The Issue The issues are whether Respondent conducted business operations in Florida without obtaining workers’ compensation coverage that met the requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2009), for its employees, and if so, what penalty should be assessed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency that is responsible for enforcing Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, which requires employers to secure the payment of workers’ compensation for the benefit of their employees. Respondent is a Louisville, Kentucky-based corporation that is engaged in the construction, maintenance, and painting of elevated water tanks. Respondent has a second fabrication facility located in Newnan, Georgia. Respondent’s work constitutes construction. On March 4, 2010, Petitioner’s investigator, Lawrence F. Eaton, observed Respondent’s employees working on a water tower in Pace, Florida. While visiting the worksite, one of Respondent’s employees stated that he did not have any information regarding if and how the men were covered by workers’ compensation. The employee gave Mr. Eaton a telephone number for Respondent. Next, Mr. Eaton consulted the Kentucky Secretary of State website to find information concerning the corporate status of Respondent. The website indicated that Respondent was incorporated in 1892 and that it had three corporate officers. Mr. Eaton then consulted Petitioner’s Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) database. CCAS contains workers’ compensation policy information for each employer that has a Florida policy and information relative to workers’ compensation exemptions that have been applied for and issued to individuals by Petitioner. Mr. Eaton was unable to find any indication on CCAS that Respondent had secured workers’ compensation coverage by purchasing a Florida policy. CCAS also provided no evidence that Respondent had entered into an arrangement with an employee leasing company to provide workers’ compensation coverage to its employees. Additionally, CCAS did not show that Respondent had obtained exemptions for its corporate officers. Mr. Eaton subsequently spoke with one of Respondent’s representatives. Mr. Eaton was informed that Respondent was self-insured for workers’ compensation in Kentucky. Mr. Eaton also learned that Respondent had another workers’ compensation policy. Respondent’s representative indicated that she would send Mr. Eaton the policy paperwork. When he received the paperwork from Petitioner, Mr. Eaton determined that the insurance coverage did not comply with the requirements of Florida’s workers’ compensation law. The paperwork included an excess policy of workers’ compensation and a Georgia workers’ compensation policy. On March 5, 2010, Mr. Eaton issued a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment against Respondent. Specifically, the Stop-Work Order states that Respondent was not in compliance with Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, because Respondent failed to obtain workers’ compensation coverage for its employees. On March 5, 2010, Mr. Eaton issued a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation to Respondent. On March 8, 2010, Respondent provided Mr. Eaton with additional workers’ compensation policy information. The information included the declarations page for Chartis Company Policy No. WC 005-73-7942. The Chartis policy is a Workers’ Compensation and Employers Liability Policy. In Item 3A, the policy lists the states that are covered, in Part One of the policy, pursuant to each state’s workers’ compensation law. Georgia is named as a covered state in Item 3A. In Item 3C, the Chartis policy lists the states that are covered, in Part Three of the policy, as "other states insurance." Florida is listed only in Item 3C. Item 4 of the Chartis policy states that "[t]he premium of this policy will be determined by our Manuals of Rules, Classifications, Rates and Rating Plans. All information required below is subject to verification and change by audit." In response to the request for business records, Respondent provided Petitioner with payroll information for work it had performed in Florida between September 2007 and February 2010. After receiving this information, Respondent’s Penalty Calculator, Robert McAullife, calculated a penalty. Because Respondent had not provided all of the requested business records, Mr. McAullife imputed Respondent’s payroll for a portion of the relevant time period. In calculating the penalty, Mr. McAullife first sought to determine the amount of premium that Respondent would have paid had it been properly insured for the relevant three-year period. Mr. McAullife assigned a class code for each of Respondent’s employees, reflecting the work they performed. Mr. McAullife then took 1/100th of the payroll and multiplied that figure by the approved manual rate applicable to each class code. Mr. McAullife then took the previously obtained product and multiplied it by 1.5 to find a penalty in the amount of $122,242.23. This penalty is based on Respondent having $382,146.90 in Florida payroll that would have required $81,494.66 in workers’ compensation premium. There are no errors in Mr. McAullife’s penalty calculation. Mr. Eaton issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on March 23, 2010. On March 24, 2010, Respondent and Petitioner entered into a Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty that required ten percent of the penalty to be paid in advance and the remainder to be paid in 60 interest-free monthly payments. Respondent also produced a policy that provided coverage in compliance with Florida law with an effective date of March 12, 2010. As a result, Petitioner issued an Order of Conditional Release, permitting Respondent to return to work. During the hearing, Respondent presented evidence that it is a registered self-insured company in Kentucky for the first $500,000.00 of workers’ compensation. Additionally, Respondent has excess insurance for any workers’ compensation claims that exceed the $500,000.00 threshold. Because it is self-insured in Kentucky, Respondent must purchase letters of credit on an annual basis. Respondent paid the following for its recent letters of credit: (a) 2007, $26,755.54; (b) 2008, $32,438.48; (c) 2009, $33,626.38; and (d) 2010 to date, $8,931.39. The State of Kentucky assesses qualified self-insureds a six and one half percent tax based on an annual simulated premium. The amount of the simulated premium represents what a qualified self-insured would pay for a "first dollar" policy of workers’ compensation insurance. Respondent’s recent simulated premiums are as follows: (a) 2007, $453.440.00; (b) 2008, $480,637.00; (c) 2009, $623,940.00; and (d) 2010, $1,006,243.00. Respondent also maintains a "high dollar" deductible policy of insurance that provides workers’ compensation coverage for its Georgia employees. Respondent’s Georgia policy, Chartis Company Policy No. WC 005-73-7942, which includes Florida as part of "all other states" in Item 3C of the declarations page, also requires the payment of premiums. Respondent recently paid the following premiums for this insurance: (a) 2007, $124,736.78; (b) 2008, $125,950.08; and (c) 2009, $64,465.28. The premiums paid by Respondent for the Chartis Company Policy No. WC 005-73-7942 are not based on Florida rates. From 2007 to 2010, Respondent provided workers’ compensation benefits for at least four different workers that were injured while performing work for Respondent in Florida. The workers’ compensation benefits paid by Respondent on these claims totaled $147,958.25.
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 Caldwell Tanks, Inc., failed to comply with Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and imposing a penalty in the amount of $122,224.22. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of December, 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 8th day of December, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Claude M. Harden, III, Esquire Carr Allison 305 South Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jamila Georgette Gooden, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Julie Jones, Agency Clerk Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 Benjamin Diamond, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 Honorable Alex Sink Chief Financial Officer The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390
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 in this case are whether Respondent, Raul A. Correa, M.D. (Dr. Correa), failed to provide workers' compensation coverage, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing section 440.107, Florida Statutes (2013). That section mandates, in relevant part, that employers in Florida secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage for their employees. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. At all times relevant, Dr. Correa was a Florida small business engaged in the practice of medicine, with his principal office located at 2505 Manatee Avenue West, Bradenton, Florida. Dr. Correa is not incorporated. On February 12, 2014, Ms. Green conducted an on-site workers’ compensation compliance investigation (compliance investigation) of Dr. Correa’s office. After identifying herself to the receptionist, Ms. Green met Dr. Correa and explained the reason for her presence, a compliance investigation. Dr. Correa telephoned his wife who handles his office management from their residence. Mrs. Correa immediately faxed a copy of the liability insurance policy to the office. However, that liability policy did not include workers’ compensation coverage. After a telephonic consultation with her supervisor, Ms. Green served a Request for Production of Business Records (Request) on Dr. Correa at 11:50 a.m. on February 12, 2014. This Request encompassed records from October 1, 2013, through February 12, 2014, for all of Dr. Correa’s payroll documents, account documents, disbursements, and workers’ compensation coverage policies. Ms. Green consulted the Department’s Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) database to determine whether Dr. Correa had secured workers’ compensation coverage or an exemption from the requirements for coverage for his employees. CCAS is a database Ms. Green consults during the course of her investigations. Ms. Green determined from CCAS that Dr. Correa did not have any current workers’ compensation coverage for his employees and he did not have an exemption from such coverage from the Department. The records reflected that Dr. Correa’s last active workers’ compensation coverage was in 2004. Dr. Correa obtained workers’ compensation coverage on February 20, 2014. Approximately one month later, Ms. Green served a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation on Dr. Correa. Dr. Correa produced the requested records. These records were given to Lynne Murcia, one of the Department’s penalty auditors, to calculate the penalty. Ms. Murcia determined that the appropriate classification code for Dr. Correa’s employees was 8832, which incorporates physicians and clerical workers. This code was derived from the Scopes Manual, which lists all of the various jobs that may be performed in the context of workers’ compensation. The manual is produced by the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc., the nation’s most authoritative data collecting and disseminating organization for workers’ compensation. Dr. Correa listed seven employees on the Florida Department of Revenue Unemployment Compensation Tax (UCT-6) form for the time period of the non-compliance. The UCT-6 form lists those employees who are subject to Florida’s Unemployment Compensation Law. Ms. Murcia reasonably relied upon the UCT-6 filings for the relevant time period to calculate Dr. Correa’s gross payroll in Florida. Using Dr. Correa’s payroll chart, the UCT reports, and the classification codes for each employee, Ms. Murcia calculated the penalty assessment for the three-year penalty period preceding the investigation. This three-year period is the allocated time for reviewing coverage for those who do not have the appropriate workers’ compensation coverage. On April 9, 2014, Ms. Murcia determined the penalty to be $4,287.12. However, upon receipt of additional information regarding a former employee of Dr. Correa, an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment of $3,898.77 was issued on July 28, 2014. Dr. Correa’s position is that his practice is a small “mom and pop” operation. He employs members of his family to run the business side of his practice. His daughter, Antonia, works as Dr. Correa’s “doctor’s assistant.” She works at the various nursing homes that Dr. Correa services. Antonia believed that the nursing homes’ liability insurance would cover her, and she was not subject to workers’ compensation coverage. However, she was, in fact, paid by Dr. Correa. Dr. Correa’s daughter-in-law, Valeria, works from her home computer completing the medical billing for her father-in- law. She has been working in this capacity for approximately 14- 16 years, and it never occurred to her that she needed workers’ compensation coverage. She was paid by Dr. Correa. Dr. Correa’s brother-in-law, Mr. Collado, runs all the errands for the practice. He may go to the bank, take care of car maintenance, buy office supplies or fix things, all in support of Dr. Correa’s practice. Mr. Collado receives regular pay checks from Dr. Correa. Dr. Correa testified that his wife is his office manager and has been since he opened the practice in 1978. Mrs. Correa works from their home, in a small home office. She does all the paper work related to the practice. Dr. Correa firmly believed that he did not require workers’ compensation coverage because some of his employees were “independent contractors” or never worked in his office, but at other locations (individual homes, nursing homes, or just outside the office). Dr. Correa believed his insurance agent who did not think Dr. Correa needed the workers’ compensation coverage. Based upon the testimony and exhibits, the amended penalty assessment in the amount of $3,898.77 is accurate.
