The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is liable for a penalty of $286,400.01 for the alleged failure to maintain workers’ compensation insurance for its employees in violation of Subsection 440.107(7)(d), Florida Statutes (2008).1
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure the payment of workers’ compensation for the benefit of their employees in accordance with the requirements of Section 440.107. Respondent is a Florida corporation engaged in the construction business. On May 19, 2009, Petitioner's investigator inspected one of Respondent's job sites located at 6665 Mirabella Lane, Naples, Florida. The purpose of the inspection was to determine whether Respondent was in compliance with workers' compensation requirements. The investigator observed workers laying concrete block in a residential development under construction. The investigator interviewed the workers and learned the identity of the individual owner of Respondent. The investigator determined through the Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) that Respondent had secured workers' compensation coverage. However, Respondent maintained minimum coverage identified in the record as an "if any" policy. An "if any" policy imposes a premium based on zero employees and zero payroll and requires Respondent to notify the insurer of any new employees within three days of being hired. Respondent had reported no workers to his workers' compensation carrier, but had reported 54 employees for purposes of unemployment compensation taxes.2 None of the individuals reported for unemployment compensation taxes had secured workers' compensation coverage for themselves. Respondent is liable for workers' compensation for the 54 workers described in the preceding paragraph, which the trier of fact finds are employees of Respondent. None of the workers has an exemption from workers' compensation coverage. Petitioner correctly calculated the amount owed by Respondent, which is $286,400.01.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order imposing a penalty assessment in the amount of $286,400.01. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of July, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 13th day of July, 2010.
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.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Labor and Employment Security, Division of Unemployment Compensation (Division), administers the State Unemployment Compensation Program, which includes the payment of benefits to unemployed individuals and the collection of taxes or reimbursement payments from employers to finance these benefits. By law petitioner is authorized to seek reimbursement from political subdivisions for a pro-rata portion of benefits paid to their employees. If a subdivision fails to timely reimburse the State, the Division may certify the delinquent amount to the Department of Banking and Finance, and request the Comptroller to transfer funds otherwise due that entity to the Unemployment Compensation Trust Fund (Trust Fund). If a subdivision contends an employee is not entitled to unemployment benefits, it may contest a claim for benefits with a claim examiner employed by the Division. That decision may be reviewed by an appeals referee, and if either side is still aggrieved, a final administrative appeal may be heard by the full Unemployment Compensation Commission. Those decisions are then reviewed only by the First District Court of Appeal. Respondent, Board of County Commissioners of Flagler County (Board), is a political subdivision of the state, and is required by law to reimburse the Trust Fund for its pro-rate share of benefits paid to former employees. On July 10, 1984, petitioner issued to respondent a notice of intent to certify delinquency wherein it claimed that between October 1, 1979 and December 31, 1983 respondent incurred a liability to the State totaling $6,409.71. This amount included $5,704.92 in benefits paid to former employees and $703.79 for 6 percent interest on overdue payments. That precipitated the instant controversy. The amount due was later reduced to $5,204.79 by the issuance of an amended notice of intent to certify delinquency on January 11, 1985. At hearing respondent conceded it owed all claimed monies except those due for two individuals: Emma Worthington and Margaret Prather. This resolved more than 60 percent of the Division's claim leaving only around $600 in dispute. Emma Worthington was a former employee of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Flagler County (Clerk) and was never employed by the Board of County Commissioners of Flagler County. Nonetheless, for some reason, the Clerk reported Worthington's wages to the Division under the Employer Identification Number assigned to respondent. Because of this, the Division assumed respondent was Worthington's employer. When Worthington was terminated by the Clerk's office, she requested unemployment benefits. The Clerk filed an appeal with a claims examiner contesting the payment of such benefits. The examiner ruled that such benefits were due, and this decision was affirmed by both an appeals referee and the full commission. As required by law, on an undisclosed date the Division forwarded a reimbursement notice to respondent advising that certain monies were due because of unemployment compensation payments made to Worthington. The Board did not respond to this notice but simply referred it to the Clerk's office. There is no evidence that the Division was ever formally notified by the Board that the employee was actually a Clerk employee, that the bill was forwarded to another party, or that the wrong Employer Identification number had been used. The bill was never paid. Margaret Prather was an employee of the Flagler County Supervisor of Elections (Supervisor) when she was terminated from employment. Before that, she was a Board employee. While employed by the Supervisor of Elections, Prather's wages were erroneously reported to the Division under the Employer Identification number of respondent. Because of this, the Division assumed Prather was a Board employee. After she was terminated by the Supervisor, Prather received unemployment benefits. Whether the Supervisor contested these benefits is not known. In any event, the Division sent the Board a Reimbursement Invoice on an undisclosed date requesting reimbursement for benefits paid to Prather. The Board did not respond to the Invoice but simply forwarded it to the Supervisor. Again, there is no evidence that the Board advised the Division of the erroneous use of its Employer Identification number, that the bill had been forwarded to another party, or that Prather was not an employee. To date, the bill has not been paid.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent reimburse petitioner for benefits paid to employees Worthington and Prather as set forth in the amended notice of intent to certify delinquency within thirty days from date of final order. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of April, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of April, 1985.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the stipulations of fact, the deposition of Luis Martinez, a senior appeals referee, taken on May 18, 1979, with exhibits and the stipulated documentary evidence adduced in this proceeding, the following relevant facts are found: At the time of the filing of the instant petition challenging Rule 8B- 5.13(1), both petitioner Cotilla and petitioner Prieto were parties in proceedings before the respondent to obtain unemployment compensation benefits. Their applications for benefits had originally been denied for lack of sufficient wage credits. Both petitioners had been continuously employed by Florida East Coast Deliveries, Inc. from 1974 through December of 1978. The finding of lack of credits was based on the employer's switch from the Florida Unemployment Compensation System to coverage under the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act. By letters dated March 29, 1979, the attorney for the petitioners made a request to Manuel M. Garcia, the appeals referee, for subpoenas to produce certain documents and a witness at the hearing scheduled for April 12, 1979. The letter requesting subpoenas stated that the records and witnesses are expected to provide evidence to show that the claimants had in fact been paid sufficient wages for insured work under Fla. Stat. 443.05(1)(e), during their base periods to qualify for Florida Unemployment Compensation benefits, which they have earned." By letter dated March 30, 1979, Appeals Referee Garcia denied the request for subpoenas "at this point in time," stating that "I will