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 Is Respondent obligated to pay $1,100.00, pursuant to a September 8, 2000, Notice of Penalty Assessment Order because on August 30, 2000, he was an employer engaged in the "construction industry" as that term is defined by Section 440.02(7), Florida Statutes (2000), and had one or more employees.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure workers' compensation insurance for their employees. On August 30, 2000, Lisa Lyonais, Petitioner's investigator, conducted an on-site inspection of a single-family residence under construction in Ocala, Florida. She was accompanied by investigators of the Department of Insurance. Ms. Lyonais observed three persons working inside the house. One person was cleaning-up and sweeping. Ms. Lyonais determined this person to be an employee of Nadeau Construction Unlimited, Inc. (Nadeau). Due to what the other two persons told her, Ms. Lyonais pursued an investigation of Respondent. The building permit posted on the job board outside the house listed Nadeau as the general contractor and as the owner of the house. Ms. Lyonais telephoned Mr. Nadeau. Mr. Nadeau came to the job site and spoke with Ms. Lyonais. Due to what Mr. Nadeau told her, Ms. Lyonais contacted Respondent. Ms. Lyonais interviewed Respondent when he arrived at the job site. Respondent admitted then, and at hearing, that he was laying tile in the house; that he did not have a workers' compensation exemption; and that he did not carry workers' compensation insurance. Respondent's sister-in-law had requested that Mr. Nadeau hire Respondent to lay the tile in the house which Mr. Nadeau was constructing for her. A price for the tile- setting had been agreed-upon between Mr. Nadeau and Respondent prior to Respondent's commencing the work. By his answers to Requests for Admission, Respondent admitted this agreement constituted a "contract." He enlisted the help of his "church brothers," Brown and Sims, who were the two men originally interviewed on the job site by Ms. Lyonais. On August 30, 2000, Ms. Lyonais served on Respondent a Request for Business Records, so that she could determine whether Respondent was required to provide workers' compensation insurance. Respondent provided no records. Petitioner is the state agency authorized to issue workers' compensation exemptions and to which insurance carriers report that they have issued workers' compensation insurance policies to employers. Petitioner's electronic data base of this information allows its investigators to determine whether a particular employer has obtained an exemption or secured workers' compensation insurance. Ms. Lyonais verified on this electronic data base that Respondent had not secured workers' compensation insurance. Based on her observations on the job site, the search results of Petitioner's data base, and her understanding of the Florida Workers' Compensation Law, Ms. Lyonais issued a Stop Work Order on August 30, 2000, for Respondent's failure to secure workers' compensation insurance for himself and his two employees, Brown and Sims. On September 7, 2000, Respondent signed an Employer Payroll Affidavit in which he declared that he was a sole proprietor, that he had employees, and that he did not currently have workers' compensation insurance. Respondent also completed an Employee Payroll Worksheet in which he indicated that he employed the other two tile workers, Brown and Sims, whom he would pay $300.00 and $80.00 respectively, once he was paid by Mr. Nadeau. Mr. Nadeau paid Respondent $1,800.00, by business check dated September 8, 2000, for ceramic tile labor. Respondent endorsed the check and used some of the proceeds to pay Brown and Sims. The National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) classifies types of employment and prescribes workers' compensation insurance premium rates for those classifications. Petitioner has adopted NCCI's SCOPES Manual by rule. See Rule 38F-5.111, Florida Administrative Code. Tile setting is classified by the SCOPES Manual under class code 5348 (stone, mosaic or terrazzo or ceramic tile work). The premium rate for each $100.00 of compensation paid under class code 5348 is 0.116. Ms. Lyonais calculated the evaded premium, or the premium that Respondent would have paid had he secured workers' compensation insurance, by multiplying the gross compensation to employees by the premium rate, resulting in a total of $208.80. She calculated the statutory penalty as twice that amount ($417.60) or $1,000.00, whichever is greater, and assessed $100.00 for each day the employer operated in violation of the Workers' Compensation Law. There is some evidence that Respondent, Brown, and Sims worked more than one day at the job site. Although an assessment might have been made for every day which Respondent, Brown, and Sims worked the job site, Petitioner is satisfied with assessing a $100.00 penalty only for the one day of August 30, 2000. At hearing, Respondent did not refute the foregoing formula or Ms. Lyonais' calculations, noted that he had paid the $1,100.00 penalty to Petitioner when it was assessed and that to do so had been a hardship on his family. He asserted that he had made an honest mistake because he felt he was working for his sister-in-law, whom he believed to be the homeowner. Respondent's wife also testified that the house belonged to her sister. However, Respondent presented no corroborative