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, issue a final order upholding the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and assessing a penalty in the amount of $3,898.77. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of September, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of September, 2014.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner properly issued a Stop-Work Order and Amended Order of Penalty Assessment against Respondent for failing to obtain workers' compensation insurance that meets the requirements of chapter 440, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Division is a component of the Department of Financial Services. It is responsible for enforcing the workers' compensation coverage requirements pursuant to section 440.107. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Grandview was a corporation registered to do business in Florida. Grandview is a bread and breakfast and was an active company during the two-year audit period from August 22, 2015, through August 21, 2017. On July 19, 2017,1/ Respondent met with a Henderson Insurance agent and learned that Respondent was not in compliance with the workers' compensation requirements. Grandview immediately requested bids to obtain insurance, but did not purchase a policy because it was decided that it was "not the right time." On August 21, 2017, Robert Feehrer ("investigator" or "Feehrer"), compliance investigator for the Division, started an investigation of Grandview. Feehrer discovered that Grandview did not have any workers' compensation policies, employee leasing agreements, or exemptions on file with the National Council on Compensation Insurance. That same day the Division issued Grandview a Stop-Work Order for Respondent's failure to secure the required workers' compensation insurance coverage. Petitioner also served Grandview with a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation ("Request") asking for documentation to enable the Division to evaluate the payroll for the audit period of August 22, 2015, through August 21, 2017, and to determine Respondent's compliance with the Workers' Compensation Law of Florida. Grandview responded timely and provided sufficient business records in response to the Division's Request. Eunika Jackson ("auditor" or "Jackson"), penalty auditor for the Division, was assigned to Grandview's investigation. Jackson reviewed the business records produced by Grandview. Jackson concluded her audit by properly calculating the workers' compensation amount owed by Grandview for the audit period using the Class Code 9052 for lodging facilities. Jackson applied the approved manual rates and methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d). Grandview had at least four employees2/ during the audit period and did not have any exemptions from workers' compensation insurance coverage requirements during the audit period. Initially, Jackson calculated Grandview's penalty amount as being over $25,000.00. After Grandview timely provided sufficient business records in response to the Request, Jackson correctly applied the penalty reduction credit to the calculation and concluded Grandview owed a reduced penalty amount of $13,755.55. On November 27, 2017, Respondent was served with the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment totaling $13,755.55. On December 18, 2017, Respondent challenged the penalty assessment and requested a formal hearing.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions 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 Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in the amount of $13,755.55. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. MCKINNEY 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 October, 2018.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Forgue General Contracting, Inc., violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by failing to secure the payment of workers’ compensation coverage; and, if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with enforcing workers’ compensation coverage requirements in Florida, including the requirement that employers secure the payment of workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. See § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Respondent operates a construction company in Florida, and Respondent has been in business since 2004. On October 31, 2018, Margaret Cavazos, a compliance investigator with the Department, conducted a random workers’ compensation check at a worksite located at 1172 East State Road 434 in Winter Springs, Florida. The worksite is a two-story commercial building with five individual storefronts. Investigator Cavazos arrived at the worksite at 8:30 a.m. There, she observed four individuals who she believed were preparing the exterior of the building for painting. One person was covering a window with tape and brown construction paper. Two more individuals were standing in the bucket of a boom lift approximately 15 feet above the ground next to the building. They appeared to be placing blue tape over a sign of one of the businesses in the building. A fourth person was positioned by a truck supervising the activity. Investigator Cavazos further noticed that several of the business names had already been covered with construction paper and tape. Investigator Cavazos approached the person standing by the truck and introduced herself. He identified himself as Jose Luis Chachel. Mr. Chachel informed Investigator Cavazos that he and the other three individuals at the worksite were working for a company called RC Painting Services, Inc. (“RC Painting”). Mr. Chachel further stated that they were preparing the building to be painted. The other three individuals at the worksite identified themselves to Investigator Cavazos as Juan Carlos Vasquez Garcia, Artemia Vasquez, and Jenny Araque. Investigator Cavazos watched the four individuals work at the jobsite for about an hour, then they departed. Investigator Cavazos, however, did not obtain any information from Mr. Chachel or the other individuals concerning how long they had worked for RC Painting, when they had arrived at the jobsite, their rate of pay, or whether RC Painting had actually paid them for their work. At the final hearing, Investigator Cavazos testified that her duties for the Department include inspecting businesses and worksites to determine whether a business has obtained the required workers’ compensation insurance coverage. Investigator Cavazos explained that a business that performs construction- related work must have workers’ compensation coverage. Therefore, Investigator Cavazos believed that, prior to beginning the painting activities, RC Painting should have secured sufficient workers’ compensation coverage for all four individuals identified at the worksite. After learning the name of the business that arranged for the presence of the four individuals at the jobsite, Investigator Cavazos consulted the Department’s Coverage and Compliance Automated System (“CCAS”) database for information on RC Painting. CCAS is a Department database that tracks workers’ compensation insurance coverage. CCAS contains coverage data from insurance carriers, as well as any workers’ compensation exemptions on file with the Department. Insurance providers are required to report coverage and cancellation information, which the Department uses to update CCAS. CCAS had no record that RC Painting carried any workers’ compensation coverage for the four individuals Investigator Cavazos observed at the worksite. While reviewing CCAS, Inspector Cavazos also noted that the Department did not have on file any request from RC Painting for an “exemption” from workers’ compensation coverage. An exemption is a method by which a business’s corporate officer may exempt him or herself from the requirements of chapter 440. See § 440.05, Fla. Stat. CCAS also revealed to Investigator Cavazos that on the date of her inspection, RC Painting had an active employee leasing agreement with SouthEast Personnel Leasing (“SouthEast Leasing”), an employee staffing company. At the final hearing, Inspector Cavazos explained that a business is not required to obtain workers’ compensation insurance for its employees if coverage is properly provided by or through an employee leasing company’s workers’ compensation policy. However, in order for an employee leasing company to become responsible for the workers’ compensation coverage of a particular employee, the business seeking coverage for that employee must ensure that the employee submits an application to the leasing company. Thereafter, if (and only if) the leasing company accepts the application, the leasing company becomes accountable for the workers’ compensation insurance coverage for that employee. Investigator Cavazos contacted SouthEast Leasing. SouthEast Leasing provided Investigator Cavazos an active roster of employees it leased to RC Painting. However, neither Mr. Chachel, Juan Carlos Vasquez Garcia, Artemia Vasquez, nor Jenny Araque were listed on this roster. Therefore, Investigator Cavazos concluded that none of the four individuals she identified at the worksite were covered by workers’ compensation insurance under RC Painting’s leasing arrangement with SouthEast Leasing on October 31, 2018. After determining that neither CCAS nor SouthEast Leasing recorded any workers’ compensation coverage for the persons at the worksite, Investigator Cavazos contacted RC Painting’s owner, Roberto Chavez. (Mr. Chachel provided Investigator Cavazos with his phone number during her inspection.) Investigator Cavazos testified that, during their phone call, Mr. Chavez confirmed that the four individuals worked for him. Mr. Chavez further informed Investigator Cavazos that RC Painting had been hired by Respondent to paint the building. At that point, Investigator Cavazos called Respondent to inquire about workers’ compensation coverage for Jose Luis Chachel, Juan Carlos Vasquez Garcia, Artemia Vasquez, and Jenny Araque. Investigator Cavazos spoke with one of Respondent’s employees, Anthony Gonzalez. Mr. Gonzalez confirmed that Respondent engaged RC Painting to paint the building. Continuing to search for active workers’ compensation coverage, Investigator Cavazos discovered that Respondent also had an employee leasing agreement with SouthEast Leasing. Investigator Cavazos reviewed SouthEast Leasing’s roster which recorded only two covered employees for Respondent, Anthony Gonzalez and Edward Forgue (Respondent’s president). As with RC Painting’s leasing agreement, Respondent’s leasing agreement with SouthEast Leasing did not cover Jose Luis Chachel, Juan Carlos Vasquez Garcia, Artemia Vasquez, or Jenny Araque on October 31, 2018. As detailed below, under section 440.10(1), a contractor is liable for, and is required to secure, workers’ compensation coverage for all employees of a subcontractor to whom the contractor sublets work. (Section 440.10(1)(c) also directs the contractor to require a subcontractor to provide evidence of workers’ compensation insurance.) Therefore, as a contractor hiring a subcontractor for construction work, Respondent was required to exercise due diligence to ensure that all RC Painting’s employees who were painting the building were covered by workers’ compensation insurance. On October 31, 2018, based on her findings, Investigator Cavazos issued a Stop-Work Order to RC painting. Later that day, Mr. Chavez ventured to the Department’s local office to determine how his business could be released from the Stop-Work Order. There, he met with district supervisor, Salma Qureshi. Ms. Qureshi informed Mr. Chavez that, in order for his company to return to work, he needed to pay a $1,000 fine and complete an Affirmation. She explained to Mr. Chavez that on the Affirmation, he was to describe how RC Painting intended to come into full compliance with workers’ compensation coverage requirements. Mr. Chavez had, in fact, brought with him a cashier’s check for $1,000. (The amount was included on the Stop-Work Order.) Mr. Chavez then completed an Affirmation before Ms. Qureshi. On the Affirmation, Mr. Chavez wrote the names of the four individuals Investigator Cavazos identified at the jobsite. Next to each name, Mr. Chavez wrote “$20.” Below the names, he wrote “I am terminating.” Mr. Chavez then signed and dated the Affirmation. At the final hearing, Ms. Qureshi expressed that Mr. Chavez told her that he was going to pay each of the four individuals $20 for the day’s work they performed on October 31, 2018, and then he was terminating them. In addition to issuing the Stop-Work Order to RC Painting, on October 31, 2018, Investigator Cavazos issued a Stop-Work Order for Specific Worksite Only to Respondent, which was served on November 2, 2018. Investigator Cavazos also served Respondent with a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation. Through this document, the Department requested several categories of business records from Respondent for the period of November 1, 2016, through October 31, 2018. The requested documents pertained to: employer identification, payroll documents, account documents, disbursements, workers’ compensation coverage, professional employer organization records, temporary labor service, exemptions, subcontractor records, and