take into consideration your request, and if necessary, subpoenas will be issued later. However, sufficient cause has not been shown at this point to warrant subpoenas. There is no indication in your letter that the employer has refused to comply with any request for documents and/or witnesses. In addition, is questionable whether subpoenas can be issued and served prior to the April 12, hearing. Finally, the documents and information you are requesting are so general in nature, and its relevancy is at best questionable." Petitioners' attorney requested a reconsideration of her subpoena request by letter dated April 2, 1979. This letter stated in great detail why the attorney for the claimants (petitioners herein) felt that the information and documents requested were relevant to the issue in dispute. On April 9, 1979, Referee Garcia again denied the request for subpoenas by a letter stating: Most of the information that you provided as to why these documents should be subpoenaed refer to the instant employer's liability under the Florida Unemployment Compensation Law. In addition, your clients' position, earnings, and weeks of employment with the instant employer are not being disputed, as far as I can tell. My previous denial of your request for subpoenas at this point in time still stands. I will consider a second Hearing near the employer's vicinity, subpoena or a field investigation after the hearing, if such are necessary to comply, with due process. To clarify one point the subpoenas you are requesting are not being denied because of the time involved in issuing and serving subpoenas. The matter was mentioned because it is impractical to request documents of unproven relevancy, which in all probability will not be available for the April 12, 1979, Hearing, even if the subpoenas are issued." A hearing was held in petitioner Cotilla's appeal on April 12, 1979. The employer, Florida East Coast Deliveries, Inc., refused to voluntarily supply the requested information. The petitioners did not have knowledge of or access to the requested information except by the subpoenas which were refused. Thomas J. Edwards appeared at the April 12th hearing as agent of the employer, but he did not have the information requested in the subpoena request. Other agents of the employer did have the requested information. Petitioner Prieto's hearing was postponed until May 7, 1979. By letter dated April 23rd, his attorney renewed her requests for subpoenas and the request was again denied. Since the basis for the denial of petitioners' unemployment benefits was the question of the employer's liability under the Florida Unemployment Compensation Act, the information requested was relevant to the proof of their case. In addition, in petitioner Prieto's case, it was relevant to the issue concerning the timeliness of his appeal, in that the testimony and evidence sought were relevant to the wrongfulness of the respondent's actions in denying him benefits which petitioner Prieto contends was a cause of his failure to file his appeal within ten (10) days. At their unemployment hearing, the petitioners were unable to prove the circumstances under which their former employer switched coverage from the Florida Unemployment Compensation Act to the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act. Petitioner Cotilla has not received any unemployment compensation benefits, and no decision has been rendered in the case of petitioner Prieto. The basis for all of the denials of the subpoena requests which have occurred in the unemployment compensation proceedings of the petitioners is the challenged Rule 8B-5.13(1). This Rule, which is set forth in full below, provides in pertinent part that subpoenas "may" be issued by the appeals referee upon timely written application and that the application must state the "reason for appearance to include what testimony or evidence the witness is expected to provide." Pursuant to Rule 8B-5.13(1), it is the current practice of respondent's appeals referees to deny requests for subpoenas which do not contain a written explanation of the reason the subpoena is needed prior to the hearing. The explanation must state, to the satisfaction of the appeals referee, the materiality, relevance and competence of the testimony or evidence sought. Absent such a showing which is deemed satisfactory by the referee, the request for subpoenas will be denied. Even when the request provides an explanation which illustrates that the evidence or testimony sought is material, relevant and competent, it is typical practice for the appeals referee to attempt to use other means of obtaining the facts sought. For example, someone from the referee's office will telephone the person to whom the subpoena request is directed and ask them to voluntarily appear at the hearing. Also, the referees may request a field auditor or field examiner to examine employer records and file a report at the hearing. If it becomes apparent to the referee at the hearing that a witness or document is needed, the hearing will be continued and a subpoena will be issued.
The Issue Whether Thompson Enterprises of Jacksonville, LLC (Respondent), violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes,1/ by failing to secure the payment of workers' compensation, as alleged in the Stop-Work Order and 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment; and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing workers' compensation coverage requirements applicable to employers under Florida law. Respondent is a Florida limited-liability company organized on October 25, 2011. The managing members listed on Respondent’s State of Florida Articles of Organization are Thomas Thompson, Michael Thompson, and Vicky Thompson. In May 2016, Department Compliance Investigator Ann Johnson was assigned to conduct a job site visit on Respondent’s business because its name appeared on the Department’s Bureau of Compliance’s “lead list.” The “lead list” is one of the Department’s databases listing employers that are potentially out of compliance with Florida's workers' compensation insurance requirements. Prior to the job site visit, Investigator Johnson reviewed the Division of Corporations website, www.sunbiz.org, and confirmed Respondent's address, managing members' names, and that Respondent was a current, active Florida company. Respondent’s website advertised towing, wrecker, mechanic, and body shop services. On May 6, 2016, Investigator Johnson visited Respondent's principal address located at 7600 Bailey Body Road, Jacksonville, Florida 32216. She noted a large commercial sign near Respondent’s address that advertised towing and wrecker services. During her visit, Investigator Johnson spoke with Vicky Thompson and Michael Thompson, both of whom advised that they were owners of Respondent. The Thompsons informed Investigator Johnson that Respondent had six employees, including the three listed as managers on Respondent’s Articles of Organization. When Investigator Johnson asked for proof of workers’ compensation coverage, Michael Thompson admitted that Respondent had no such coverage. Under Florida law, employers in the non-construction industry, such as Respondent, must secure workers' compensation insurance if "four or more employees are employed by the same employer." §§ 440.02(17)(b) and 440.107, Fla. Stat. On the same day as her site visit, Investigator Johnson confirmed Respondent’s lack of insurance with a search of the Department's internal database, Coverage and Compliance Automated System. At the time, Respondent had no active exemptions from the requirements of obtaining workers’ compensation for its three managing members. Based on her investigation, Investigator Johnson served Respondent with the Stop-Work Order and a Request for Production on May 6, 2016. Upon serving the documents, Investigator Johnson explained the effect and purpose of the documents and how Respondent could come into compliance. Respondent came into compliance that same day by paying a $1,000 down payment, reducing Respondent's workforce to three employees, applying for exemptions for its three managing members, and executing an agreed Order of conditional release with the Department. Respondent subsequently complied with the Department’s Request for Production. In June 2016, the Department assigned Penalty Auditor Eunika Jackson to review records obtained from Respondent and calculate the penalty to be assessed against Respondent. In accordance with applicable law, the Department's audit spanned the preceding two-year period, starting from the date of the Stop-Work Order. See § 440.107(7)(d)1., Fla. Stat. The audit period in this case was from May 7, 2014, through May 6, 2016. Based