The Issue Whether Petitioner, Moncrief Bail Bonds, Inc., conducted business operations in the State of Florida without obtaining workers' compensation coverage, meeting the requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2005), in violation of Subsection 440.107(2), Florida Statutes (2002 through 2005). If so, what penalty should be assessed by Respondent, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, pursuant to Section 440.107, Florida Statutes (2005),1 and Florida Administrative Code Rule, Chapter 69L.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure the payment of workers' compensation for the benefit of their employees. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. Petitioner is a corporation domiciled in Florida, and engaged in the business of issuing bail bonds. On August 3, 2005, Respondent's investigator, Robert Cerrone, visited Petitioner's office location at 3910 South John Young Parkway, Orlando, Florida, on a referral from his supervisor. He interviewed a number of persons at the office site. Cerrone documented his investigation in the narrative of his Initial Investigative Report. Based upon these field interviews, Respondent determined that the workers were employed by Petitioner. Cerrone contacted Petitioner's president, Russell Bruce Moncrief, and inquired whether Petitioner had secured the payment of workers' compensation, to which Moncrief responded that he had never secured the payment of workers' compensation for his business. Subsequent to the site visit, it was determined that Petitioner did not have a State of Florida workers' compensation insurance policy to provide workers' compensation coverage for any of its workers. Florida law requires that an employer who has four or more employees, engaged in non-construction work in Florida, obtain a Florida workers' compensation policy. Petitioner was an employer, with four or more employees, all of whom were paid remuneration, during all times material to the instant case. Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.019(2) requires that in order for an employer to comply with Subsections 440.10(1)(g) and 440.38(7), Florida Statutes, any policy or endorsement used by an employer to prove coverage of workers' compensation for employees engaged in Florida work, must be issued by an insurer that holds a valid certificate of authority in the State of Florida. Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, allows an individual to apply for an election to be exempt from workers' compensation benefits. Only the named individual on the application is exempt from carrying workers' compensation insurance coverage. During the relevant time period, there were no current, valid exemptions for Petitioner. 11. Subsections 440.107(3) and 440.107(7)(a), Florida Statutes, authorize Respondent to issue Stop-Work Orders to employers unable to provide proof of workers' compensation coverage. Failure to provide such proof is deemed "an immediate serious danger to public health, safety, or welfare " On August 3, 2005, Respondent issued and served on Petitioner a SWO and Order of Penalty Assessment for failing to obtain coverage that meets the requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and the Insurance Code, Chapter 624, Florida Statutes. Also at that time, Cerrone issued a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment to Petitioner, seeking business records for the period August 3, 2002, through August 3, 2005. Employers conducting business in Florida are required to keep business records that enable Respondent to determine whether the employer is in compliance with the workers' compensation law. Petitioner complied with the records request and provided Respondent with the requested payroll records for the time period between August 3, 2002, and August 3, 2005. Utilizing the records provided, and applying the statutorily mandated penalty calculation methodology, the penalty for Respondent was calculated by assigning a class code to the type of work conducted by the employees, utilizing the manual approved by rule. The approved manual rate was multiplied by the wages paid to the employee per one hundred dollars, and the product therof was then multiplying by 1.5. The Amended Order, which assessed a penalty of $51,499.34, was personally served on Petitioner on August 4, 2005. On August 12, 2005, Petitioner entered into a Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty, and was issued an Order of Conditional Release from the SWO by Respondent. Petitioner made a down payment of ten percent of the assessed penalty, provided proof of compliance with Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by obtaining six exemptions for officers of the corporation, and agreed to pay the remaining penalty in 60 equal monthly installments. The entities listed on the Amended Order penalty worksheet were Petitioner's employees, during the relevant period, and none had valid workers' compensation exemptions or workers' compensation coverage. At the hearing, Petitioner attempted to provide an alternative class code for the calculation of the penalty that significantly reduced his penalty. Petitioner alleged that his workers were misclassified by Respondent as Class Code 7720, police officers and drivers, when in fact they should have been classified under Class Code 8810, clerical office employees. Petitioner contends that the calculation of the penalty imposed is inaccurate. Specifically, six of Respondent's employees, although these individuals held bail bonds licenses, performed only clerical duties and did not