subcontractors’ workers’ compensation coverage. Based on Investigator Cavazos’s investigation, the Department determined that Respondent failed to secure adequate workers’ compensation coverage for its employees. Therefore, the Department proceeded to calculate a penalty based on Respondent’s lack of compliance with chapter 440. The Penalty Calculation: Nathaniel Hatten, the penalty auditor who determined the penalty the Department seeks to impose on Respondent, testified regarding his computation. Mr. Hatten explained that the penalty essentially consists of the “avoided” premium amount, or the actual premium the employer would have paid in workers’ compensation insurance for the uncovered employees, multiplied by two. To calculate the appropriate penalty for Respondent’s failure to secure workers’ compensation coverage, the Department first ascertained Respondent’s period of non-compliance. To determine this time frame, the Department referred to Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.028(2), which directs that: The employer’s time period or periods of non-compliance means the time period(s) within the two years preceding the date the stop-work order was issued to the employer within which the employer failed to secure the payment of compensation pursuant to chapter 440, F.S., and must be either the same time period as set forth in the business records request for the calculation of penalty or an alternative time period or period(s) as determined by the Department, whichever is less. The employer may provide the Department with records from other sources, including, but not limited to, the Department of State, Division of Corporations, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, licensing offices, and building permitting offices to show an alternative time period or period(s) of non- compliance. Based on these instructions, the Department deduced that Respondent’s period of non-compliance ran from November 1, 2016, through October 31, 2018, which was the two-year period preceding the date of the Stop-Work Order. (This two-year period was also the time for which the Department requested business records from Respondent.) After determining Respondent’s period of non- compliance, the Department then calculated the monetary penalty it should impose upon Respondent. In accordance with section 440.107(7)(d)1., the Department must assess against an employer: a penalty equal to 2 times the amount the employer would have paid in premium when applying approved manual rates to the employer’s payroll during periods for which it failed to secure the payment of workers’ compensation required by this chapter within the preceding 2-year period or $1,000, whichever is greater. Therefore, the Department reviewed the business records Respondent provided to ascertain the amount of Respondent’s payroll during the two-year period of non-compliance. In response to the Department’s request for documents, Respondent produced its client leasing agreement with SouthEast Leasing. This leasing agreement, however, only covered Mr. Forgue and Mr. Gonzalez. Further, the leasing agreement was only in effect from February 7, 2018, through October 30, 2018, for Mr. Forgue and February 21, 2018, through October 30, 2018 for Mr. Gonzalez. No evidence establishes that Respondent made any other payments for workers’ compensation insurance coverage outside of the SouthEast Leasing agreement. Consequently, the evidence in the record establishes that Respondent had no workers’ compensation coverage for any of its employees, officers, or subcontractor employees from November 1, 2016, through February 6, 2018. And, only Mr. Forgue and Mr. Gonzalez were covered from February 2018 through October 30, 2018. Further, Respondent did not provide any payroll information to the Department per its request for business records. Consequently, the documentation was not comprehensive enough for the Department to determine all the wages Respondent paid to its employees, or the work they performed for the period of November 1, 2016, through October 31, 2018. Therefore, the Department determined that Respondent did not provide business records sufficient for it to calculate Respondent’s complete payroll or the actual employee wages it paid over the two-year period of non-compliance. Accordingly, the Department exercised its option to “impute” Respondent’s weekly payroll from November 1, 2016, through October 31, 2018. To calculate Respondent’s imputed weekly payroll, section 440.107(7)(e) directs that the gross payroll for an employer who provides insufficient business records is imputed at the statewide average weekly wage, multiplied by 1.5, for each employee who worked during the period requested for the penalty calculation. Therefore, the Department obtained the statewide average weekly wage effective at the time of the Stop- Work Order ($917.00)2/ for each identified employee, corporate officer, and subcontractor, then multiplied that number by 1.5. See § 440.107(7)(e), Fla. Stat.; and Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L- 6.028(3)(a). The Department imputed the payroll for all four individuals Investigator Cavazos observed at the worksite on October 31, 2018 (Jose Luis Chachel, Juan Carlos Vasquez Garcia, Artemia Vasquez, and Jenny Araque), for all periods of non- compliance (November 1, 2016 through October 31, 2018). No evidence established that these individuals were covered under a workers’ compensation policy either through Respondent, RC Painting, or SouthEast Leasing. The Department also included Mr. Forgue for a period of non-compliance from January 22, 2018, through February 8, 2018. The Department imputed his payroll during this period of time explaining that Respondent did not have an active workers’ compensation exemption on file for Mr. Forgue. Neither was he covered by SouthEast Leasing’s policy during this brief timeframe. Therefore, Respondent was required to carry workers’ compensation for Mr. Forgue from January 22, 2018, through February 8, 2018. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.028(3)(b). To calculate a penalty based on the imputed payroll, the Department assigned Respondent’s employees the highest rated workers’ compensation classification code. The classification code is based on either the business records submitted or the investigator’s observation of the employees’ activities. In this case, the business records Respondent provided to the Department were not sufficient to categorize the exact type of work that the identified workers performed for Respondent over the two-year period of non-compliance. However, during her investigation of the jobsite on October 31, 2018, Investigator Cavazos observed the four employees engaging in activities associated with “painting.” According to the Scopes Manual issued by the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc. (“NCCI”), class code 5475 is applied to “painting contractors engaged in painting.”3/ Consequently, the Department used class code 5474 for all Respondent’s employees and corporate officer for the penalty period. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.028(3)(b) and 69L- 6.021(2)(jj)(painting is classified as “construction activity”). Therefore, to calculate the premium amount for the workers’ compensation insurance Respondent should have paid for its “employees” (Jose Luis Chachel, Juan Carlos Vasquez Garcia, Artemia Vasquez, and Jenny Araque) and officer (Mr. Forgue), the Department applied the manual rates corresponding to class code 5474. Thereafter, based on: 1) the total periods of non- compliance, 2) Respondent’s calculated payroll for the periods of non-compliance, and 3) the estimated premium for workers’ compensation insurance, the Department issued the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment (“Penalty Assessment”) on November 30, 2018, which was served on Respondent on February 28, 2019. The Penalty Assessment seeks to impose a penalty of $129,089.60 against Respondent. At the final hearing, Respondent argued that the individuals Investigator Cavazos identified at the worksite on October 31, 2018, were never hired by Respondent’s subcontractor, RC Painting. Therefore, they are not “employees” under chapter 440, and Respondent is not an “employer” for purposes of securing workers’ compensation coverage. Consequently, Respondent argues that the penalty the Department seeks to assess against Respondent is not warranted. Mr. Chavez testified at the final hearing for Respondent describing his employment relationship with Jose Luis Chachel, Juan Carlos Vasquez Garcia, Artemia Vasquez, and Jenny Araque. Initially, Mr. Chavez confirmed that Respondent hired RC Painting to paint the exterior of the shopping plaza. Regarding the four individuals Investigator Cavazos identified at the jobsite, however, Mr. Chavez denied that they were “employees” of RC Painting on October 31, 2018. Mr. Chavez explained that he used SouthEast Leasing to “hire” his employees. Mr. Chavez asserted that before he puts someone to work, he requires them to complete an employment application with SouthEast Leasing. Only after SouthEast Leasing approved the employee would he allow the individual to work on a job. In this matter, Mr. Chavez denied that he had ever worked with Mr. Chachel before, or ever met the other three individuals that Mr. Chachel brought with him to the jobsite. Mr. Chavez maintained that he called Mr. Chachel on the evening of October 30, 2018, about the prospective painting job. He then asked Mr. Chachel to bring two other workers and meet him at the jobsite the following morning. Mr. Chavez testified that he instructed Mr. Chachel that he would need to send information to SouthEast Leasing before anyone actually started working on the project. Mr. Chavez further contended that he did not have any discussion with Mr. Chachel about wages or the rate of pay for the job. He declared that he never commits to paying any prospective employee before ascertaining what type of skills they possess. Mr. Chavez explained that, “anyone can tell you, ‘I’ve been painting all of my life,’ and they show up and don’t know how to paint, or they don’t know how to do anything.” In response to Inspector Cavazos’s testimony, Mr. Chavez exclaimed that he never told her that the four individuals were his “employees.” He merely relayed that they were “with” him. Mr. Chavez also insisted that he never authorized Mr. Chachel or his crew to start preparing the building for painting prior to meeting with him. Mr. Chavez further relayed that Respondent provided the boom lift for the job. But, he never instructed Mr. Chachel to begin using it. Mr. Chavez arrived at the shopping plaza around 9:30 a.m. However, by that time Investigator Cavazos had issued the Stop- Work Order, and only Mr. Chachel remained at the scene. Regarding the Affirmation he completed at the Department’s district office, Mr. Chavez testified that, other than Mr. Chachel, he did not know the names of individuals who Investigator Cavazos identified at the jobsite. He asserted that he wrote their names on the Affirmation only after Ms. Qureshi spelled them out for him on a sticky note. Mr. Chavez further professed that he only penned “$20” by each name because Ms. Qureshi told him that the Department would not release him from the Stop-Work Order until he added the wages he paid to each individual. Mr. Chavez claimed that Ms. Qureshi specifically instructed him to insert a number by each employee. Mr. Chavez declared that he felt like he had no choice but to include “$20” on the Affirmation if he wanted to return to work. In actuality, however, Mr. Chavez insisted that he did not pay Jose Luis Chachel, Juan Carlos Vasquez Garcia, Artemia Vasquez, or Jenny Araque anything for their activities on October 31, 2018. Ms. Qureshi testified for the Department on rebuttal. She credibly voiced that she did not write out the names of the four “employees” for Mr. Chavez to list on his Affirmation. Neither did she suggest a wage amount for their work, or force Mr. Chavez to write that he “terminated” them. On the contrary, Ms. Qureshi attested, clearly and without hesitation, that Mr. Chavez independently completed his sworn Affirmation, and he did not ask for her assistance with the specific information he wrote down. Ms. Qureshi persuasively stated that Mr. Chavez knew the names of Jose Luis Chachel, Juan Carlos Vasquez Garcia, Artemia Vasquez, and Jenny Araque when he composed the Affirmation. Further, Mr. Chavez expressly told her that he was going to pay the four individuals $20 for the day, and that he was terminating them. The competent substantial evidence in the record establishes that Jose Luis Chachel, Juan Carlos Vasquez Garcia, Artemia Vasquez, and Jenny Araque were “employees” of RC Painting under section 440.02(15) on October 31, 2018. Based on this finding, the Department demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent failed to secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage or a workers’ compensation exemption for four employees for the period of November 1, 2016, through October 31, 2018, as well as its corporate officer from January 22, 2018, through February 8, 2018. Accordingly, the Department met its burden of proving that Respondent violated chapter 440 and should be penalized.