on information obtained during the investigation, Auditor Jackson assigned classification codes 7219, 8380, and 8810 to those identified as employees working for Respondent during the audit period. Classification codes are four-digit codes assigned to various occupations by the National Council on Compensation Insurance ("NCCI") to assist in the calculation of workers' compensation insurance premiums. Classification code 8810 applies to clerical office employees, code 7219 applies to trucking and "towing companies," and code 8380 applies to automobile service or repair centers. According to Respondent, it was out of compliance with the coverage requirements of chapter 440 for only "368 days" during the two-year audit period. Respondent's records, however, do not support this contention. Respondent provided a detailed "Employee Earnings Summary" for each employee stating the employee’s name, pay rate, and pay period. Respondent's payroll records reflect that Respondent employed "four or more employees" during the audit period. Throughout the two-year audit period, Respondent employed four or more employees with the following duties: Anna Lee, mechanic/bodywork; Cedric Blake, mechanic/bodywork; David Raynor, mechanic/bodywork; James Budner, mechanic/bodywork; Jason Leighty, mechanic; Kevin Croker, Jr., porter/detailer; Nicholas Conway, bodywork; Ralph Tenity, bodywork; Rebecca Thompson, secretary/office help; Stephen Collins, shop helper/porter; Todd Gatshore, tow truck driver/shop helper; and Williams Reeves, tow truck driver/shop helper. Evidence further demonstrated that, during the audit period, managing member Michael Thompson worked as a wrecker truckdriver, and worked with the Sheriff's Office to clear traffic accidents. He was assigned class code 7219 — tow truck driver. Managing member Vicky Thompson was given the clerical class code 8810 because she was observed working in the office during Investigator Johnson's site visit. Managing member Thomas Thompson was assigned the clerical class code 8810 based upon the fact that he occasionally does office work for the business. The corresponding approved manual rates for classification codes 8810, 7219, and 8380 were correctly applied to each employee for the related periods of non-compliance to determine the final penalty. In accordance with the Request for Production, Respondent provided the Department payroll summary reports, tax reports, and unemployment tax reports. The payroll summary reports and records provided by Respondent listed the payroll and duties for each employee. The gross payroll amounts for each employee reflected in the penalty in this case were derived from those documents. Upon receiving those reports and records, the Department correctly determined the gross payroll for Respondent's employees. On June 13, 2016, the Department served the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on Respondent, assessing a penalty of $33,788.90. A portion of the first penalty was based on imputed payroll for Respondent’s three managing members. After service of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, Respondent provided additional records showing the payroll of its three managing members, and the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was calculated after removing the imputed payroll. On August 22, 2016, the Department served the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on Respondent, assessing a penalty of $33,112.44, which was correctly calculated in accordance with section 440.107(7)(d)1. and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.027(1). In sum, the clear and convincing evidence demonstrated that Respondent was a tow truck company engaged in the wrecker/tow truck and body shop mechanic industries in Florida during the periods of noncompliance; that Respondent failed to secure the payment of workers' compensation for its employees in violation of Florida's Workers' Compensation Law; and that the Department correctly utilized the methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)1. and rule 69L-6.027(1) to determine the appropriate penalty of $33,112.44.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order, consistent with this Recommended Order, upholding the Stop-Work Order and imposing the penalty set forth in the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment against Thompson Enterprises of Jacksonville, LLC. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of April, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of April, 2017.
The Issue The issue is whether the Department's Stop-Work Order and Amended Order of Penalty Assessment were lawful.
Findings Of Fact The Division is a component of the Department of Financial Services. The Department is a state agency charged with the administration of portions of the "Workers' Compensation Law." Among the Division's duties is enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage for the benefit of their employees and corporate officers who are required to be covered. Scotts is a corporation engaged in the business of installing siding on buildings. Scotts is engaged in construction as that term is used in Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. Scotts' headquarters is located at 4130 Bayfront Terrace, Pace, Florida. Angelia Brown has worked for the Department since June 2007. She is a workers' compensation compliance investigator, and on August 23, 2007, she was doing random checks on Pensacola Beach, Florida. In the course of her work, and while accompanied by Investigator Vanessa Hernandez, Ms. Brown came upon 801 Ariola Drive, Pensacola Beach, Florida. There the two investigators observed an individual on the ground floor of a home and another on a ladder on the exterior of the home. These two men were working on the house. Ms. Brown also observed a white van parked by the home that had painted on it the words, "Scotts Exterior, Inc." Ms. Brown exited her vehicle and approached the man using the circular saw and identified herself. The individual identified himself as Timothy Willard, an employee of Scotts. Ms. Brown asked Mr. Willard for contact information, including his social security number. He provided the requested information and stated that he had a workers' compensation exemption form and that it was in the white van. At this time, the man who had been on the ladder descended and stated that he was Scott Henderson and that he was the owner of Scotts. He provided contact information, including his social security number. Using the information provided by the two men, Investigator Hernandez searched the Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS), an online database maintained by the Department. The investigators observed that the CCAS revealed that Mr. Henderson had a current exemption and that Mr. Willard's exemption had expired September 8, 2006. One is eligible for an exemption if one owns at least ten percent of the stock of the corporation for which one is working and is an officer of the corporation. If such a person correctly completes the appropriate form, and pays the required fee, the Department will declare that person exempt from the requirement to obtain workers' compensation insurance. Subsequent to relaying the information she received on the job site to her supervisor, and after obtaining his approval, Ms. Brown issued an SWO, dated August 23, 2007, to Scotts. She served it on Mr. Henderson. She also served a "Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation" (Request for Production), which was provided to Scotts on the same day. Scotts responded to the Request for Production with their ledgers and other business records for the three years prior to August 23, 2007. These documents indicated that Scotts paid Mr. Willard as an employee from at least, September 8, 2006, until August 23, 2007. Ms. Brown used these figures to determine the penalty that should be assessed for Mr. Willard's noncompliance. In 2006, the penalty was $5,644.94 and for 2007, it was $12,936.86. The parties stipulated that these figures were correct, and if owed, would amount to $18,581.80 in the aggregate. On August 24, 2007, Mr. Henderson and Mr. Willard entered into a Penalty Payment Agreement, whereby Scotts agreed to pay ten percent of the penalty, provide proof of compliance, and make periodic payments for 60 months. After Mr. Willard correctly completed a Notice of Election to be Exempt, the Department agreed to allow them to work. The Department did not require the payment of another $50 fee. Mr. Willard's previously obtained exemption expired on September 8, 2006, and subsequent to that date he worked for Scotts without an exemption and without making any effort to obtain one until