documentary evidence that his sister-in-law, in fact, owned the house at any time material. He also did not present any documents to refute the building permit. (See Finding of Fact No. 4). Respondent did not suggest that he had filed proof with the Agency of his financial ability to pay compensation, which filing, under Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, is an alternative to securing coverage through an insurance company. Respondent did not suggest that he, Brown, or Sims had filed an election not to be covered by Chapter 440, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Labor and Employment Security, Division of Workers' Compensation enter a Final Order declaring Respondent to have been a statutory employer on August 30, 2000; ratifying the $1,100.00 penalty assessment; and denying Respondent any refund. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of March, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of March, 2001.
The Issue The issue is whether the Stop-Work Order and the Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment entered by Petitioner on July 25, 2013, and August 13, 2013, respectively, should be upheld.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency tasked with the responsibility of enforcing the requirement of section 440.107(3), Florida Statutes, that employers in Florida secure the payment of workers' compensation for their employees. Respondent, Mad Dog Marketing Group, Inc., is a corporation organized under chapter 607, Florida Statutes, and was registered with the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations, throughout the period of July 26, 2010, to July 25, 2013. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was engaged in the operation of a hardware store business with three locations in Florida. On July 25, 2013, based upon an anonymous referral, Tracey Gilbert, the Department's compliance investigator, commenced a workers' compensation compliance investigation of Respondent by visiting the job site, an appliance parts store at 730 West Brandon Boulevard, Brandon, Florida, and interviewing Sharon Belcher. According to Ms. Gilbert, Ms. Belcher informed her that she had 11 employees at the time of the site visit and that she did not have workers' compensation coverage for them. Ms. Belcher showed Ms. Gilbert an application for workers' compensation insurance and said she had not taken action with it since the company wanted a $10,000 premium. She also showed Ms. Gilbert some OSHA and workplace posters, but not the typical "broken arm poster" that describes workers' compensation coverage for a place of business. Ms. Belcher then gave Ms. Gilbert a list of Respondent's 11 current employees. On her laptop computer, Ms. Gilbert consulted the Department's Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) database to determine whether Respondent had secured workers' compensation coverage or an exemption from the requirements for coverage for its employees. CCAS is the database Ms. Gilbert routinely consults during the course of her investigations. She determined from CCAS that Respondent neither had workers' compensation coverage for her employees nor had received an exemption from such coverage from the Department. Ms. Belcher's recollection of her meeting with Ms. Gilbert differs from Ms. Gilbert's. Ms. Belcher recalled that she had applied for insurance with ADP on July 11, 2013, received the "broken arm poster," and believed she was covered at the time Ms. Belcher conducted her investigation. She offered an exhibit showing photographs of posters (but not the "broken arm poster") on the office bulletin board. She also offered an exhibit she testified was the UPS label from the tube containing the "broken arm poster." No photograph of the "broken arm poster" was produced as an exhibit. Ms. Gilbert did not contact ADP to verify whether Respondent had coverage on the date of her site visit to the Brandon store. Ms. Gilbert issued a Stop-Work Order to Respondent and a concurrent Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation at 11:20 a.m. on July 25, 2013. Ms. Belcher first submitted an application for workers' compensation coverage on July 11, 2013, but coverage was not bound on that date. Ms. Belcher submitted the paperwork to bind her insurance coverage on the afternoon of July 25, 2013, according to Mark Cristillo, an employee of ADP Insurance. Mr. Cristillo testified that he had made several attempts during the month of July 2013 to obtain the signed documents from Ms. Belcher, including an attempt as late as July 23, 2013, at 11:45 a.m. Ms. Belcher told Mr. Cristillo at that time that she had not reviewed the quote package. At 11:20 a.m., the time Ms. Gilbert's issued the Stop-Work Order on July 25, 2013, Ms. Belcher had not bound her insurance coverage. When she submitted the payment with the signed documents to ADP later that afternoon, the coverage was bound effective 12:01 a.m. on July 25, 2013. The records produced by Ms. Belcher were given to Chad Mason, one of the Department's penalty auditors, to calculate the penalty. He reviewed the records and determined the amount of gross payroll paid to Respondent's employees during the three- year penalty period preceding the investigation during which Respondent was not in compliance with the workers' compensation coverage requirements. Using Respondent's bi-weekly payroll chart, Respondent's Florida Department of