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 determining that Respondent, Forgue General Contracting, Inc., violated the requirement in chapter 440 to secure workers’ compensation coverage, and imposing a total penalty of $129,089.60. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of October, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER 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 18th day of October, 2019.
The Issue The issues are: (1) Whether Respondent, Bravo Construction, Inc. ("Respondent"), was in violation of the workers’ compensation requirements of Chapter 440.107, Florida Statutes (2003),1/ by failing to secure workers’ compensation coverage for its workers; (2) Whether such individuals possessed current valid workers’ compensation exemptions; and (3) Whether Respondent paid its workers remuneration outside of Respondent’s employee leasing company.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement of Section 440.107, Florida Statutes, which requires that employers secure the payment of workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. Respondent is a company engaged in the construction industry. Specifically, Respondent's business is framing houses. At all time relevant to this proceeding, Elias Bravo was president of the company. On May 26, 2004, the Department’s investigators, Carol Porter and Kelley Dunning, conducted a random visit of a work site in Grassy Point, a gated community in Port Charlotte, Florida, and discovered Mr. Bravo and his workers on site as the house-framers. When the investigators arrived at the site, they spoke with Mr. Bravo, who advised the investigators that Respondent utilized a personnel leasing company, Time Management, which was actually a brokerage firm for Southeast Personnel Leasing, Inc. ("SEPL"), to secure workers’ compensation coverage. On May 26, 2005, Mr. Bravo was the only person in his crew who had coverage with SEPL. At the time of the site visit, the other men were not listed with SEPL because Mr. Bravo still had their applications in his car. After Respondent was unable to provide proof that the men had workers' compensation coverage pursuant to Subsections 440.107(3) and (7)(a), Florida Statutes, the investigators issued a Stop Work Order to Respondent while at the work site on May 26, 2004. On the same day that the Stop Work Order was issued, Investigator Dunning served Mr. Bravo with a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation ("Request for Production of Business Records"). The Department requested copies of Respondent's business records in order to determine whether Respondent had secured workers' compensation coverage; whether Mr. Bravo or Respondent's employees had workers' compensation exemptions; and, if not, to determine the penalty assessment. In response to the Request for Production of Business Records, Mr. Bravo provided certificates of insurance, Respondent's check stubs written to various entities or individuals on behalf of Respondent, payroll records, and Form 1099s for the year ending 2003. Many of the documents provided by Mr. Bravo indicated that Respondent made payments directly to the entities and individuals. The Department maintains records regarding the workers' compensation coverage of individuals and entities in a statewide database called Compliance and Coverage Automated System ("CCAS"). The CCAS database is utilized by the Department to verify if an individual or entity has workers' compensation coverage or a valid exemption from coverage. As part of the Department's investigation, Investigator Porter conducted a CCAS search for Respondent's workers’ compensation insurance coverage records. This search verified that Mr. Bravo had workers' compensation coverage. However, many of the workers or entities to whom Respondent made direct payments did not have workers’ compensation coverage or current valid workers’ compensation exemptions. Based on a review of the payroll records, check stubs, and the Form 1099s that Respondent provided to the Department, Investigator Porter determined that Respondent was an "employer" as that term is defined in Subsection 440.02(16), Florida Statutes. Subsequently, the Department reassessed the original penalty and issued the Amended Order with the attached penalty worksheet which detailed the basis of the penalty assessment. In determining the amended penalty assessment, Investigator Porter disregarded and did not include Respondent's payments to any individual or entity that had workers’ compensation coverage or an exemption from such coverage. The Amended Order, which reflected a penalty assessment of $97,416.68, was issued to Respondent on May 28, 2004.2/ Respondent paid remuneration to the individuals listed on the penalty worksheet of the Amended Order for work they performed. Nonetheless, during the period covered by the penalty assessment, Respondent did not secure workers' compensation coverage for the individuals listed on the penalty worksheet, and none of them had workers' compensation coverage or exemptions from such coverage. The individuals listed on the penalty worksheet of the Amended Order were Respondent's employees during the relevant period, in that they were paid by Respondent, a construction contractor, and did not have workers’ compensation coverage or an exemption from such coverage. Mr. Bravo had workers' compensation coverage through SEPL. However, none of the employees listed on the Amended Order had workers' compensation coverage through SEPL, because they were paid directly by Respondent. A personnel leasing company provides workers' compensation coverage and payroll services to its clients, then leases those employees back to the clients for a fee. Respondent was a client of SEPL, and based on that relationship, Mr. Bravo believed that he and his workers received workers' compensation coverage through that personnel leasing company. However, the workers' compensation coverage provided by SEPL applied only to those employees SEPL leased to Respondent. In the case of leased employees, Respondent would have to make payments to the leasing company and not directly to his workers. The leasing company would then, in turn, pay the leased employees. When, as in this case, the construction company makes direct payments to individuals performing construction work, those workers are not leased employees and, thus, are not secured by the workers’ compensation coverage provided by the personnel leasing company. See § 468.520, Fla. Stat. Some of the individuals listed on the penalty worksheet may have been "dually employed"; that is, sometimes they were employed by Respondent and at other times, they were employees of SEPL and were leased to Respondent. However, during the periods in which individuals worked for Respondent and were paid by Respondent, and were not paid by SEPL, they were without workers’ compensation coverage unless Respondent provided such coverage. With regard to the individuals listed on the penalty worksheet, Respondent provided no such coverage. Respondent, through Mr. Bravo, paid its employees directly, thus, circumventing SEPL and losing the coverage that the employees may have had through it. The Department assessed the penalty against Respondent based on the remuneration Respondent gave directly to the employees outside of SEPL, the class code assigned to each employee utilizing the SCOPES Manual adopted by the Department in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.021, and the guidelines in Subsection 440.107(7)(d), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, enter a final order that affirms the Stop Work Order and the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, which imposes a penalty of $97,416.68. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of May, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of May, 2005.