December 5, 2006. On December 7, 2006, he filed a Notice of Election to be Exempt in the Bureau of Compliance Office in Pensacola that was notarized on December 5, 2006. The Pensacola Office of the Bureau of Compliance is authorized to receive such notices. Mr. Willard paid the $50 fee, and the Department eventually negotiated the money order he submitted with the form. The application of Mr. Willard failed to note the scope of business or trade, the Federal Employer Identification Number was incorrect, and the fraud notice was not signed. The failure to accomplish the foregoing rendered the application unacceptable. The Department informed Scotts by mail that the form was incomplete. This information was accompanied by the incomplete application he submitted. Mr. Henderson provided the letter informing Mr. Willard that his application was incomplete and returned the application to Mr. Willard. Although Mr. Willard testified that he received this material, completed it, and returned it to the Department via the U. S. Postal Service, there is no record that the Department received it. There is no evidence in the record that Mr. Willard, or anyone on behalf of Scotts, thereafter inquired as to the status of the exemption request. On more than one occasion Mr. Willard had previously applied for exemption, was determined to be exempt, and received a card reflecting exemption from the Department. Mr. Willard testified that he understood that it was his responsibility to know when his exemptions expired. It was not the fault of the Department that Mr. Willard failed to obtain an exemption. It was Scotts' or Mr. Willard's failure. It is a fact that Mr. Willard was eligible for an exemption from September 9, 2006, until he actually obtained one on August 24, 2007. If officially exempt, he was responsible for his own medical expenses should he suffer an injury while on the job. If he failed to get an exemption, he was likewise responsible for his own expenses should he suffer an injury while on the job. This situation is very different from that where an employer fails to obtain coverage for workers not having an ownership interest in the employer.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order requiring Scotts Exteriors, Inc., to pay a penalty of $18,581.80. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of February, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of February, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Kristian E. Dunn, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Workers' Compensation 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 Michael James Rudicell, Esquire Michael J. Rudicell, P.A. 4303 B Spanish Trail Road Pensacola, Florida 32504 Daniel Sumner, General Counsel Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 Honorable Alex Sink Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issues in this enforcement proceeding are whether Respondent failed to comply with Sections 440.10, 440.05, and , Florida Statutes (2003),1 and, if so, whether Petitioner correctly assessed the penalty for said failure.
Findings Of Fact Based upon observation of the demeanor and candor of each witness while testifying; documentary materials received in evidence; evidentiary rulings made pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes (2004); and stipulations of the parties, the following relevant and material facts, arrived at impartially based solely upon testimony and information presented at the final hearing, are objectively determined: At all times material, Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation (Department), is the state agency responsible for enforcement of the statutory requirements that employers secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage requirements for the benefit of their employees in compliance with the dictates of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. Employers who failed to comply with Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, are subject to enforcement provisions, including penalty assessment, of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. At all times material, Respondent, St. James Automotive, Inc. (St. James), is a corporation domiciled in the State of Florida and engaged in automobile repair, with known business locations in Pine Island and St. James City, Florida. Both locations are owned by Richard Conrad (Mr. Conrad). On or about August 5, 2004, a Department investigator conducted an "on-site visit" at the St. James location on Pine Island Road, Pine Island, Florida. The purpose of the on-site visit was to determine whether or not St. James was in compliance with Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, regarding workers' compensation coverage for the workers found on-site. The investigator observed four individuals working on-site in automotive repair functions. One employee, when asked whether "the workers had workers' compensation coverage in place," referred the investigator to the "owner," who, at that time, was at the second business location at 2867 Oleander Street, St. James City, Florida. The investigator verified the owner's presence at the St. James City location by telephone and met him there. Upon his arrival at the St. James City location, the investigator initiated a workers' compensation coverage check on two databases. He first checked the Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) to ascertain whether St. James had in place workers' compensation coverage. The CCAS system contained current status and proof of workers' compensation coverage, if any, and record of any exemptions from workers' compensation coverage requirements filed by St. James' corporate officers. The CCAS check revealed no workers' compensation coverage filed by any corporate officers of St. James. The second system, the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI), contained data on workers' compensation coverage in effect for workers (employees) in the State of Florida. NCCI similarly revealed no workers' compensation coverage in effect for St. James' Florida employees. The investigator discussed the situation and findings from both the CCAS and NCCI with Mr. Conrad who acknowledged and admitted: (1) St. James had no workers' compensation coverage in place; (2) St. James had made inquiry and arranged for an unnamed attorney to file exemptions from workers' compensation coverage on behalf of several St. James employees, but the attorney never filed exemptions; and (3) Mr. Conrad subsequently attempted to file the exemptions himself but was unsuccessful-- "because names of exemption applicants [employees] did not match the corporate information on file for St. James, Inc., at the Division of Corporations." When offered the opportunity by the Department's investigator to produce any proof of workers' compensation coverage or exemption from coverage, Mr. Conrad was unable to do so. At the conclusion of the August 5, 2004, on-site visit, and based upon a review of the CCAS and NCCI status reports and Mr. Conrad's inability to produce proof of workers' compensation coverage or exemptions, the investigator determined that St. James was not in compliance with requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. The investigator then issued a Stop Work Order on St. James' two business locations. The Stop Work Order contained an initial assessed penalty of $1,000, subject to increase to an amount equal to 1.5 times the amount of the premium the employer would have paid during the period for which coverage was not secured or whichever is greater. Mr. Conrad acknowledged his failure to conform to the requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, stating5: I guess you could say--I first of all, I am guilty, plain and simple. In other words, I did not conform. Subsequent to issuing the August 5, 2004, Stop Work Order, the Department made a written records' request to Mr. Conrad that he should provide payroll records listing all employees by name, social security number, and gross wages paid to each listed employee.6 Mr. Conrad provided the requested employee payroll records, listing himself and his wife, Cheryl L. Conrad, not as owners, stockholders or managers, but as employees. Pursuant to Section 440.107, Florida Statutes, the Department is required to link the amount of its enforcement penalty to the amount of payroll (total) paid to each employee. The persons listed on St. James' payroll records received remuneration for the performance of their work on behalf of St. James and are "employees" as defined in Subsection 440.02(15), Florida Statutes. Review of the payroll records by the Department's investigator revealed the listed employees for services