go into the field to apprehend persons in violation of their bail bond or court order. Their rate of compensation was based on their experience and knowledge, rather than their job descriptions. Petitioner introduced evidence that the current workers' compensation policy, which exempts six employees, is less than the premium calculated by Respondent. Class Code 7720, utilized by Respondent, is the most appropriate code for bail bondsmen regardless of whether their duties were mostly performed in the office. Furthermore, all of the individuals on the penalty worksheet classified under Class Code 7720 possess surety agent (bail bond) licenses, and are thus able to function as bail bondsmen in their full capacity, including, but not limited to apprehending individuals. At the final hearing, Petitioner provided information that six of its employees had obtained workers' compensation exemptions, four of which listed the employee's duties as "bail bondsman" and two as "clerical." Petitioner also alleged that his workers were independent contractors, but did not provide evidence to support that assertion.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order, as follows: Petitioner failed to secure worker's compensation coverage for its employees, as required by statute; and Petitioner be assessed a penalty of $51,499.34. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of February, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of February, 2007.
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not Respondent's real estate brokers license should be disciplined because he engaged in acts and/or conduct amounting to fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence and breach of trust, and for failure to account and deliver1 in violation of Subsections 475.25(1)(b) and (d), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, including post-hearing memoranda, I hereby make the following relevant factual findings: During times material herein, Respondent was, and is, a licensed real estate broker in Florida and has been issued license number 0007278. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). Maryland Properties, Inc. was a corporation organized under the laws of Florida during times material and incorporated as such on March 24, 1977 and was involuntarily dissolved on November 10, 1983. At times material, Respondent was President of Maryland Properties, Inc. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). Prior to December, 1980, Mr. and Mrs. Emeterio Padron Cruz were the owners of lots 16 and 17, block 11, of Athol Subdivision, Dade County, Florida. (Petitioner's Exhibit 11) Padron Deposition-Page 5; Petitioner's Exhibits 12-Mrs. Padron Deposition-Pages 2 and 3; Petitioner's Exhibit 3). Mr. and Mrs. Padron were interested in selling lots 16 and 17 and Respondent, in his capacity as real estate broker, sought buyers on behalf of the Padrons. (TR 94). On September 6, 1980, a contract was obtained by the Respondent between Mr. and Mrs. Padron, as sellers, and Roberto Hernandez and/or assigns as buyer. According to the terms of the contract, a real estate commission of $650 was to be paid to Respondent. (TR 97). The transaction between the Padrons as sellers and Roberto Hernandez as buyers did not materialize and instead Respondent, through the entity Maryland Properties, Inc., purchased the property and a closing was held on December 1, 1980. Respondent became interested in the purchase of this property based on a need expressed by the Padrons that they needed to dispose of their property and they wished that Respondent would purchase the property along the same terms as Roberto Hernandez had previously agreed. In this regard, Respondent executed the closing documents as President of Maryland Properties, Inc., the purchaser of the Padron property. The Padrons were aware that Respondent was President of Maryland Properties, Inc., based on their review of the closing documents. Respondent received a $650 commission in his capacity as broker in the Padron to Maryland Properties, Inc. transaction. (Petitioner's Exhibit 13; Petitioner's Exhibit 11-Padron Deposition-Pages 13 and 14). As part of the Padron/Maryland Properties, Inc. transaction, a mortgage dated December 1, 1980 was given back to Padron by Maryland Properties, Inc. for $8,000. The mortgage deed and note were not recorded until March 11, 1981. Respondent prodded the Padrons to record the mortgage and to keep the note in a safe in the event that it was needed later on. Per Respondent's insistence, the Padrons finally recorded the mortgage and note on March 11, 1981. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4). On November 27, 1980, Maryland Properties, Inc., through its President, the Respondent, entered into a contract to sell the same lots (16 and 17) to Agustin R. and Gladys A. Verde (Respondent's Exhibit 1). The Maryland Properties, Inc./Verde transaction closed on February 4, 1981 without the Verdes or their attorney, Antonio Alonso, being aware of the Maryland Properties, Inc. to Padron Mortgage. At no time prior to closing did the Respondent reveal to the Verdes or Mr. Alonso the existence of the mortgage. Mr. Alonso, prior to closing, received and reviewed an abstract on the property which abstract did not contain the mortgage as it could not have since the mortgage was not recorded until subsequent to the Verde closing. Additionally, Respondent executed an affidavit prior to closing wherein it is stated that the property was free and clear of any lien or encumbrance. (Petitioner's Exhibit 15) The closing statement executed by Respondent speaks of a purchase money (first) mortgage, which mortgage was from the Verdes to Maryland Properties, Inc. (Petitioner's Exhibits 4, 5, 8, 14, 15; TR 70-77). Respondent, as President of Maryland Properties, Inc., failed to make the final mortgage payment of $4,000 to Padron when same became due on December 2, 1982. Padron foreclosed on the mortgage which action was initiated on December 1, 1983. Respondent entered a settlement to the foreclosure action and paid the mortgage deficiency, however, there remains outstanding an award for attorneys fees for the foreclosure action in favor of the Padron's attorney (Louis Sabatino).