Revenue UCT-6 reports, and the classification codes for each employee, Mr. Mason calculated a Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment of $42,251.43, based upon what Respondent would have paid in workers' compensation premiums had it been in compliance with Florida's Workers' Compensation Law. The order was issued on October 24, 2013. Mr. Mason determined that the appropriate codes for Respondent's employees were 8010 and 8810, which are hardware store employees and general clerical employees, respectively. These codes were 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 NCCI, the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc., the nation's most authoritative data collecting and disseminating organization for workers' compensation. The parties stipulated prior to hearing that all of the individuals listed on the penalty worksheet of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment were "employees" in the state of Florida of Respondent during the periods of non-compliance listed on the penalty worksheets. However, Respondent claimed that some of the employees were out-of-state and not subject to Florida law. Ms. Belcher testified that, as of July 25, 2013, three of its employees, Fred Hasselman, Douglas Strickland, and Josh Hyers, were employees of the Tennessee store and not subject to a Florida penalty. Mr. Hyers was a Florida employee prior to July 1, according to Ms. Belcher. However, all three of the employees were listed on the Florida Department of Revenue's 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. Mr. Mason reasonably relied upon the UCT-6 filings for the relevant time period to calculate Respondent's gross payroll in Florida. No evidence was produced to show them listed as Tennessee employees on that state's comparable tax form or any official document from outside Florida. The logical assumption is that they are Florida employees under the law. Accepting all the employees disclosed by Respondent as Florida employees led Mr. Mason to make his calculations of the penalty assessment using the appropriate codes from the Scopes Manual for hardware store and general clerical workers, 8010 and 8810. All the named employees on the Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment were paid by Respondent in the amounts indicated on the penalty worksheet that accompanies that assessment during the penalty period of July 26, 2010, through July 25, 2013. Even though small discrepancies came up at the hearing regarding the classifications of some of Respondent's employees, the parties had stipulated to the accuracy of the classifications of those employees so those numbers will be accepted for purposes of this decision. Based upon the testimony at the hearing and the pre-hearing stipulations of the parties, the penalty assessment in the amount of $42,251.43 is accurate. Mr. Mason correctly applied the methodology for determining the amount of coverage required, determining that the appropriate premium for the three- year period would have been $28,167.50. When multiplied by the factor used to calculate the penalty, 1.5 times the premium, the total amount due is $42,251.43. The Department has proven by clear and convincing evidence that at the time the Stop-Work Order was issued and served on Respondent on the morning of July 25, 2013, Respondent had not secured workers' compensation coverage for its employees as required by chapter 440. On two occasions, August 2 and August 21, 2013, Ms. Gilbert returned to Respondent's Brandon location after the Stop-Work Order had been issued. The first was to serve the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment and the second was to serve the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. On both occasions, the business was open in violation of the Stop-Work Order. A business under a Stop-Work Order may elect to enter into a payment plan after a ten percent down payment to keep the business open while a challenge to DOAH is under way. Respondent had not entered into such a plan. Therefore, the Department seeks $1,000 penalty for each of the days Ms. Gilbert visited the Brandon store and saw it open for business. This total additional penalty of $2,000 could have been greater had the Department further investigated whether the business remained open on other days after the Stop-Work Order had been imposed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order upholding the Stop-Work Order and Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and assess a penalty in the amount of $42,251.43. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Department fine Respondent an additional $1,000 per day for the two days Respondent did not comply with the Stop-Work Order, resulting in a total penalty of $44,251.43. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of December, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 20th day of December, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Trevor S. Suter, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Kristian Eiler Dunn, Esquire Dickens and Dunn, P.L. 517 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390
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 Did Respondent, John McCary General Contractor, Inc. (McCary), fail to secure workers’ compensation insurance for employees as required by chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2016)?1/ If so, what is the appropriate penalty?