The Issue Whether Petitioner properly issued a Stop-Work Order and Penalty Assessment against Respondent for failing to obtain workers' compensation insurance that meets the requirements of chapter 440, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for enforcing the Florida Workers' Compensation Law, chapter 440, Florida Statutes, including those provisions that require employers to secure and maintain payment of workers? compensation insurance for their employees who may suffer work- related injuries. Respondent is an active Florida limited liability company, having been organized in 2006. Howard?s Famous Restaurant is a diner-style restaurant located at 488 South Yonge Street, Ormond Beach, Florida. It seats approximately 60 customers at a time, and is open for breakfast and lunch. In 2006, Edward Kraher and Thomas Baldwin jointly purchased Howard?s Famous Restaurant. They were equal partners. Mr. Baldwin generally handled the business aspects of the restaurant, while Mr. Kraher was responsible for the food. At the time the restaurant was purchased, Mr. Baldwin organized That?s Right Enterprises, LLC, to hold title to the restaurant and conduct the business of the restaurant. Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Kraher were both identified as managing members of the company.1/ On June 27, 2007, a 2007 Limited Liability Company Annual Report for That?s Right Enterprises, LLC, was filed with the Secretary of State. The Annual Report bore the signature of Mr. Kraher, and contained a strike-through of the letter that caused the misspelling of Mr. Kraher?s name. Mr. Kraher testified that the signature on the report appeared to be his, but he had no recollection of having seen the document, or of having signed it. He suggested that Mr. Baldwin may have forged his signature, but offered no explanation of why he might have done so. Although Mr. Kraher could not recall having signed the annual report, and may have had little understanding of its significance, the evidence supports a finding that Mr. Kraher did, in fact, sign the annual report for That?s Right Enterprises, LLC, as a managing member of the business entity. From March 9, 2009, through March of 2011, Mr. Kraher and Mr. Baldwin received salaries as officers, rather than employees, of That?s Right Enterprises, LLC. Their pay was substantially equivalent during that period. The paychecks were issued by the company?s accountant. Mr. Kraher denied having specific knowledge that he was receiving a salary as an officer of That?s Right Enterprises, LLC. Since Mr. Baldwin left the company, Mr. Kraher has continued to use the same accountant, and has continued to receive his salary as an officer of That?s Right Enterprises, LLC. On March 24, 2011, after having bought out Mr. Baldwin?s interest in the company by paying certain company- related debt owed by Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Kraher filed an annual report for That?s Right Enterprises, LLC. In the annual report, which was prepared and filed at his request, Mr. Kraher assumed control as the sole member and registered agent of the company. Mr. Baldwin was removed as a managing member and registered agent, and other changes were made consistent therewith. Mr. Kraher denied any understanding of the significance of his operating as the same corporate entity, but rather thought he was “buying a new LLC.” On March 8, 2012, Petitioner's investigator, Carolyn Martin, conducted an inspection of Howard?s Famous Restaurant. Ms. Martin introduced herself to one of the waitresses working at the restaurant. The waitress called Mr. Kraher from the kitchen to speak with Ms. Martin. Mr. Kraher identified himself as the owner of the restaurant for the past six years. Ms. Martin asked Mr. Kraher for evidence that Respondent?s employees were covered by workers? compensation insurance. Mr. Kraher retrieved a folder containing the restaurant?s insurance policies and information. Ms. Martin reviewed the folder, and determined that Respondent did not have workers? compensation insurance. Mr. Kraher, who was very cooperative with Ms. Martin throughout the inspection, was genuinely surprised that the restaurant employees were not covered by workers? compensation insurance. He had taken out “a million-dollar insurance policy” that he thought covered everything he needed to have. While Ms. Martin was at the restaurant, Mr. Kraher called his insurance agent who, after reviewing his file, confirmed that Respondent did not have workers? compensation insurance. Mr. Kraher immediately asked his agent to bind a policy, and paid his first six-month premium using a business credit card. A copy of the policy was quickly faxed by the agent to Ms. Martin. Ms. Martin took the names of Respondent?s employees, which included two kitchen staff and four wait staff. Some of the employees worked in excess of 30 hours per week, while others worked part-time. Ms. Martin went to her vehicle and completed a Field Interview Worksheet. Ms. Martin reviewed the Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS), which is the statewide database for workers? compensation information, to confirm Respondent?s status in the workers? compensation system. Using the CCAS, Ms. Martin confirmed that Respondent had no workers? compensation coverage on file for any employee of the company. She also accessed the Florida Division of Corporations website to ascertain Respondent?s corporate status. After having gathered the information necessary to determine Respondent?s status, Ms. Martin contacted her supervisor and received authorization to issue a consolidated Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment. The Stop-Work Order required Respondent to cease all business operations statewide. The Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a penalty, pursuant to section 440.107(7)(d), equal to 1.5 times the amount the employer would have paid in premium when applying the approved manual rates to the employer's payroll for the preceding three-year period. The consolidated order was hand- delivered to Mr. Kraher on behalf of Respondent at 11:00 a.m. on March 8, 2012. At the time she delivered the consolidated Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment, Ms. Martin also hand- delivered a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation. The Request required that Respondent produce business records for the preceding three-year period, from March 9, 2009, through March 8, 2012. Respondent was given five days in which to provide the records. On or about March 12, 2012, Mr. Kraher produced three boxes of business records to Ms. Martin. Those records were forwarded by Ms. Martin, and placed in the queue for review by the penalty auditor. The records were reviewed by Petitioner?s penalty auditor, Lynne Murcia, and were found to be insufficient to establish the actual compensation paid to Respondent?s employees for the preceding three year period. Therefore, pursuant to section 440.107(7)(e), salaries were imputed for each of the six employees based on the statewide average weekly wage. Ms. Murcia used the “Scopes Manual” published by the National Council on Compensation Insurance to ascertain the classification of Respondent?s business, based upon the nature of the goods and services it provided. Class code 9082, titled “Restaurant NOC,” is described as “the „traditional? restaurant that provides wait service.” Ms. Murcia correctly determined that Howard?s Famous Restaurant fell within class code 9082. The salaries of Respondent?s six employees, as employees of a class code 9082 restaurant, were imputed as though they worked full-time for the full three-year period from March 9, 2009, to March 8, 2012, pursuant to section 440.107(7)(e). The total imputed gross payroll amounted to $1,130,921.64. The penalty for Respondent?s failure to maintain workers? compensation insurance for its employees is calculated as 1.5 times the amount Respondent would have paid in premium for the preceding three-year period. The National Council on Compensation Insurance periodically issues a schedule of workers? compensation rates per $100 in salary, which varies based on the Scopes Manual classification of the business. The workers? compensation insurance premium was calculated by multiplying one percent of the imputed gross payroll ($11,309.21) by the approved manual rate for each quarter (which varied from $2.20 to $2.65, depending on the quarterly rate), which resulted in a calculated premium of $26,562.06. The penalty was determined by multiplying the calculated premium by 1.5, resulting in the final penalty of $39,843.18. On March 28, 2012, Petitioner issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessing a monetary penalty amount of $39,843.18 against Respondent. Respondent subsequently provided Petitioner with additional payroll records regarding the six employees. The records had been in the possession of Respondent?s accountant. The records, which included Respondent?s bank statements and payroll records for the six employees, were determined to be adequate to calculate the actual employee salaries for the preceding three-year period. Ms. Murcia revised her penalty worksheet to reflect that payroll was now based on records, rather than being imputed.2/ Respondent?s total payroll for the three-year period in question was determined to be $154,079.82. Applying the same formula as that applied to determine the penalty amount reflected in the Amended Penalty Assessment, the premium was calculated to have been $3,624.33, with a resulting penalty of $5,436.64. On April 24, 2012, Petitioner issued a 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment reducing Respondent's penalty from $39,843.18 to $5,436.64.
Recommendation Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers? Compensation, enter a final order assessing a penalty of $5,436.64 against Respondent, That?s Right Enterprises, LLC, for its failure to secure and maintain required workers? compensation insurance for its employees. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of August, 2012, 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 31st day of August, 2012.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner corporation's workers' compensation insurance policy was in compliance with the provisions of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, cited below, despite not having a specific Florida endorsement; whether the Department properly issued a Stop Work Order against the Petitioner and whether the proposed penalty of $240,927.55 was properly assessed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, American Coatings, Inc., is a commercial painting corporation based in Tennessee. It has been in business since 1994 in the State of Tennessee, and through a predecessor entity, since 1985. The Petitioner does business in other states, including the State of Florida, and in fact operates in approximately 14 states. It has done so since the year 2000. It has had no workers' compensation claims from any of its Florida work sites during the entire time it has operated in Florida. On February 19, 2008, the Petitioner was painting portions of the premises at "the Estates of Rockledge" in Rockledge, Florida. It had other operations in Florida in the three years prior to February 28, 2008. When the Petitioner applied for workers' compensation coverage in Tennessee, the Petitioner advised its broker and insurance carrier that it maintained operations in Florida. The workers' compensation carrier and agent provided certificates of workers' compensation insurance for the Petitioner's Florida operations which supported its good faith belief that it had valid workers' compensation insurance in Florida. Respondent presented no evidence that Mr. Carswell and the Petitioner have committed fraud, misrepresentation, or omission concerning the obtaining and maintaining of workers' compensation insurance coverage for its Florida operations. There was no attempt to conceal the fact that the Petitioner had insurable operations in Florida. For the three years prior to February 28, 2008, the Petitioner maintained a policy of workers' compensation insurance for all employees, including those employees that performed operations in Florida. A workers' compensation premium was paid for each employee in question for all periods in the three years preceding February 28, 2008. The Respondent is an Agency of the State of Florida responsible for enforcing the various statutory requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, including Sections 440.107 and 440.38, Florida Statutes (2007). Its authority includes Section 440.