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent 's license number 0007278 be suspended for a period of six (6) months. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of May, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of May, 1986.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made. At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent has been licensed in the State of Florida as a limited surety agent (bail bondsman), a life and health agent and a general lines agent. Respondent has been licensed as an insurance agent for more than eleven years. He has been a licensed limited surety agent for more than ten years. Pursuant to Section 648.442(3), Florida Statutes, all collateral received by Respondent or others acting under his supervision or control in transactions under his surety agent license constituted trust funds received in a fiduciary capacity. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent has been doing business as Protective Insurance Center, Jenkins Bail Bonds. Until early February of 1991, Respondent's general agent was Banker's Insurance Company. However, in early February, Respondent's relationship with that company was terminated. Respondent's current general agent is American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida. Russell Faibish, Respondent's general agent with American Bankers since February of 1991, has expressed via affidavit that Respondent is in good standing with that company and the company has been satisfied with his performance to date. On January 25, 1991, Respondent, while acting in his capacity as a limited surety agent for Banker's Insurance Company, posted a surety bond, No. 339658, (the "Bond") in the amount of $752.00 to obtain the release of Kim Reinhold Whitford from custody in Clay County, Florida. In connection with the posting of the Bond, Respondent received from Earnest R. Justice (the "Indemnitor") a $75.00 premium payment and a $350.00 cash collateral payment. At the time the Indemnitor arranged with Respondent for the issuance of the bond, the Indemnitor was advised that his collateral would be returned within twenty one days of the receipt of written notice of the discharge of the bond. Respondent was provided with a notice from the Clerk of Court that Ms. Whitford was scheduled for a court appearance on April 3, 1991 for a "plea." Respondent never made any inquiry as to the results of that April 3, 1991 hearing. On April 3, 1991, the Bond was discharged and the obligation of the surety, Banker's Insurance Company, was released in writing by the County Court of Clay County, Florida. Respondent contends that he never received notification of the discharge of the Bond. While the Court document indicates that a notice of the discharge of the Bond was sent to Respondent at the time the requirements for the discharge were satisfied on or about April 3, 1991, no conclusive evidence was presented to establish that the notice of discharge was actually sent to or received by Respondent. Respondent denies ever receiving that document. After Ms. Whitford was released from jail, the Indemnitor contacted Respondent's office several times in April and May of 1991 trying to arrange the return of his collateral. Respondent denies receiving any messages from the Indemnitor. The failure to receive the messages may have been due to office staff turnover. In any event, the evidence was sufficient to establish that the Indemnitor attempted to arrange for the return of his collateral on numerous occasions without success. On August 9, 1991, the Petitioner filed the Administrative Complaint which is the basis for this proceeding against Respondent alleging that he failed to return the Indemnitor's collateral. Upon receipt of the Administrative Complaint, Respondent contacted the Clerk of Court, in Clay County, Florida to determine the status of the bond. On August 30, 1991, the Clerk of Court, Clay County, Florida, sent Respondent a certified copy of the bond discharge. Respondent claims that he first became aware of the discharge of the Bond and the Indemnitor's right to the return of the collateral when he received the August 30 certification from Clay County. Because an Administrative Complaint had already been filed, Respondent did not immediately refund the collateral for fear that such action could be construed as an attempt to influence a witness in the case. In order to avoid the appearance of attempting to influence a witness, Respondent waited until the day of the hearing to arrange to make a refund of the collateral available to the Indemnitor. On January 14, 1992, Respondent sent a Western Union Money Transfer, control no. 7395574746, payable to the Indemnitor in the amount of $350.00 as return of the collateral. Although the Indemnitor did not receive the return of his collateral until approximately eight to nine months after it was due, the collateral was ultimately returned and