performed on its behalf. The employee payroll records provided by St. James were used by the Department's investigator to reassess applicable penalty and subsequent issuance of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in the amount of $97,260.75.7 St. James' payroll records did not list the type of work (class code or type) each employee performed during the period in question. Accordingly, the Department's investigator properly based the penalty assessment on the highest-rated class code or type of work in which St. James was engaged, automotive repair. The highest-rated class code has the most expensive insurance premium rate associated with it, indicating the most complex activity or type of work associated with St. James' business of automotive repair. The Department's methodology and reliance on the NCCI Basic Manual for purpose of penalty calculation is standardized and customarily applied in circumstances and situations as presented herein.8 Mr. Conrad, in his petition for a Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, hearing alleged the 8380 (highest premium rate) class code applied to only three of his employees: himself, Brain Green, and William Yagmin. On the basis of this alleged penalty assessment error by the Department, Mr. Conrad seeks a reduction of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment amount of $97,260.75. Mr. Conrad presented no evidence to substantiate his allegation that the Department's investigator assigned incorrect class codes to employees based upon the employee information Mr. Conrad provided in response to the Department's record request. To the contrary, had he enrolled in workers' compensation coverage or had he applied for exemption from coverage, Mr. Conrad would have known that his premium payment rates for coverage would have been based upon the employees' class codes he would have assigned each employee in his workers' compensation coverage application. In an attempt to defend his failure to comply with the workers' compensation coverage requirement of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, Mr. Conrad asserted that the Department's investigator took his verbal verification that certain employees were clerical, but neglected to recognize his statement that he was also clerical, having been absent from the job-site for over three years. Mr. Conrad's excuses and avoidance testimony was not internally consistent with his earlier stated position of not conforming to the statutory requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. The above testimony was not supported by other credible evidence of record. This is critical to the credibility determination since Mr. Conrad seeks to avoid paying a significant penalty. For those reasons, his testimony lacks credibility. Mr. Conrad also attempted to shift blame testifying that--"My attorney did not file exemption forms with the Department," and my "personal attempts to file St. James' exemption form failed--[B]ecause the mailing instructions contained in the Department's form were not clear." In his final defensive effort of avoidance, Mr. Conrad testified that he offered to his employees, and they agreed to accept, unspecified "increases" in their respective salaries in lieu of St. James' providing workers' compensation coverage for them. This defense suffered from a lack of corroboration from those employees who allegedly agreed (and those who did not agree) and lack of documented evidence of such agreement. The intended inference that all his employees' reported salaries included some unspecified "salary increase" is not supported by employee identification or salary specificity and is thus unacceptable to support a finding of fact. St. James failed to produce credible evidence that the Department's Stop Work Order, the Penalty Assessment, and/or the Amended Penalty Assessment were improper. St. James failed to produce any credible evidence that the Department's use of the NCCI Basic Manual, as the basis for penalty assessment calculation based upon employee information provided by St. James, was improper and/or not based upon actual employee salary information provided by St. James. Prior to this proceeding, the Department and Mr. Conrad entered into a penalty payment agreement as authorized by Subsection 440.107(7)(a), Florida Statutes.9 The penalty payment agreement required fixed monthly payments be made by Mr. Conrad and afforded Mr. Conrad the ability to continue operation of his automotive repair business that was, by order, stopped on August 5, 2004.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby 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 in the amount of $97,260.75, minus any and all periodic payments of the penalty remitted by St. James, pursuant to agreed upon conditional release from the Stop Work Order dated August 5, 2004. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of March, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRED L. BUCKINE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of March, 2005.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent is authorized to levy Petitioner's bank account and apply the funds to reduce or satisfy Petitioner's unpaid unemployment taxes, interest, and penalties.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Harold Pratt Paving and Sealing, Inc., is a Florida corporation with its home office and principal place of business at 2242 Bruner Lane, Southeast, Ft. Myers, Florida 33192. Harold W. Pratt is the president and director of the company. Petitioner is an employer within the meaning of Chapter 443, Florida Statutes (2003), and is subject to the provisions of that chapter. As an employer, Petitioner employs and pays wages to his employees. In accordance with Subsection 443.131(1), Florida Statutes (2003), Petitioner is required to pay a payroll tax to the Unemployment Compensation Trust Fund, which is required to finance unemployment benefits. Petitioner's State of Florida unemployment tax account number is 2032262. Contributions, also referred to as unemployment taxes, are self-reported by employers. The contributions accrue and are payable by employers for each calendar quarter the employer is subject to Chapter 443, Florida Statutes (2003), for wages paid during each calendar quarter for employment. The contributions are due and payable by the employer to the tax collection service provider the last day of the month following the calendar quarter for which they are payable. The payments become delinquent on the first working day of the following month. See § 443.131(1), Fla. Stat. (2003), and Fla. Admin. Code R. 60BB-2.027. As of the date of the hearing, Petitioner owes unemployment taxes and associated interest and penalties in the amount of $46,133.94. The Department of Revenue is authorized to administer the tax laws of the State of Florida pursuant to Section 213.05, Florida Statutes (2003). The Department of Revenue serves as the tax collection service provider pursuant to Section 443.1316, Florida Statutes (2003), and is responsible for the collection of unemployment taxes. Typically, when an employer does not timely submit its unemployment tax payment and report, the Department sends the employer a delinquency notice. The employer then has 15 to 20 days to respond. If payment is not received, the Department then takes more serious action. On November 19, 2003, the Department issued a Subpoena Duces Tecum to Mr. Pratt to produce specified employment records at the Department's Ft. Myers office on December 15, 2003. Mr. Pratt and Ms. Jaffray, Petitioner's secretary and bookkeeper, produced the records as required by the subpoena. On December 15, 2003, when Mr. Pratt and Ms. Jaffray were at the Department's office, they talked to Ms. Philander, the Department auditor assigned to Petitioner's case, about entering into a time payment agreement with the Department. The time payment agreement is available to employers who owe delinquent unemployment taxes and allows them to make payments over time. This option is permitted at the discretion of the Department auditor assigned to the employer. In December 2003, Mr. Pratt and/or Ms. Jaffray, and Ms. Philander discussed the time payment agreement option, but did not execute any agreement. Because Mr. Pratt had not yet submitted Petitioner's current wage report to Tallahassee, but would be submitting it soon, Ms. Philander wanted to wait until the total amount of Petitioner's outstanding unemployment taxes was calculated. Once that amount was determined, the parties planned to enter into a time payment agreement. Ms. Philander advised Mr. Pratt and Ms. Jaffray that she would contact them once the adjustment had been made. Some time after