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes, which imposes upon all employers in Florida the obligation to secure the payment of workers' compensation. The Respondent is statutorily charged with the obligation to monitor employers operating in Florida, to ensure that statutory employers maintain appropriate workers' compensation coverage on employees. There is no dispute that the Petitioner, is an "employer" for purposes of Sections 440.02(16)(a) and 440.02(17)(b)2., Florida Statutes (2007). It was operating in the construction industry and regularly employed at least one person. Pursuant to the Division's statutory authority, Investigator Eugene Wyatt of the Department's Division of Workers' Compensation, Bureau of Compliance, visited the subject worksite in Brevard County, Florida, where an apartment complex was under construction. Mr. Wyatt inquired at the general contractor's headquarters trailer and was told that a painting subcontractor known as American Coatings was employing workers on the site. Using the Federal Employer Identification Number, Mr. Wyatt checked with the Department's Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) data base and learned that American Coatings, Inc. the Petitioner, which did business in Florida as A.C. Painting, Inc., did not have a record of a Florida workers' compensation coverage policy since December of 2003. Upon inquiry of the general contractor's supervisor at the job site, Mr. Wyatt learned that American Coatings, Inc., had furnished proof of insurance to the general contractor. It was shown as a certificate of liability insurance from American Coatings, in evidence as Department's Exhibit 17. Investigator Wyatt contacted the agent who had produced the Certificate of Insurance and asked if a Florida endorsement had been procured for that policy. He was told that the policy had a "an all states" endorsement. Mr. Wyatt then contacted the underwriter and was told that it was a policy for Tennessee and not for Florida (apparently Tennessee rates and codes applied). The investigator then contacted Benjamin Carswell, the President of the Petitioner. He informed him that in his view the company was not in compliance with the Florida requirement that workers' compensation policies covering Florida work and Florida employees be specifically endorsed for the State of Florida. He stated that he would issue a Stop Work Order, which he did on February 19, 2008. (SWO). The SWO was posted at the worksite and served personally on Mr. Carswell on February 21, 2008. After the Petitioner entered into an installment payment plan as to the penalty, the SWO was ended with an Order of Conditional Release, on February 28, 2008. The Petitioner sent a copy of consolidated insurance policy number WC8263193, by fax to Terrence Phillips, the chief of the Respondent's Orlando compliance office. The information page of this policy showed that only Tennessee was listed in item 3A of the policy. Item 3C stated that the policy was in effect in all other states, however, except for North Dakota, Ohio, Washington, West Virginia, and the states listed in item 3A. Item 4 listed various occupational classifications with their codes and the premium rates for each. The codes were for the State of Tennessee. The effect of these terms was that Florida was included in the category for "all other states." Florida Law requires that Florida be listed as a state in item 3A, and requires a policy to utilize Florida class codes, rates, rules, and manuals, in order for an employer to be compliant with workers' compensation coverage requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. Investigator Wyatt determined that compliance was deficient and that a penalty should be calculated and assessed. He therefore served a request for production of business records on Mr. Carswell on February 21, 2008. The business records were necessary to construct the payroll amounts and number of employees at issue, so that the penalty, based upon the Petitioner's Florida Payroll, could be calculated. Mr. Carswell believed in good faith, throughout all times pertinent to this matter that his company was compliant with Florida workers' compensation coverage requirements. After compliance was called into question, however, he also obtained an additional workers' compensation insurance policy, apparently obtained on or about February 20, 2008. It showed that coverage was effective, related back to May 1, 2007. Based upon this additional policy, the Petitioner provided Investigator Wyatt with an additional certificate of insurance for this policy. On March 6, 2008, Investigator Wyatt learned that the SWO was a duplicate and had to be substituted. A new SWO was issued as an amended SWO. A Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment and an Amended Order of Conditional Release from SWO, under the second SWO number of 08-092-D4, was issued. Investigator Wyatt calculated the penalty by reviewing the business records supplied by the Petitioner and determining what each employee had been paid between February 23 and December 31, 2005; during all of 2006; during all of 2007 and between January 1, and February 22, 2008. Each employee's payroll, for each year or portion thereof, was divided by 100 and multiplied by an actuarial figure known as the "approved manual rate," which is related to the job duties the employee performed. In the case at hand, all the employees were engaged in commercial painting and, therefore, their classification codes were all 5474. Each trade, occupation or profession has a particular code assigned to it by the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) and each code has its own rate, the codes and rates being adopted in the Respondent Agency's Rules. The product of one one-hundredth of the gross payroll, and the approved manual rate, constitutes the "evaded premium." In effect this is the insurance premium the employer should have paid during the years it did not actually secure the appropriate payment of workers' compensation for its Florida Employees (proper Florida or Florida-endorsed coverage). Each employee's premium added together was then multiplied by the statutory factor of 1.5 in order to determine the total penalty amount the Respondent seeks to assess. The penalty amount herein was calculated using the correct Florida Approved Manual Rate and class codes. The Respondent established that its calculations indicated that, for the Florida employees of the Petitioner, based upon its Florida payrolls for the three year period in question, the total workers' compensation premium, under the Florida rate, would be in the amount of $160,618.15. Based upon that Florida workers' compensation premium amount, when multiplied by the statutory factor of 1.5 times that amount, the Respondent arrived at a total proposed assessed penalty of $240,927.55. The Petitioner established, through the testimony of Mr. Carswell that, for the time period at issue, for the Florida employees and payroll, the Petitioner had paid workers' compensation premiums of $111,682.21 for the coverage it had in effect. It acknowledges that this was not paid pursuant to Florida rates, rather it was based upon Tennessee rates. It is the position of the Petitioner that the difference in premiums. between the above Florida premium amount, and the premium that the Petitioner actually paid, was $48,935.94. The Petitioner maintains that this differential is what really should be determined to be the unpaid or "evaded" premium, based upon Florida rates, and, if that amount was multiplied by 1.5 then the total penalty actually due should be $73,403.91. An initial penalty payment of $24,092.76 has already been made by the Petitioner. Periodic penalty payments, assessed beginning March 2008, and continuing, have been paid in the amount of $36,139.40. The total penalty already paid by the Petitioner, as of the hearing date, is thus $60,232.16. The Petitioner contends that the actual penalty to be paid should be based upon the differential between the correct total premium due, when using the correct Florida manual rate, and the total premium actually paid by the Petitioner, which, when applied in the above-referenced calculation results in the penalty due of $73,402.91. This would then be reduced by $60,232.17, the amount already paid, for a total remaining amount due of $13,171.75, as of the hearing date.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, finding that the Petitioner failed to fully secure the payment of workers' compensation for its employees in the manner prescribed by the above-referenced authority and that a penalty in the amount of $73,402.91 is due, less a credit of $60,232.16 already paid, and with credit applied to the above amount for penalty payments made since January 28, 2009. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of May, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of May, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert L. Dietz, Esquire Zimmerman, Kiser & Sutcliffe, P.A. Post Office Box 3000 Orlando, Florida 32802 Thomas H. Duffy, Esquire Douglas D. Dolan, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Tracey Beal, Agency Clerk Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 Benjamin Diamond, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307 Honorable Alex Sink Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether Petitioner failed to obtain workers’ compensation insurance meeting the requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Olender is a Delaware corporation that is registered to do business in Florida and engaged in the business of construction. Primarily, Olender frames the walls of structures and installs siding, windows and moisture barriers to such structures. Such activities are construction activities under the Florida’s workers’ compensation law. See Ch. 440, Fla. Stat., and Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6. On June 22, 2006, an investigator for the Department visited the Alta Westgate Apartment complex construction project, located at 6872 Alta Westgate Drive, Orlando, Florida. The visit was prompted by a “confidential tip” received by the Department from Tyler Balsinger, a former employee of Petitioner. The Alta Westgate complex is owned by Alta Westgate, LLC. The general contractor responsible for the construction of the complex was W.P. South Builders. The overall project manager for the general contractor was Robert Beliveau. The on-site representative for the general contractor was Danny Campbell. Mr. Campbell provided the Department’s investigator with a list of subcontractors on the project worksite. The list reflected that the subcontractor for framing was Olender and that John Olender was the person in charge of the company’s work at the project site. Among other things, the contract also included the installation of a moisture barrier, generally known as Tyvek, on the framed structures. Because of the nature of construction work, it is not unusual to have several subcontractors on a construction worksite at the same time. It is unlikely that Olender was the only subcontractor working on the day the Department’s investigator visited the Alta Westgate project. The subcontract required that Olender secure the payment of workers’ compensation on its employees. The evidence was not clear regarding whether the general contractor, under its subcontract with Olender, would provide workers’ compensation insurance on the employees of Olender’s subcontractors. However, the evidence was clear that J.P. Builders did not secure such workers’ compensation insurance on the employees of Olender’s subcontractors. Mr. Campbell also provided the certificate of insurance for Petitioner. The certificate reflected that Modern Business Associates, Inc. (MBA), an employee leasing company, provided workers’ compensation for Olender’s leased employees. See § 468.520, Fla. Stat. MBA entered into a client service agreement with Olender. Under the agreement, Olender would lease employees from MBA and MBA would provide payroll services and workers’ compensation coverage for the employees it leased to Petitioner. The agreement terminated on August 30, 2006. MBA’s Client Service Agreement with Petitioner states on p. 3: Insurance Coverage. MBA is responsible for providing Workers’ Compensation coverage to workers employed by MBA and assigned to Client, in compliance with applicable law, and as specified in the Proposal. Workers performing services for Client not covered by this Agreement and not on MBA’s payroll shall not be covered by the workers’ compensation insurance. Client understands, agrees, and acknowledges that MBA shall not cover any workers with workers’ compensation coverage who has not completed and submitted to MBA an employment application and tri- fold, and which applicant has not been reviewed and approved for hire by MBA. (emphasis supplied) Other than information necessary to supply its services, MBA was not aware of any specific project or projects on which Olender was working when it leased employees from MBA. John Olender and Ruben Rojo were two employees that Olender leased from MBA and for whom MBA provided workers’ compensation insurance. The workers’ compensation policy complied with Florida’s workers’ compensation requirements. After speaking with Mr. Campbell, the Department’s investigator, who is fluent in Spanish, walked around the complex’s worksite. She did not have a hardhat on. She eventually saw about 10 to 12 workers on the third floor of one of the buildings under construction (Building 8 or 9). The Department’s investigator could not say if they were framing. At some point, John Olender, the company’s project superintendent, saw the Department’s investigator, noticed she did not have any safety equipment on, and went to meet her. The investigator yelled to the workers on the third floor and showed her Department badge or identification. She was speaking Spanish to them. The workers ran in an effort to avoid the Department’s investigator. Mr. Olender, who does not speak or understand Spanish, sent for Ruben Rojo. Mr. Rojo is the assistant superintendent for Olender and works under John Olender. He is fluent in Spanish. He does not hire employees for Olender, but oversees the work being performed under Olender’s subcontracts. The Department’s investigator continued to attempt to explain to the workers that she was not interested in their immigration status, but was there to make sure they were covered by workers’ compensation insurance. At least some of the workers came down to talk to her. Mr. Rojo thought the investigator was asking about the workers’ immigration status and told them that they did not have to talk to her. However, apparently some workers very reluctantly gave her limited information. The workers who talked to her were Pedro Antonio Mendez, Jaco Sarmentio, Juan Cardenas, Alvaro Don Juan Diaz, Jose Varela Orellana, Nesto Suarez Ventura, Miguel Martinez Diaz, Jose Perez Renaldo and Antonio Hernandez. She did not obtain any addresses, phone numbers or other identifying information from the employees. The evidence did not show whether these individuals gave the Department’s investigator the correct information. Importantly, they did not tell her who their employer was or what duties they were performing. None of these individuals testified at the hearing. John Olender did not recognize these workers. Mr. Rojo told the investigator that Olender subcontracted the framing portion of its contract to “T-Bo”. T-Bo was also known as Primitivo Torres. In his deposition testimony, Mr. Torres did not recognize these workers’ names. He also thought that most of the workers he employed for his framing subcontract with Olender were illegal immigrants. Mr. Torres was unclear in his testimony regarding his status with Olender. He did indicate that he worked in both Orlando and Tampa. Apparently, at times, he was an employee and at other times he was a subcontractor. He was listed as a leased employee under MBA’s contract with Olender. The evidence suggests, but does not prove, that Mr. Torres was a person who supplied immigrant workers to construction sites. In Orlando, Mr. Torres lived in an apartment complex in the Rosemond area with his employees. The rent was sometimes paid by