Findings Of Fact The Division is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure workers’ compensation insurance for the benefit of their employees. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. McCary is a roofing contractor owned and operated by John McCary. It is in the construction industry. On November 18, 2016, Mr. Howe, a compliance investigator for the Division, visited a house where McCary was tearing off the roof. Mr. Howe recorded the names of each employee. He conducted an investigation that included speaking to Mr. McCary, re-interviewing the employees, checking with the employee leasing company that McCary used, and checking the Davison database of insured individuals. Mr. Howe could not find a record of workers’ compensation coverage for at least one employee. This triggered further investigation that resulted in Mr. Howe issuing a Stop-Work Order to McCary on November 18, 2016, for failure to secure workers’ compensation insurance in violation of sections 440.10(1), 440.38(1) and 440.107(2). After that, the Division followed its usual practice of requesting documents, reviewing its databases, soliciting information and explanations from the employer, and analyzing the information and documents obtained. Division Exhibit 9 shows that the Division asked McCary for business records on November 21, 2016, and that McCary did not provide them until December 12, 2016. The Division’s investigation and analysis resulted in the evidence admitted in this proceeding. The evidence proved the allegations of the Division’s Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, including its attached Penalty Calculation Worksheet. McCary did not comply with workers’ compensation insurance coverage requirements for the period May 1 through November 18, 2016. During that period, McCary employed Arcenio Rosado, Domingo Esteves, Javier Restrepo, Jose Alfredo Fuentes, Carlos Toledo, Edwin Valle, Kelly Alvarez, Kyle Shiro, Claudia Florez, and Nelson Geovany Melgar Rodenzo and that they performed work for it. McCary would have paid $4,744.06 in insurance premiums to provide workers’ compensation coverage for these employees during that period. During that period, McCary also used the services of two subcontractors, Star Debris Removal and E C Roofing, LLC. These subcontractors did not have workers’ compensation insurance for their employees during the May 1 through November 18, 2016, period. Premiums to provide coverage to the employees of the two subcontractors who worked on McCary’s projects would have totaled $100,771.09. From May 1 to November 18, 2016, McCary made cash payments of $195,856.02 that its documents could not confirm to be for a valid business expense. Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.035(1)(k) requires that 80 percent of that amount be deemed wages or salaries paid employees when calculating the premiums used to determine the ultimate penalty. Eighty percent of McCary’s unaccounted-for cash payments is $156,684.82. That amount is legally deemed to be a payroll expense. McCary would have paid $29,143.38 to provide coverage for the employees represented by the cash payments. Altogether, McCary would have paid $134,658.53 to provide workers’ compensation coverage to the uncovered employees represented by the actual and deemed payroll during the May 1 to November 18, 2016, period.