December 15, 2003, and mid-January 2004, Ms. Philander received Petitioner's unemployment tax account statement. She then called Ms. Jaffray and notified her that Petitioner's account statement had come in and that she and Mr. Pratt would be receiving a copy of the statement. Ms. Philander also told Ms. Jaffray that Mr. Pratt should come up with figures that would be appropriate for the terms of repayment. In a January 16, 2004, telephone conversation, Ms. Jaffray told Ms. Philander that she would call her the following week to tell her the amount of money that Petitioner would pay under a time payment agreement. Ms. Jaffray explained that she could not provide this information until Mr. Pratt told her the amount he could pay. The following week, Ms. Philander never received a call from either Mr. Pratt or Ms. Jaffray. At one point, Ms. Jaffray told Ms. Philander that Petitioner could pay $5,000 down, in certified funds, and $5,000, in certified funds, per month thereafter. However, Ms. Jaffray told Ms. Philander that she would have to check with Mr. Pratt before this payment plan could be finalized. After she did not hear from Mr. Pratt or Ms. Jaffray, on February 1, 2004, Ms. Philander called Petitioner's office and left a message on Petitioner's answering machine or voice mail. On February 4, 2004, Ms. Philander left another message for Mr. Pratt that she needed the money or she would start "injunction." Mr. Pratt never offered any proposed payment amounts to Ms. Philander and never signed a time payment agreement. On or about February 5, 2004, the Department sent a Notice to Freeze to the Colonial Bank in Birmingham, Alabama. In the notice, which was sent by certified mail, the Department advised Colonial Bank that Petitioner "has a delinquent liability for tax, penalty, and interest of $46,133.94, which is due to the State of Florida." Moreover, the Department directed the bank not to transfer, dispose, or return any credits, debts, or other personal property owned by or owed to Petitioner. On February 10, 2004, the Colonial Bank verified that it held one account identified as belonging to Petitioner, which had a current balance of $20,625.75. On February 11, 2004, the Department issued a Notice of Intent to Levy on personal property belonging to Petitioner in the possession or control of the Colonial Bank. The Notice of Levy stated that "the action is taken for nonpayment of taxes, penalty, and interest in the sum of $46,133.94, and will proceed unless you pay this delinquent amount within 21 days from the date of receipt of this Notice of Intent to Levy." The notice also advised Petitioner of his right to a hearing. The Department mailed the Notice of Intent to Levy to Petitioner by certified mail, which was received by Petitioner on February 12, 2004.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order that: (1) levies $20,625.75 in Petitioner's bank account at the Colonial Bank; (2) applies the funds to reduce Petitioner's delinquent taxes, interest, and penalties; and (3) credits Petitioner for said payment. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of August, 2004, 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 30th day of August, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold Pratt, President Harold Pratt Paving & Sealing, Inc. 2242 Bruner Lane, Southeast Fort Myers, Florida 33912 James O. Jett, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Bruce Hoffmann, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 James Zingale, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for licensure as a certified public accountant (C.P.A.) should be denied on the grounds set forth in Respondent's order of December 5, 1991, as clarified by the Joint Prehearing Stipulation entered into by the parties on July 1, 1992?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: In October of 1985, after graduating from college, Petitioner went to work as a staff accountant with the public accounting firm of DeLoitte, Haskins and Sells (DH&S). He remained with DH&S until his position was eliminated. His last day of work was February 19, 1988. That same day, Petitioner went to the Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security, Division of Unemployment Compensation's (Division's) office (unemployment office) on Oakland Park Boulevard and U.S. 1 in Fort Lauderdale to inquire as to whether he was eligible for unemployment compensation. 1/ He brought with him a check (termination check) he had received from DH&S in an amount equal to approximately eight to ten weeks pay. The termination check represented not only severance pay, but also compensation for overtime work and unused sick leave and vacation time paid to Petitioner in one lump sum. 2/ After waiting on line, Petitioner spoke with a Division employee about his situation. He showed the termination check to the employee and explained what it represented. The employee then advised Petitioner that he would not be eligible for unemployment compensation until after the period of time for which he had been paid by DH&S had expired. Having been so advised, Petitioner left the unemployment office without submitting a claim. In the weeks that followed, friends and acquaintances of Petitioner, who believed that he had been given erroneous information regarding his eligibility for unemployment benefits, suggested to him that he further pursue the matter. Not having been successful in finding permanent, full-time employment, Petitioner ultimately followed their suggestion. On March 23, 1988, he returned to the unemployment office, with a copy of the termination check he had received from DH&S, to find out if he had indeed been given erroneous information by the Division employee with whom he had spoken during his initial visit the month before. He discussed his situation with another Division employee who worked in the office. This employee told Petitioner that he was eligible for unemployment benefits and that he would be able to receive "retroactive benefits" for the period following his first visit to the office. She advised Petitioner to fill out an unemployment compensation claim form, while she completed the paperwork that was necessary for him to obtain the "retroactive benefits" due him. Before leaving the office, Petitioner filled out a claim form and submitted it for filing. On the form, Petitioner checked the box indicating that, upon the termination of his employment with DH&S, he had not "received wages in lieu of notice." Nowhere on the form did Petitioner indicate that he was seeking "retroactive benefits;" however, he did not have to do so in order to complete the form inasmuch as no part of the form addressed the subject of "retroactive benefits." Petitioner received his first unemployment compensation check in late April of 1988. Shortly thereafter, on May 2, 1988, he began working for Safeguard Services, Inc. (Safeguard). Petitioner continued to receive unemployment compensation checks until August of 1988, notwithstanding that he was fully employed by Safeguard throughout the period. To receive these payments, Petitioner had to fill out and submit weekly claim certifications. In these certifications, he failed to disclose his employment with Safeguard and falsely certified that he had been "unemployed or partially unemployed" during the time periods covered by the certifications. 3/ He gave such information regarding his employment status knowing it to be false in order to continue to receive unemployment benefits. While still employed by Safeguard, Petitioner was contacted by a "headhunter" from Source Finance, an employment recruiter. The possibility of Petitioner using the services of Source Finance to assist him in finding a new job was discussed. Source Finance thereafter prepared a resume for Petitioner without his authorization, approval or knowledge. The resume indicated that Petitioner was a C.P.A. in the State of Florida. 