there is no other evidence in this case of any other financial loss to any member of the public. On average, Respondent has between 100 to 150 active bond cases per month. Most of those bonds are written in Palm Beach County, where Respondent's business is located. In this case, Respondent arranged for a "teletype bond" whereby the arrangements for the bond were made in Palm Beach County and notification of the posting of the bond and authorization for the release of the prisoner were transmitted via teletype to Clay County. Respondent contends that he reviews his active cases on a quarterly basis to confirm the status of the bonds. Nevertheless, it took almost six months for Respondent to determine that the requirements of the Bond in this case had been fully satisfied. No justifiable excuse was given for this delay. However, in mitigation, it does appear that the long distance nature of the transaction, the change in Respondent's general agent and office staff turnover all contributed to the delay in refunding the Indemnitor's collateral. Respondent has had three Administrative Complaints filed against him since 1985. The first Administrative Complaint was filed on June 26, 1985 and alleged that Respondent failed to provide required documentation of his assets to the Department. Pursuant to a Consent Order entered on August 6, 1985, Respondent was fined $200 and placed on probation for one year as a result of this charge. The most serious and pertinent prior administrative proceeding against Respondent was commenced by an Administrative Complaint dated November 17, 1987. That complaint alleged, among other things, that Respondent failed to return collateral to at least two clients. In April of 1989, the parties entered into a settlement stipulation regarding these charges pursuant to which Respondent was suspended for one year and fined $1,000.00. He was also required to make resitution to several individuals who had not been identified in the Administrative Complaint in that case. No explanation has been provided regarding the "restitution" required to be made to those individuals. The third case involved an Emergency Suspension Order entered on March 16, 1988. That Order was dissolved on September 20, 1988 when the underlying criminal charges were nolle prosequi. Respondent has had several IRS liens filed against him and there is currently a foreclosure action pending against his house. However, no specific information was provided regarding the status of those cases. Respondent contends that he is vigorously contesting all of those matters and he believes they will be favorably resolved. The evidence in this case suggests that Respondent is currently involved in disputes with some other customers regarding the return of collateral. The evidence did not establish the exact number or the facts surrounding those disputes. Respondent contends that all of those disputes are related to problems with or caused by his prior General Agent. No conclusions as to the merits of those complaints can be drawn from the evidence presented in this case. Gerald Michael Sandy, a licensed bondsman in the State of Florida and the current president of the Florida Surety Agents Association, testified on behalf of the Respondent in this matter. He indicated that on approximately 40% of the bonds that are executed, the Courts do not provide written notice of the discharge. However, Mr. Sandy conceded that even if written notification from a court is not received, the bail bondsman is primarily responsible for determining whether a bond has been discharged and a bail bondsman must immediately respond to the inquiries of an indemnitor regarding the return of collateral.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered suspending Respondent's licenses for three months, placing him on probation for two years and assessing an administrative fine in the amount of $500. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of March, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of March, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-6302 Both parties have submitted Proposed Recommended Orders. The following constitutes my rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection. 1. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1. 2. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1. 3. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 2. 4. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 3. Findings of Fact 5. 7. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. 8. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 7. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in Subordinate to Findings of Fact 13 and 14 and addressed in the Preliminary Statement. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 6 and 10. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 8. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 18. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 19. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 20. The Respondents's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection. 1. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. 2. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. 3. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 7. 4. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 10. 5. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 11. 6. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 11. 7. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 12. 8. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 14. 9. Addressed in the Preliminary Statement. 