Olender and then deducted from the remuneration paid to Mr. Torres. Mr. Torres paid his employees from the money he received under his subcontract with Olender. Mr. Torres also testified that when the Department’s investigator contacted him in June 2006, to discuss workers’ compensation insurance, he told her that he neither secured the payment of workers’ compensation for himself nor for the other workers in both Tampa and Orlando. Donna Knoblauch, who oversaw Olender’s main office, received a faxed copy of a certificate of workers’ compensation insurance from Mr. Torres. However, the faxed certificate was an illegible copy of what appeared to be a certificate of liability insurance issued by a company in Texas. The certificate does not have a legible “sent date,” a legible workers’ compensation policy number, legible dates of coverage, a legible producer name, or any information indicating that coverage includes the State of Florida. The document is insufficient to demonstrate that Mr. Torres provided workers’ compensation coverage for his employees that worked under his subcontract with Olender. John Olender testified that Mr. Torres utilized, at most, 20 framers for the construction at Alta Westgate. Mr. Torres corroborates that number and indicates that various people worked in crews of around five. On the other hand, Danny Campbell testified that Olender had approximately 20 workers when the project started, increased to approximately 75 people performing framing duties on the worksite and decreased to about 20 workers by the time the Department’s investigator visited the worksite. Mr. Campbell testified that on January 22, 2006, he believed that Olender had approximately five individuals for the punch-out group, three–to-five cleaners, a forklift operator, approximately two individuals installing the Tyvek moisture- barrier paper, two individuals performing window installation and approximately 15–to-20 individuals installing siding at the worksite. No other testimony supports the number of workers Mr. Campbell believed to be at the jobsite on June 22. On balance, the best evidence of the approximate number of workers was that of Mr. Olender and Mr. Torres. However, these figures were only estimates of the actual number which may have been less than 20 workers. In any event, the employment of these 12 workers on the third floor was not demonstrated by the evidence. Their names did not appear on the list of employees leased by Olender from MBA and were otherwise, unknown to the Mr. Olender, Rojo and Torres. While at the jobsite, the Department’s investigator also spoke with Victor Ibarra. Mr. Ibarra drove a forklift and indicated that he worked for Olender. Again, no address or other identifying information was supplied to the investigator. Later, the investigator spoke with a woman who purported to be Mr. Ibarra’s wife. There was no information on the forklift indicating that it belonged to Olender and Olender denies employing a person named Victor Ibarra. Mr. Campbell testified in his deposition that Olender had forklifts on the jobsite. However, he did not testify that the forklift Victor Ibarra drove on June 22, 2006, was owned by Olender. Likewise, Mr. Campbell did not testify that Mr. Ibarra was an employee of Olender. Mr. Ibarra’s name did not appear on the list of leased employees provided by MBA. The Department's investigator included Mr. Ibarra as an employee of Olender based on Mr. Ibarra’s statements. However, the evidence presented by the Department is not sufficient to establish that Mr. Ibarra was an employee of Olender, since Mr. Ibarra did not testify at the hearing. Mr. Campbell’s testimony does not corroborate the hearsay statements of Mr. Ibarra since the testimony does not indicate the forklift Mr. Ibarra drove belonged to Olender or to another subcontractor on the project. After talking to Mr. Ibarra, the Department’s investigator met Rosa Barden, Martha Alvarado and Ismael Ortiz, who were applying a moisture barrier paper known as “Tyvek” to a building at the construction site. The three individuals told the investigator that that they had been hired by Mr. Rojo on behalf of Olender and had only worked for about a day. The investigator included these three individuals as employees of Olender. No addresses or other contact information was obtained by the investigator. None of these individuals testified at the hearing. Mr. Rojo testified that he did not know the three individuals on the “paper crew” and did not hire them. None of the three individuals were listed as leased employees with MBA. However, Olender’s subcontract clearly lists the application of Tyvek as a part of its contract. Additionally, the payment information supplied by the general contractor shows that Olender was paid for Tyvek application on all the buildings in the complex. Unlike Mr. Ibarro’s testimony, the contract and payment evidence independently corroborates the otherwise hearsay statements of these three individuals and Olender should have provided workers compensation insurance on them. There was no evidence that Olender provided such workers’ compensation insurance; such failure violates Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. See §§ 440.10(1)(g) and 440.38(7), Fla. Stat., and Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.019. In total, the Department’s inspector met with John Olender for approximately one hour discussing the work performed by Olender and the employees retained by Olender. During this meeting, Mr. Olender, identified members of a “punch-out” crew who had worked on the project. The punch-out crew repaired any defects in framing prior to inspection. The names supplied by Mr. Olender were Juan Gonzalez, Miguel, Sal, William, WI Gerardo (noted as El Guardo in the third Amended Order of Penalty assessment), Pedro, Jacobo and Boso. Mr. Olender did not know their last names. The evidence did not show the period of time that the punch-out crew would have been working at the project site. Presumably, they would have begun some time after the initial building was framed. The Department’s investigator did not personally see the punch-out crew at the project. Mr. Olender also informed the Department’s investigator that he did not handle matters concerning workers’ compensation insurance and that she would have to contact the Company’s main office in Missouri. He provided the number for the office. He also gave the investigator the number for Michael Olender, the president of the company and the number for Mr. Torres. The investigator issued a Workers’ Compensation Request for Production of Business Records to Olender. She left the Request with John Olender. The request for records asked for certain categories of Olender’s business records for the period of January 22, 2004 to June 22, 2004. Of importance here, the Department requested records in categories 1, 4, 5 and 6. In general, category 1 covers all payroll records, including checks and check stubs, time sheets, attendance records and cash payment records. Categories 4, 5 and 6 cover all records that relate to subcontractors, including their identity, contract, payment thereof, workers compensation coverage for all the subcontractor’s employees, and/ or the employees’ exemption status. These records are required to be maintained by a company doing business in Florida. Mr. Campbell testified that some members of the punch- out crew often approached him about whether he had paid Olender so that they in turn could be paid. Again, none of these individuals testified at the hearing. However, given the admissions of Olender’s employee and Mr. Campbell’s testimony, the evidence supports the conclusion that the eight individuals on the punch-out crew were employed by Olender. None of these employees were leased employees and therefore, were not covered by the workers’ compensation policy provided by MBA. There was no evidence that Olender secured any workers' compensation insurance on these eight employees. Such failure violates Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. See §§ 440.10(1)(g) and 440.38(7), Fla. Stat., and Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.019. The Department’s investigator contacted Ms. Knoblauch while she was on her way to a medical appointment. The investigator requested Olender’s proof of workers’ compensation insurance. Ms. Knoblauch told the investigator that she was not at the office where the records were kept, but on the way to a medical appointment. She said she would be returning to the office after the appointment. The investigator said she needed the records immediately. Ms. Knoblauch offered to skip her appointment and requested time to turn around and return to the office. The investigator refused to permit her the time to return to the office. At some point, MBA supplied the Department’s investigator with a list of Olender’s leased employees. The list did not contain any of the names she had gathered during her visit to the worksite. Within a few hours from the beginning of the investigation, the Department's investigator issued a Stop Work Order and an Order of Penalty Assessment on June 22, 2006. The Order was served via certified mail on Michael Olender and Olender’s legal counsel. The Stop Work Order required that Olender "cease all business operations in this state" and advised that a penalty of $1,000.00 per day would be imposed if Olender were to conduct any business in violation of the Stop Work Order. Additionally, along with the Order, the Department issued and served on Petitioner via certified mail a Division of Workers’ Compensation Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Calculation, requesting records for a period of three years. The request, made pursuant to Section 440.107(7), Florida Statutes, asked the employer to produce, for the preceding three years, documents that reflected payroll, proof of insurance, workers’ compensation audit reports, identity, duration, contracts, invoices and check stubs reflecting payment to subcontractors, proof of workers’ compensation coverage for those subcontractors, employee leasing company information, temporary labor service information, and any certificate of workers’ compensation exemption. The request asked for the same type of records that had been requested earlier. Neither request for records was specific to a particular construction job that Olender may have performed work on. The investigator informed Mr. Campbell that Petitioner was being issued a Stop-Work Order and gave him a copy of the Order. Mr. Campbell faxed the Order to Olender’s office in Missouri. The Department’s investigator also checked the Department’s Coverage and Compliance Automated System (“CCAS”) database. The system tracks workers' compensation insurance policy information provided by workers’ compensation carriers on an insured employer. The database did not contain an entry that reflected a current State of Florida workers' compensation insurance policy for Olender. The database did reference that Olender had a stop-work order served on it on July 12, 2002, which had been lifted on July 31, 2002, with payment of the penalty. Florida law requires that employers maintain a variety of business records involving their business. See § 440.107(5), Fla. Stat., and Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.015. The Rule is limited to records regarding a business’ employees and any payout by the employer to any person. In this case, under the Rule, the only records Olender was required to maintain related to its employees and its subcontractor, Mr. Torres. There was no evidence regarding any other subcontractors Olender may have contracted with. The only records supplied by Olender to the Department were the records from MBA that included workers’ compensation information and W-2 forms for Olender’s leased employees, the illegible proof of insurance for Mr. Torres and copies of checks from Olender to Mr. Torres for the subcontract. Those records reflected that John Olender, Ruben Rojo and Primitivo Torres were leased employees and covered by workers’ compensation insurance under Olender’s contract with MBA. Olender supplied no records regarding workers’ compensation coverage for the eight employees who were members of the punch- out crew, the three workers who were members of the paper crew or the 12 workers who were on the third floor. When an employer fails to provide requested business records that the statute requires it to maintain, the Department is required to impute the employer's payroll using "the statewide average weekly wage as defined in Section 440.12(2)." § 440.107(7)(e), Fla. Stat., and Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.028. 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 identified by the Department. 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. In this case, the Department, after several amended assessments, imputed the payroll for Olender for the period beginning January 22, 2004, Petitioner’s date of incorporation, and ending June 26, 2006. Included in the calculation were the eight individuals on the punch-out crew identified by John Olender, the 12 employees who were working on the third floor, the forklift driver Victor Ibarra, and the three individuals on the paper crew. 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. The appropriate code for Olender’s employees was classification code 5561 which covers framing of multiple family dwellings. The gross payroll imputed to each of the 27 employees was $683.00 per week. The Department then utilized the imputed payroll for same employees for the years 2004 and 2005. The Department’s calculation resulted in an assessed penalty of $1,205,535.40. However, the evidence establishes that Olender had 11 direct employees rather than 27 employees during the period of the Alta Westgate contract. Olender’s performance under that contract began on April 3, 2006. Other than the period of time involved with the Alta Westgate project, there was no evidence regarding the period of time Olender conducted business in Florida that would require it to comply with Florida law. The date of incorporation of Olender is insufficient to demonstrate that Olender engaged in any business in Florida that would require it to comply with Florida’s workers’ compensation law. Therefore, the penalty calculation must be modified to reflect only those eleven employees for the time period Olender performed under its contract on the Alta Westgate project.