4/ Petitioner was not then, nor has he ever been, licensed to practice public accounting in this state. Petitioner left the employ of Safeguard in October of 1988. Following his termination he went to the unemployment office to file a claim for unemployment compensation. Under "USUAL OCCUPATION" on the unemployment compensation claim form, Petitioner put down "CPA." In fact, Petitioner did not practice public accounting (although he had worked for a public accounting firm), nor did he regularly hold himself out as a C.P.A. Furthermore, he made clear to the Division employee to whom he handed his completed claim form that he was not yet a C.P.A., although he was hoping to become one and toward that end was leaving town the next day to take the C.P.A. examination. While Petitioner used poor judgment in referring to himself as a C.P.A. on the form, in so doing he did not intend to defraud the Division or to lead potential clients to believe that he was eligible to practice public accounting in this state. In or around December of 1988, the Division notified Petitioner in writing that it was seeking to recoup from him $2,600.00 in unemployment compensation benefits that he had improperly received while he had been employed full-time by Safeguard. In a letter written the latter part of January of 1989, Petitioner responded by asking the Division for clarification. Shortly thereafter the Division sent Petitioner a second letter demanding payment. Petitioner responded by writing another letter to the Division indicating that he would not make payment until he was given what he considered to be an adequate clarification of the Division's position. Subsequently, Petitioner was charged in Broward County Circuit Court (Case No. 89-6975 CF) with unemployment compensation fraud, in violation of Section 443.071(1), Florida Statutes. He retained Martin Jaffe, Esquire, to serve as his defense counsel and agreed to a fee arrangement that was described as follows in a letter dated June 28, 1989, sent to him by Jaffe: In the event this cause is resolved prior to the start of pre-trial depositions, the total fee shall be $10,000.00. The sum of $5,000.00 has been received on this date. The remaining balance of $5,000.00 shall be paid on or before September 1, 1989. In the event that it is necessary to take pre-trial depositions, an additional fee of $5,000.00 shall be due and owing. In the event that this matter shall proceed to trial, there shall be an additional fee of $2,000.00 per day of trial. It is agreed that those fees detailed in paragraphs B and C shall be paid out of any "reward monies" that you receive from the Internal Revenue Service. 5/ You hereby agree to execute the necessary documents to assign said payments to me. It is further understood, of course, that in the event that you do not receive any monies or insufficient monies from the Internal Revenue Service, you shall still be responsible for all payments delineated herein. The State Attorney offered to enter into a plea bargain agreement with Petitioner. Petitioner initially rejected the offer. As time passed, it became apparent that Petitioner would not be able to pay for Jaffe's services. Jaffe therefore suggested that Petitioner reconsider his decision to reject the offer the State Attorney had made, which Jaffe believed, based upon the limited information that he had regarding the case, 6/ to be "very favorable." Petitioner did reconsider and he agreed with Jaffe that it was in his, Petitioner's, best interest to accept the offer. On October 23, 1989, in accordance with the terms of the plea bargain agreement, Petitioner entered a plea of nolo contendre to the felony charge of unemployment compensation fraud that had been lodged against him. Adjudication of guilt was withheld and Petitioner was placed on probation for 18 months and ordered to repay $2,600.00 to the Division within the first year of his probation. Petitioner timely repaid the $2,600.00 and in all other respects successfully completed the terms and conditions of his probation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board of Accountancy enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for licensure based upon his lack of "good moral character," within the meaning of Section 473.306(4), Florida Statutes, without prejudice to Petitioner reapplying for licensure no sooner than one year following the date of this Recommended Order and showing that, in light of his subsequent good conduct and/or other pertinent circumstances, his having committed unemployment compensation fraud in 1988 no longer constitutes a basis upon which to conclude that he lacks the "good moral character" required of applicants for licensure. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 14th day of September, 1992. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of September, 1992.
The Issue Whether Leonard Smith, d/b/a Site Development & Pipeline Construction, Inc., violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by failing to secure the payment of workers’ compensation coverage for its employees; 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. Leonard Smith is an 85-year-old retired contractor. Respondent’s corporate records with the Florida Division of Corporations record that Leonard Smith is Respondent’s owner, president, and registered agent. Respondent was incorporated in February 2014. The company was administratively dissolved in September 2015. However, Leonard Smith still does business using Respondent’s name. On June 13, 2017, Cristina Brigantty, a compliance investigator with the Department, conducted a random workers’ compensation check at a worksite located at 499 Lorraine Leland Street in Dunedin, Florida. At the site, Investigator Brigantty observed an individual operating a compact excavator/tractor commonly called a “Bobcat” (the manufacturer’s name). The Bobcat operator was moving soil and appeared to be grading the site in preparation for the pouring of concrete. Investigator Brigantty approached the individual operating the Bobcat and requested his name. The driver identified himself as Joe Smith. Joe Smith also relayed to Investigator Brigantty that he was just hired by Leonard Smith (no relation) to work on the site. Joe Smith added that he expected to work approximately ten hours and be paid around $2,000 from Leonard Smith for the job. Joe Smith then provided Investigator Brigantty with Leonard Smith’s business card and phone number. At the final hearing, Investigator Brigantty testified that her duties for the Department include inspecting businesses to determine whether the business has obtained the required workers’ compensation insurance coverage. Investigator Brigantty explained that a business that performs construction-related work must have workers’ compensation coverage. Therefore, Investigator Brigantty believed that Respondent should have secured sufficient workers’ compensation coverage for its employee (Joe Smith). After learning Leonard Smith’s name, Investigator Brigantty searched the Department’s Coverage and Compliance Automated System (“CCAS”) database. 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. While reviewing CCAS, Inspector Brigantty initially noted that the Department did not have on file any request from Leonard Smith, Respondent’s owner-of-record, 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. Thereafter, based on her research of the information in CCAS, Inspector Brigantty concluded that Respondent did not have a valid exemption for a corporate officer (Leonard Smith) on June 13, 2017. Neither did Respondent carry any workers’ compensation coverage for Joe Smith. After determining that Respondent had not obtained workers’ compensation coverage for Joe Smith on the date of her visit, Investigator Brigantty called Leonard Smith. In the ensuing conversation, Leonard Smith told her that Joe Smith was working for him at the jobsite. On June 22, 2017, Investigator Brigantty issued a Stop- Work Order to Respondent. With the Stop-Work Order, Investigator Brigantty 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 June 14, 2015, through June 13, 2017. The requested documents pertained to: employer identification, payroll documents, account documents, disbursements, workers’ compensation coverage, professional employer organization, temporary labor service, exemptions, subcontractors, and subcontractor’s workers’ compensation coverage. Based on its 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: Lynne Murcia, the penalty auditor who determined the penalty the Department seeks to impose on Respondent, testified regarding her computation. Ms. Murcia explained that the penalty essentially consists of the “evaded” premium amount, or the actual amount 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. In determining 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 was from June 14, 2015, through June 13, 2017, which was the two-year period preceding the date of the Stop-Work Order.2/ (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 a number of financial records. These records consisted primarily of bank statements and cancelled checks. The documentation Respondent submitted, however, 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 June 13, 2015, through June 14, 2017. Specifically, Respondent failed to provide complete bank statements or the corresponding check images for the periods of January 1 through April 30, 2016; June 1 through July 31, 2016; and June 1 through June 13, 2017. Consequently, 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. Therefore, the Department exercised its option to “impute” Respondent’s weekly payroll from June 13, 2015, through June 14, 2017. In addition to Joe Smith, the Department imputed wages for several other individuals and entities it identified in Respondent’s business records. Based on Respondent’s financial records, between June 14, 2015, and June 13, 2017, Respondent made payments to Earl Cockeranoham, “J.M.L.,” Martin Moore, “Peterson,” and Robert Tamburan. The Department also identified a subcontractor Respondent paid in 2015 named Roger’s Dirt Works, Inc. The Department further determined that at the time of the transaction, Roger’s Dirt Works, Inc., had neither workers’ compensation coverage, nor an exemption for a corporate officer. (Roger’s Dirt Works, Inc., subsequently obtained a valid exemption.) Therefore, the Department included Roger’s Dirt Works, Inc., in the penalty for the period of June 14 through December 31, 2015. The Department also added to Respondent’s payroll “uninsured labor” for the full period of non-compliance. Ms. Murcia relayed that “uninsured labor” reflects undesignated cash transactions for which the recipient was not identified or “validated” by Respondent’s business records and receipts. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.035(1)(k). Respondent’s financial records revealed four separate cash payments totaling $6,892. Finally, the Department included Leonard Smith in all periods of non-compliance. The Department explained that Leonard Smith was registered as a corporate officer of Respondent. However, he did not have an active workers’ compensation exemption on file. Therefore, Respondent was also required to carry workers’ compensation for himself. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.028(3)(b). 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 for the period requested for the calculation of the penalty. Therefore, the Department obtained the statewide average weekly wage effective at the time of the Stop-Work Order ($886.46)3/ 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). To calculate a penalty based on an imputed payroll, the Department assigns an employer’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 Joe Smith, or any of the other identified employees, performed for Respondent over the two-year period of non-compliance. However, during her investigation of the jobsite on June 13, 2017, Investigator Brigantty observed Joe Smith engaging in activities consistent with excavating, such as filling, backfilling, and moving earth. According to the Scopes Manual issued by the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc. (“NCCI”), class code 6217 is the “Excavation and Drivers” classification.4/ Consequently, the Department applied class code 6217 to all Respondent’s employees and officer for the entire penalty period. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.028(3)(b) and 69L-6.021(2)(mmm)(excavation is classified as “construction activity”). Therefore, to calculate the premium amount for the workers’ compensation insurance Respondent should have paid for its employees, the Department applied the manual rates corresponding to class code 6217. 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 October 13, 2017. The Penalty Assessment imposed a penalty of $42,407.08 against Respondent. Ms. Murcia explained that the initial penalty amount was calculated without the benefit of Respondent’s business records. However, after Respondent began providing its financial records in October 2017, the Department reduced its penalty assessment three times. On November 30, 2018, the Department served a 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, which adjusted the penalty down to $11,958.46. On May 29, 2019 (following leave by the undersigned), the Department produced a 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, which further reduced the penalty to $8,443.96. Finally, at the final hearing (in light of Leonard Smith’s deposition), the Department introduced a 4th Amended Order of Penalty Assessment with a revised (and final) penalty amount of $8,366.44. At the final hearing, Leonard Smith was adamant that Joe Smith was not his employee on June 13, 2017, or at any point. Instead, Leonard Smith explained that he is just a “broker” to help place workers with construction projects. Leonard Smith claimed that for the last nine years, he simply does estimating and consulting for other small contractors. Consequently, because he no longer engages in construction work or employs any workers, Leonard Smith asserted that he does not need to carry workers’ compensation insurance. Regarding the work that Investigator Brigantty witnessed on June 13, 2017, Leonard Smith testified that a church contacted him about supplying, filling, and spreading dirt on its property. Leonard Smith explained that the church was to pay him $12,840.00 for the job. Leonard Smith referred to Joe Smith as a “private contractor.” Leonard Smith relayed that he met Joe Smith in June 2017. Joe Smith expressed that he was looking for work. Leonard Smith told him about the job in Dunedin, Florida. On June 13, 2017, Leonard Smith met Joe Smith, who had brought his Bobcat, at the church and discussed the job. Leonard Smith then left him to complete the work. Leonard Smith insisted that he never “paid” Joe Smith. Instead, he simply agreed to share the money the church was giving him for the job. Leonard Smith called his own portion a “consulting fee.” On June 23, 2017, after he had received the $12,840.00 from the church, Leonard Smith wrote a check to Joe Smith for $3,440.00. Joe Smith never worked for Respondent or Leonard Smith before or since June 13, 2017. Regarding the payment to Earl Cockeranoham recorded in Respondent’s business records, Leonard Smith testified that Mr. Cockeranoham never worked for him. Instead, the money he paid to Mr. Cockeranoham in 2015 ($460.00) was for work Mr. Cockeranoham performed for the same church. Regarding evidence of a payment to Martin Moore, Leonard Smith testified that he paid Mr. Moore $500.00 in 2016 for Mr. Moore’s rent. Leonard Smith denied that he paid Mr. Moore for construction work. Respondent further testified that Respondent had known Mr. Moore a long time. Joe Smith testified at the final hearing regarding his understanding of his employment relationship with Respondent on June 13, 2017. Initially, Joe Smith explained that he had been out of work for several months and was looking for a job when he met Leonard Smith in June 2017. Leonard Smith offered him the work at the church spreading soil. Joe Smith relayed that he owned the Bobcat and brought it with him to the jobsite. Joe Smith stated that, on June 13, 2017, he met Leonard Smith at the church. There, Leonard Smith informed him that he was to bring an area of land up to proper elevation. They also discussed how they would split payment for the job. Joe Smith understood that the church was going to pay Leonard Smith. Then, Leonard Smith was going to give him his share. Joe Smith confirmed that Leonard Smith sent him approximately $3,000.00 several weeks after the job. Joe Smith also conceded that he was not covered by workers’ compensation on June 13, 2017. Joe Smith further testified that Investigator Brigantty showed up at the worksite the day he started working. Finally, at the final hearing, Joe Smith was dismayed that he had created this issue regarding workers’ compensation coverage. He expressed that he was simply looking for work, and Leonard Smith was kind enough to help him out. Joe Smith did not want to get anyone in trouble. Based on the competent substantial evidence in the record, the Department demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent failed to secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage or workers’ compensation exemptions for its “employees” for the periods of June 14, 2015, through June 13, 2017. Accordingly, the Department met its burden of proving that Respondent violated chapter 440 and should be penalized. (As more fully addressed below, the evidence in the record does not sufficiently establish that either Earl Cockeranoham or Martin Moore were “employees” of Respondent under chapter 440. Therefore, they should not be included in the penalty calculation.)
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, Leonard Smith, d/b/a Site Development & Pipeline Construction, Inc., violated the requirement in chapter 440 to secure workers’ compensation coverage, and imposing a total penalty of $8,219.06. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of September, 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 13th day of September, 2019.
