent would have paid in premium for the non- compliance period. The correct penalty for Respondent’s failure to maintain workers’ compensation coverage for Mr. Hansel during the period of non-compliance is $757.58. Penalty Calculation for Salesmen Independent contractors not engaged in the construction industry are not employees for purposes of enforcing workers’ compensation insurance requirements. See § 440.02(15)(d)1., Fla. Stat. Sales is a non-construction industry occupation. The Department calculated a penalty associated with payroll attributable to the following persons identified by Ms. Fisher as independent salesmen: Dylan Robinson, Kevin Miller, Marc Medley, Mike Rucker, Colby Fisher, David Jones, Jarod Bell, Matt Flynn, and Todd Zulauf. Section 440.02(15)(d)1. provides that an individual may be an independent contractor, rather than an employee, as follows: In order to meet the definition of independent contractor, at least four of the following criteria must be met: The independent contractor maintains a separate business with his or her own work facility, truck, equipment, materials, or similar accommodations; The independent contractor holds or has applied for a federal employer identification number, unless the independent contractor is a sole proprietor who is not required to obtain a federal employer identification number under state or federal regulations; The independent contractor receives compensation for services rendered or work performed and such compensation is paid to a business rather than to an individual; The independent contractor holds one or more bank accounts in the name of the business entity for purposes of paying business expenses or other expenses related to services rendered or work performed for compensation; The independent contractor performs work or is able to perform work for any entity in addition to or besides the employer at his or her own election without the necessity of completing an employment application or process; or The independent contractor receives compensation for work or services rendered on a competitive-bid basis or completion of a task or a set of tasks as defined by a contractual agreement, unless such contractual agreement expressly states that an employment relationship exists. If four of the criteria listed in sub- subparagraph a. do not exist, an individual may still be presumed to be an independent contractor and not an employee based on full consideration of the nature of the individual situation with regard to satisfying any of the following conditions: The independent contractor performs or agrees to perform specific services or work for a specific amount of money and controls the means of performing the services or work. The independent contractor incurs the principal expenses related to the service or work that he or she performs or agrees to perform. The independent contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of the work or services that he or she performs or agrees to perform. The independent contractor receives compensation for work or services performed for a commission or on a per-job basis and not on any other basis. The independent contractor may realize a profit or suffer a loss in connection with performing work or services. The independent contractor has continuing or recurring business liabilities or obligations. The success or failure of the independent contractor’s business depends on the relationship of business receipts to expenditures. Ms. Fisher testified that each of the above-named salesmen sold roofing jobs for her at various times during the audit period on a commission-only basis. The contractors inspect homeowner roofs, draft schematics, use their own equipment (e.g., drones), incur all of their own expenses, and handle the insurance filing for the homeowner’s insurance to pay on the claim. Ms. Fisher further testified that each of the salesmen also sells for other roofing contractors in the Tallahassee area. She pays the salesmen on a per-job basis. Ms. Fisher does not compensate the salesmen for the time involved in inspecting a roof, preparing schematics, or making the sale. Nor does Ms. Fisher reimburse the salesmen for travel to sales jobsites. Ms. Fisher’s testimony was credible, persuasive, and uncontroverted. Respondent introduced in evidence four “Independent Contractor Checklists” allegedly completed by Mr. Robinson, Mr. Medley, Mr. Fisher, and Mr. Flynn. Each form checklist follows the format of section 440.02(15)(d)1., listing the criteria set forth in subparagraphs a. and b. The forms indicate that they each meet all the criteria listed in subparagraph b.: they perform, or agree to perform services for a specific amount of money and control the means of performing the service; they incur the principal expenses related to the service performed; they are responsible for satisfactory completion of the services performed; they receive compensation for the services performed on a per-job or commission basis; they may realize a profit or suffer a loss in connection with performing the services; they have continuing and recurring business liabilities or obligations; and the success or failure of their business depends on the relationship of business receipts to expenditures.4/ In its Proposed Recommended Order, Petitioner conceded the nine men identified by Respondent as independent sales contractors “would not be considered employees of Respondent” because the “salesmen would seem to meet the majority of [the] requirements [of section 440.02(15)(d)1.b.].” Respondent issued Dylan Robinson, Mark Medley, Colby Fisher, Matt Flynn, Kevin Miller, Mike Rucker, Jarod Bell, David Jones, and Todd Zulauf an IRS FORM 1099-MISC for income paid during the 2016 tax year. Respondent did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the above-named salesmen were Respondent’s employees during the audit period. For SWO 16-148-1A, Respondent did not correctly calculate the penalty because Respondent included a penalty associated with Petitioner’s failure to provide workers’ compensation insurance coverage for Dylan Robinson and Jarod Bell. Penalty in the amount of $20.70 