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 Olender Construction Co., Inc., failed to have Florida workers' compensation insurance coverage for 11 of its employees, in violation of Sections 440.10(1)(a) and 440.38(1), Florida Statutes; and Recalculating the penalty against Olender. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of March, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 14th day of March, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Colin M. Roopnarine, Esquire Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers Compensation 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 Jeremy T. Springhart, Esquire Broad and Cassel 390 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1500 Orlando, Florida 32801 Honorable Alex Sink Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Daniel Y. Sumner, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent failed to provide workers' compensation insurance coverage for employees, and, if so, what penalty should be assessed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for, inter alia, monitoring businesses within the state to ensure that such businesses are providing the requisite workers' compensation insurance coverage for all employees. The Division's headquarters are located in Tallahassee, Florida, but its investigators are spread throughout the state in order to more effectively monitor businesses. Respondent is a construction company that has been operating in excess of 30 years. It is a small company and usually only has a few employees at any given time. The company is located in Charlotte Harbor, Florida. Workers' compensation coverage is required if a business entity has one or more employees and is engaged in the construction industry in Florida. Workers' compensation coverage may be secured via three non-mutually exclusive methods: 1) The purchase of a workers' compensation insurance policy; 2) Arranging for the payment of wages and workers' compensation coverage through an employee leasing company; or 3) Applying for and receiving a certificate of exemption from workers' compensation coverage, if certain statutorily-mandated criteria are met. On January 8, 2009, Ira Bender, investigator for the Division, was doing on-site inspections in Port Charlotte, Florida. Bender stopped at the site on Edgewater Drive where new construction was underway at a YMCA. Bender observed a man (later identified as Thomas Woodall) sweeping the floor. Bender questioned Woodall and was told that Woodall worked for Respondent. When asked about his workers' compensation insurance coverage, Woodall advised that his insurance was maintained through Frank Crum Leasing Company ("Crum"). Bender called Crum and found that although Woodall had been carried as an employee of Respondent in the past, he had been released from coverage. The reason for his release was that his employment had been terminated for lack of business. Bender called Respondent to inquire about workers' compensation coverage. He was told that Respondent did not realize Woodall had been dropped from the Crum insurance coverage and that he would be reinstated immediately. In fact, coverage was restarted on that same day. Based on his finding that an employee had been working without coverage, Bender called his supervisor and provided his findings. The supervisor authorized issuance of a SWO based on the findings. The SWO was served on Respondent via hand- delivery at 11:45 a.m., on January 8, 2009. The SWO was also posted at the work site. The Division then requested business records from Respondent in order to determine whether there were any violations. If there were violations, then the Division would ascertain the amount of penalty to assess. Respondent cooperated and submitted the business records, as requested. After review of the business records, the Division issued its first Amended Order of Penalty Assessment ("Order") on January 14, 2009. The process employed by the Division was to locate all uncovered employees, i.e., those working without workers' compensation insurance for any period of time. The employees were then assigned a class code from the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) publication. Each trade or type of employment is assigned a code which sets the rate to be applied to an individual depending on the type of work he/she is performing. The Division assigned codes to the employees, determined how much the employee had been paid during the period of non-coverage, assigned the rate to the gross pay, and calculated the insurance premium needed to cover the worker for the time in question. A penalty of 1.5 times the premium was then assigned. The Order assessed a total penalty of $21,165.98 against Respondent. Respondent objected to the amount and refused to sign it due to errors contained in the Penalty Worksheet attached to the Order. Signing the Order would have allowed Respondent to return to work, but he refused to sign because he knew it was not correct. Pursuant to discussions between the parties and "additional records received," the Division issued a second Order on January 16, 2009, assessing a penalty of $6,501.27. Respondent believed that the Division was still in error and provided yet additional information--some verbal--to the Division. A third Order was issued on January 21, 2009, reducing the penalty to $3,309.56. However, Respondent still believed the penalty worksheet contained errors. Again, Respondent refused to sign and provided additional information to the Division. The Division issued a fourth Order on January 28, 2009, assessing a penalty of $2,822.24. That Order had an error concerning the spelling of an employee's name, but the penalty amount was correct. Respondent would not sign the fourth Order, because he did not believe he had intentionally violated any statute or rule concerning workers' compensation coverage for his employees. A corrected (fifth amended) Order was ultimately issued on May 19, 2009.1 The fifth Order asserts the amount of penalty now in dispute, which is the same amount appearing in the fourth amended Order. Respondent signed the fifth Order and entered into a payment plan for payment of the penalty, paying a down payment of $1,000 and monthly payments of $30 until paid in full. Respondent takes great offense to the fact that the penalty assessments were not faxed to him more quickly. He maintains that he had every intention to resolve this matter as quickly as possible, but the Division delayed and dragged out the process. The penalty worksheet attached to the fifth Order listed nine "Employee Names" that are subject to the penalty assessment. Each will be discussed below. The first "employee" is listed as "Cash" and is assigned Class Code 5403. This "employee" represents checks found in Respondent's records with the payee listed as "cash- casual labor" totaling $2,178.00 in gross payroll. Code 5403 was assigned because that is the code used by Crum for Respondent's general business. The manual rate for Code 5403 is $24.74. A penalty of $808.26 was assessed for that employee. The second employee is Jacob Prewitt. Prewitt was assigned Class Code 5221, due to the word "driveway" appearing on a check issued to him. Driveway work falls under a lower approved manual rate ($10.37) than general construction. The gross payroll amount was $1,960, and the penalty assigned to Prewitt was $304.88. The third employee is Woodall, assigned a Class Code of 5606, with a manual rate of $3.84. That code is used for supervisors and is, again, not as dangerous an occupation as general construction. The gross payroll for this entry was $1,008, and the penalty assessed for Woodall was $58.07. Cash is the fourth employee and has been covered in the discussion in paragraph 16, above. Barry Lawrence is the fifth employee; he is assigned Class Code 5437 as a cabinet maker/installer with a manual rate of $13.01. Lawrence had a Verification Letter issued by the Division indicating he was exempt from workers' compensation coverage. However, that exemption was limited to cabinet- making. By installing the cabinets, Lawrence performed work outside his exemption status. The gross payroll for his work was $6,200, and the penalty assessed for Lawrence was $1,209.33. Respondent was completely unaware that the exemption letter did not cover installation and had, in fact, always allowed cabinet- makers to install the cabinets as well. Brunderman Builders is listed as the sixth employee. It is assigned Class Code 5403 with a manual rate of $14.39. The gross payroll for this entry was $550, resulting in a penalty assessment of $118.73. The seventh employee is Jorge Gonzolas, assigned Class Code 5403, the general contracting code. Gonzolas was the employee of a contractor who was subcontracting with Respondent. The contractor died unexpectedly, and Gonzolas was left without payment for the work he had performed. Respondent generously decided to pay Gonzolas for his work, thereby, effectively making Gonzolas a de facto employee. The amount paid Gonzolas was $599.00; the penalty assessed for Gonzolas was $129.30. Woodall is again listed as employee number eight, this time with Class Code 5610, reflecting casual labor he did on one date that his insurance was not in place. The payroll amount for this work was $37.50. The penalty assessed for Woodall was $4.02. The ninth employee was Julio Garcia, assigned Class Code 8742 for outside sales, with a manual rate of $.64. The payroll amount for Garcia was $1,300. His penalty assessment amount was $12.48. Garcia was another one of the deceased subcontractor's employees that Respondent volunteered to pay for work Garcia had performed. The total payroll at issue for Respondent was $14,477.50. The total premium for that amount of payroll would have been $1,881.48, and the penalty assessed was $2,822.84. This is a fairly insignificant portion of Respondent's $5.5 million annual payroll. Respondent did not intentionally attempt to avoid the payment of workers' compensation insurance for its employees. There is no pattern of avoidance or indication that non-payment was Respondent's goal. Rather, there are plausible and reasonable explanations about the unpaid premiums. For Woodall, Respondent believed he was still covered through the Crum policy. For Gonzolas and Garcia, Respondent was simply attempting to be a nice guy. For Prewitt, the employee's exemption had unknowingly lapsed. For Lawrence, Respondent relied upon a Verification Letter from the state, but misinterpreted its scope. The Division, on the other hand, only pursued Respondent based on an actual finding of non-coverage. But for Woodall's presence at a work site doing manual labor (sweeping the floor), the Division would not have looked at Respondent's records. There is no indication the Division acted other than in strict accordance to its governing rules.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, upholding the assessment of a penalty of $2,822.24 against Respondent, Brunderman Building Company, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of October, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of October, 2009.