10a. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 10. 10b. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 9. 10c. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 10. 10d. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 10. 10e. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 13. 10f. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 13. 10e.[sic] Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 17. 10f.[sic] Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 16. 10g. Rejected as unnecesdsary. 11a. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 21. 11b. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 21. 11c. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 21. 12. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 4. COPIES FURNISHED: David D. Hershel, Esquire Department of Insurance and Treasury Larson Building, Room 412 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Franklin Prince, Esquire Northbridge Centre, Suite 300-P 515 N. Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill O'Neil Deputy General Counsel Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent, Sergio A. Balsinde ("Respondent") is entitled to elect to be exempt from the workers' compensation insurance coverage requirements of chapter 440, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement of the workers' compensation law that employers secure the payment of workers' compensation insurance coverage for their employees and corporate officers. § 440.107(3). A corporate officer may elect to become exempt from the workers' compensation insurance coverage requirements of chapter 440 by complying with the election of exemption methodology set forth in section 440.05. If the election of exemption meets the criteria of section 440.05, then the Department is required to issue a certification of the election to be exempt to the officer. § 440.05(3). A corporate officer is ineligible for an exemption if he is affiliated with "a person who is delinquent in paying a stop-work order and penalty assessment order issued pursuant to section 440.107, or owed pursuant to a court order." § 440.05(15). Balco was originally incorporated in 1985. Mr. Balsinde has been a corporate officer of Balco since at least April 28, 2003, the date of the earliest Balco annual report entered into evidence. Mr. Balsinde is also a corporate officer and 10 percent owner of LC Cable Corp. The Department issued and served a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment on Balco on February 8, 2007. At the final hearing in the instant case, Mr. Balsinde testified that the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment had been erroneously entered against his company. He testified that the uninsured workers in question did not even work for Balco. Mr. Balsinde testified that he had attempted to rectify the error with the Department, but was unable to make the Department acknowledge its mistake. Whatever the merits of Mr. Balsinde's factual claim, neither he nor any other representative of Balco formally challenged the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment. Having long ago become final, the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment cannot be contested in this proceeding. On September 23, 2008, Balco entered into an Amended Payment Agreement Schedule with the Department that called for Balco to make 60 monthly payments, each due on the first day of the month, and a suspension of the Stop-Work Order. After Balco ceased making payments according to the schedule, the Department issued an Order Reinstating Stop-Work Order on October 26, 2009. The reinstatement order was served on Mr. Balsinde on October 30, 2009. As of October 26, 2009, the unpaid balance of the penalty assessment against Balco was $22,236.38, which was ordered due immediately by the reinstatement order. As of the date of the hearing in this case, the balance remained unpaid. Neither Mr. Balsinde nor any other representative of Balco filed a timely request for a review proceeding to challenge the reinstatement order. Balco did not appeal the reinstatement order. On July 22, 2010, a final decree in Chapter 7 bankruptcy was entered on behalf of Mr. Balsinde by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida, in Case Number 10-18850-LMI. The discharge in bankruptcy was received by Mr. Balsinde as an individual. Though the final decree listed the Department as an unsecured creditor and Balco as a business of the debtor, Balco did not receive a discharge in bankruptcy, nor did the company file a bankruptcy petition subsequent to the issuance of the reinstatement order by the Department. Mr. Balsinde submitted a Notice of Election to be Exempt to the Department on November 29, 2010, as an officer of LC Cable Corp., a corporation operating in the construction industry. The Department reviewed Mr. Balsinde's application to determine his eligibility to elect the exemption. The Department's Coverage and Compliance Automated System indicated that Mr. Balsinde is the officer of a corporation that is delinquent in paying a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment, which makes him ineligible for an exemption. The Department issued a Notice of Denial of Mr. Balsinde's election of exemption on December 6, 2010.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, finding that Sergio A. Balsinde is ineligible for an election of exemption under section 440.05. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of May, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of May, 2011.