associated with Dylan Robinson and Jarod Bell should not be included in the total penalty. The correct penalty amount for SWO 16-148-1A, based on records submitted by Respondent on or before March 20, 2016, is $929.16. Draft Revised Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment The additional records submitted by Respondent revealed payments made to persons during the audit period who were not included in the Department’s Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. The Department and Respondent disagreed at hearing whether the payments qualified as payroll. At hearing, Petitioner submitted a draft revised second amended penalty calculation for SWO 16-148-1A based on all records received from Respondent. The revised penalty is in the amount of $61,453.50. Ms. Jackson populated the spreadsheet with the name of every individual to whom a check was written on Respondent’s business bank account during the audit period, removing only those payments to individuals and entities which, to Petitioner’s knowledge, were not Respondent’s employees. Respondent’s calculations in the revised penalty suffer from some of the same errors as in the second amended penalty calculation--they include individuals Petitioner did not prove were Respondent’s employees, as well as payments which were not uninsured payroll. For the reasons explained herein, Petitioner did not prove that salesmen David Jones, Dylan Robinson, Jarod Bell, Kevin Miller, Mark Medley, Matt Flynn, Mike Rucker, Tim Fischer, and Colby Fisher were Respondent’s employees during the audit period. Respondent did not accurately calculate the penalty associated with those persons. Respondent made payments to David Shields during the audit period, which the Department argues should be included as payroll. The Department included payments to Mr. Shields in its draft revised second amended order of penalty assessment and assigned NCCI class code “8810” for clerical work. Mr. Shields is a licensed professional roofing contractor who acts as “qualifier” for Respondent’s business. A qualifier is a licensed professional who certifies plans for permit applications submitted by another business. Respondent pays Mr. Shields a flat fee per permit application qualified by him. The record evidence does not support a finding that Mr. Shields provides clerical services to Respondent. Mr. Shields provides some sort of professional services to Respondent, and is likely an independent contractor providing his own materials and supplies, maintaining his own business accounts, and liable for his own business success. Assuming Mr. Shields were Respondent’s employee, the Department introduced no evidence of an appropriate NCCI class code for Mr. Shields’ services. The Department did not prove that payments to Mr. Shields should be included as Respondent’s uninsured payroll during the audit period. Respondent paid Susan Swain a total of $258 during the audit period for clerical work. Ms. Fisher maintained Ms. Swain’s work was casual at first, and the payments reflect a time when she worked on-again, off-again, handling the paperwork for restoration insurance claims. Later, Ms. Swain came to work for Respondent full-time and was added to the PMI leasing roster. Section 440.02(15)(d)5. provides that a person “whose employment is both casual and not in the course of the trade, business, profession or occupation of the employer” is not an employee. The statute defines “casual” employment as work that is anticipated to be completed in 10 working days or less and at a total labor cost of less than $500. See § 440.02(5), Fla. Stat. In its Proposed Recommended Order, the Department argues Ms. Swain’s wages should be included as payroll because the “testimony regarding Ms. Swain does not suggest that she was employed for less than 10 days[.]” However, it was the Department’s burden to prove that Ms. Swain was a statutory employee. The Department did not prove that Ms. Swain’s wages should be included within Respondent’s uninsured payroll. The largest portion of the penalty assessed by the Department, as well as in the draft revised second amended penalty assessment, against Respondent is in connection with various roofers who were employed by Respondent at times during the audit period. Each of the roofers was included on Respondent’s PMI leasing roster, but received checks directly from Respondent in addition to PMI payroll checks. The Department included all the direct payments to those roofers as payroll for purposes of calculating a penalty in this case. As Ms. Fisher explained, the company bids a reroof on a per job basis--usually a per square foot price. Ms. Fisher adds each roofing contractor’s name to the PMI leasing roster to ensure that each roofer is covered by workers’ compensation insurance for the duration of the job. When the job is completed (which is a matter of just a few days), the contractor reports to Ms. Fisher what amount of the contract price was spent on materials, supplies, or other non-labor costs. Ms. Fisher cuts a check to the contractor for that amount and authorizes PMI to issue payroll checks for the “labor cost” (the difference between the contract price and the non-labor costs). Ms. Fisher refers to this process as “back-charging” the contractors for their materials, maintenance, tools, and other non-labor costs. The Department is correct that the direct payments are payroll to the roofing contractors. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.035(1)(b) and (h) (remuneration includes “payments, including cash payments, made to employees by or on behalf of the employer” and “payments or allowances made by or on behalf of the employer for tools or equipment used by employees in their work or operations for the employer.”). The Department would be correct to include these payments in the penalty calculation if they represented uninsured payroll. However, the evidence supports a finding that the direct payments to the roofing contractors were made for the same jobs on which Respondent secured workers’ compensation coverage through PMI. The roofing contractors were covered for workers’ compensation throughout the job, even though they may have received partial payment for the job outside of the PMI payroll checks.5/ The direct payments were not for separate reroofs on which the roofers were not otherwise insured. The Department did not correctly calculate penalties associated with the following roofing contractors: Donald Tontigh, Joseph Howard, Keith Mills, Aaron Kilpatrick, Gustavo Tobias, Jose Mejia, and Tommy Miller. Ms. Fisher also received cash payments from Respondent during the audit period. These payments were made in addition to her payroll through PMI. Ms. Fisher described these payments as “cash tickets,” which were paid outside of her PMI payroll to reimburse her for investments made in the company. For purposes of calculating the penalty in this case, these “cash tickets” are clearly payroll, as that term is to be calculated pursuant to rule 69L-6.035. Similar to the issue with the roofing contractors, the question is whether the payments represent uninsured payroll. Ms. Fisher did not hold a corporate officer exemption at any time relevant hereto. Ms. Fisher testified that she was covered through PMI payroll leasing. In contrast to the roofing contractors, Ms. Fisher’s direct payments do not directly coincide with any particular job or specific time frame during which Ms. Fisher was covered for workers’ compensation insurance through PMI. The evidence was insufficient to determine that the amounts were insured payroll. The Department properly calculated a penalty associated with payroll attributable to Ms. Fisher. Respondent made one payment of $75 to Donald Martin during the audit period. The Department calculated a penalty of $27.90 associated with this payment to Mr. Martin. Ms. Fisher explained that Mr. Martin was a down-on-his-luck guy who came by the office one day complaining that Mr. Hansel owed him some money. Ms. Fisher offered to put him on a roofing crew and wrote him the $75 check to help him out. Ms. Fisher’s testimony was both credible and unrefuted. Mr. Martin was never hired by Respondent, put on any roofing crew, or added to the PMI leasing roster. Mr. Martin was not Respondent’s employee because he did not receive remuneration for the “performance of any work or service while engaged in any employment under any appointment or contract for hire” with Respondent. § 440.02(15)(a), Fla. Stat. Cale Dierking works for Respondent full-time in a clerical position. During the audit period, Respondent paid Mr. Dierking directly by check for $1,306.14. This payment was made outside of Mr. Dierking’s PMI payroll checks. Ms. Fisher testified that she paid Mr. Dierking directly on one occasion when “PMI’s payroll got stuck in Memphis, I believe it was a snow-in situation where payroll checks didn’t come.” Rather than ask her employee to go without a timely paycheck, she advanced his payroll. Ms. Fisher’s testimony was both credible and unrefuted. The payment to Mr. Dierking is clearly payroll. However, Mr. Dierking was covered for workers’ compensation through PMI for the period during which the check was issued. Thus, there is no evidence that it was uninsured payroll. The Department did not correctly calculate a penalty associated with payments to Mr. Dierking. The correct penalty to be assessed against Respondent for failure to secure workers’ compensation coverage for its employees during the audit period in connection with SWO 16-148- 1A is $770.60. Penalty Calculation for SWO 16-198-1A Ms. Jackson calculated a total penalty against Respondent in connection with SWO 16-198-1A in the amount of $19,115.84, as reflected in the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. The Department correctly imputed penalty against Respondent in the amount of $91.68 each for uninsured payroll to Mr. Gonzalez and Mr. Lopez. The evidence supported a finding that these workers were Respondent’s statutory employees on June 8, 2016, and were not enrolled on the PMI leasing roster. The Department did not correctly calculate the penalty associated with salesmen Dylan Robinson, Jarod Bell, Kevin Miller, Mark Medley, Matt Flynn, and Todd Zulauf. The Department did not correctly calculate the penalty associated with roofing contractors Abraham Martinez- Antonio, Edwin Kinsey, Dustin Hansel, Efrian Molina-Agustin, Jose Mejia, Joseph Howard, Keith Mills, Samuel Pedro, and Tommy Miller. The Department did not correctly calculate the penalty against Respondent associated with Mr. Shields, Respondent’s qualifier. Based on a review of Respondent’s complete “untimely” records, the Department discovered direct payments made to additional employees not included on the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. Respondent made a direct payment to Ethan Burch in the amount of $602.50 during the audit period. Ethan Burch is one of Respondent’s full-time clerical employees. The evidence is insufficient to determine whether the payment of $602.50 was insured or uninsured payroll. As such, the Department did not prove it correctly calculated the penalty associated with Mr. Burch. Respondent also made a direct payment to Chelsea Hansel in the amount of $965 during the audit period. Ms. Hansel is another clerical employee. Ms. Hansel’s PMI enrollment was delayed due to some background investigation. Respondent paid Ms. Hansel for work she completed prior to enrollment. The direct payment to Ms. Hansel constitutes uninsured payroll. The Department correctly calculated the penalty associated with the payment to Chelsea Hansel. The correct penalty amount to be imposed against Respondent for failure to secure payment of workers’ compensation coverage for its employees (Gonzalez, Lopez, and Chelsea Hansel) during the audit period in connection with SWO 16-198-1A is $187.80.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, finding that Royal Roofing and Restoration, Inc., violated the workers’ compensation insurance law and, in DOAH Case No. 17-0879, assessing a penalty of $770.60; and in DOAH Case No. 17-1558, assessing a penalty of $187.80. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of January, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of January, 2018.