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 John McCary General Contractor, Inc., failed to secure payment of required workers’ compensation insurance coverage from May 1 to November 18, 2016, in violation of section 440.107, Florida Statutes, and imposing a penalty of $269,317.06, reduced by $1,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of July, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II 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 17th day of July, 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 in this proceeding are whether Respondent, Mark Dunlap, d/b/a Mark Dunlap Masonry of Central Florida, Inc., a dissolved Florida corporation, and Mark Dunlap Masonry of Central Florida, Inc. ("Respondent") failed to abide by the coverage requirements of the Workers' Compensation Law, chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by not obtaining workers' compensation insurance for its employees; and whether the Petitioner properly assessed a penalty against the Respondent pursuant to section 440.107, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement of the workers' compensation law that employers secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage for their employees and corporate officers. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Respondent operates a masonry business located in Paisley, and is therefore engaged in the construction industry. On January 8, 2010, Hector Beauchamp, the Department's investigator, received a referral alleging that Respondent was working at 1601 Tillery Drive in Deltona, in violation of the Workers' Compensation Law. Mr. Beauchamp visited the plans examiner for the City of Deltona, who confirmed that a building permit had been issued for the cited address. Mr. Beauchamp drove to 1601 Tillery Drive in Deltona, where he found four people behind the house building a block wall as part of an addition to the single-family house at that address. Mark Dunlap was on the site, and told Mr. Beauchamp that the four men worked for his business, Mark Dunlap Masonry of Central Florida, Inc. Mr. Dunlap subsequently identified the four persons working on the site as Wayne Sochocki, Kevin Copeland, Annie Blackburn, and David Allen Baxley. Mr. Beauchamp researched the database maintained by the Department of State, Division of Corporations (accessible at www.sunbiz.org) and learned that Mark Dunlap Masonry of Central Florida, Inc. had been administratively dissolved for failure to file an annual report on September 25, 2009. Mr. Beauchamp also learned that Mr. Dunlap had owned another Florida corporation, Mark Dunlap Masonry, Inc., that had been administratively dissolved for failure to file an annual report on September 16, 2005. According to the Division of Corporations' information, both Mark Dunlap Masonry of Central Florida, Inc., and Mark Dunlap Masonry, Inc., had the same Federal Employer Identification Number ("FEIN") of 030531755. Mr. Dunlap claimed to Mr. Beauchamp that he was himself exempted from carrying workers' compensation coverage, but admitted that he had not secured coverage for the four employees building the block wall at 1601 Tillery Drive. Mr. Beauchamp consulted the Department's Coverage and Compliance Automated System ("CCAS") database, which lists the workers' compensation insurance policy information for each business as provided by the insurance companies, as well as any workers' compensation exemptions for corporate officers. CCAS indicated that in previous years Respondent had secured workers' compensation insurance through a leasing arrangement with Employee Leasing Solutions ("ELS"). In an employee leasing arrangement, the leasing company hires an employer's workers and leases them back to the employer. The leasing company provides payroll services and workers' compensation insurance coverage to the leased employees in exchange for a fee paid by the employer. However, only those employees specifically placed in the leasing arrangement by the employer and accepted as employees by the leasing company are covered by the leasing company's workers' compensation insurance. Mr. Beauchamp's investigation confirmed that Respondent's workers' compensation coverage obtained through the leasing agreement with ELS had been terminated as of July 8, 2008. The CCAS database confirmed that Mr. Dunlap had an active exemption from the requirement to obtain workers' compensation coverage. It also confirmed that none of the four employees whom Mr. Beauchamp found building the block wall at 1601 Tillery Drive were exempt. Mr. Beauchamp concluded that Respondent had failed to secure workers' compensation insurance coverage that met the requirements of chapter 440. Mr. Beauchamp therefore issued an SWO to Respondent on January 8, 2010, and personally served the SWO on Mr. Dunlap on the same date. Also on January 8, 2010, Mr. Beauchamp served Respondent with the Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation. The purpose of this request was to obtain the business records necessary to determine the appropriate penalty to be assessed against Respondent for violating the coverage requirements of chapter 440. Because section 440.107(7)(d)1. provides that the Department's assessment of a penalty covers the preceding three-year period, the request for production asked for Respondent's business records from January 9, 2007, through January 8, 2010. If an employer fails to produce business records sufficient to allow for the calculation of the appropriate penalty, the Department must calculate the applicable penalty by imputing the employer's payroll using the statewide average weekly wage for the type of work performed by the employee and multiplying that payroll by 1.5. The statewide average wage is derived by use of the occupation classification codes established by the proprietary Scopes Manual developed by the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc. ("NCCI"). The Scopes Manual has been adopted by reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.031(6). For Respondent's employees, Mr. Beauchamp applied the occupation classification code 5022, for masonry. Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L- 6.031(6)(b)9. The Department's Amended Order, assessing an imputed penalty in the amount of $121,001.30 against Respondent, was issued on February 12, 2010, and served on Mr. Dunlap by process server on March 5, 2010. Following service of the Amended Order, Respondent supplied the Department with additional business records, including Respondent's payroll runs from ELS and W-2's for the year 2007. However, even these records were not sufficient to permit the Department to calculate a penalty based on Respondent's actual payroll. The additional business records produced by Respondent did show that Mark Dunlap Masonry, Inc., had a policy of workers' compensation insurance in place with Business First Insurance Company from September 9, 2004, through February 22, 2008. Mr. Beauchamp had not previously found this coverage because the FEIN number listed by the Division of Corporations for Mark Dunlap Masonry, Inc., was incorrect. The Department issued the Second Amended Order on August 18, 2010, lowering the penalty assessment to $64,315.28. Although the Business First Insurance Company policy had been issued to Mark Dunlap Masonry, Inc., and not to Respondent, the Department nonetheless concluded that the policy brought Respondent into compliance with chapter 440 until February 22, 2008, and adjusted the penalty assessment accordingly. Respondent's workers' compensation coverage through the leasing agreement with ELS became effective on March 20, 2008, and was terminated on July 7, 2008. Of the four workers whom Mr. Beauchamp found at the work site on January 8, 2010, only Wayne Sochocki was listed on the ELS employee roster. Thus, Respondent was in compliance with respect to Mr. Sochocki for the period from March 20, 2008, through July 7, 2008. However, the records indicate that Respondent was not in compliance through the ELS leasing agreement with respect to its employees Kevin Copeland, Annie Blackburn, or David Allen Baxley because they had never been tendered to ELS as leased employees. The Department correctly imputed the penalty against Respondent for the four employees found at the work site on January 8, 2010, for all periods of noncompliance. The Department correctly determined the period of noncompliance for Mr. Sochocki to run from July 8, 2008 to January 8, 2010, and for Mr. Copeland, Ms. Blackburn and Mr. Baxley to run from February 22, 2008, to January 8, 2010. The Department utilized the correct occupation classification code for the four employees. The Department correctly utilized the procedure set forth by section 440.107(7)(d) and (e), and the penalty calculation worksheet incorporated by reference into Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.027(1), to calculate the penalty assessed against Respondent by the Second Amended Order.
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, assessing a penalty of $64,315.28 against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of March, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of March, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Dunlap Mark Dunlap Masonry, Inc. 45806 Lake Street Paisley, Florida 32767 Justin H. Faulkner, 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 P. K. Jameson, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Honorable Jeff Atwater Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Whether Respondent, John H. Woods, d/b/a Woods Construction, conducted operations in the State of Florida without obtaining workers’ compensation coverage which meets the requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2008)1, in violation of Subsection 440.107(2), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Amended Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment and Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. If so, what penalty should be assessed by Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, pursuant to Section 440.107, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of enforcing the requirement of Section 440.107, Florida Statutes, that employers in Florida secure the payment of workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Workers’ compensation coverage is required if a business entity is engaged in the construction industry in Florida. Securing the payment of workers’ compensation coverage can be achieved via three different methods: purchase a workers’ compensation insurance policy; ensure that workers are paid and workers’ compensation coverage is provided by a third party entity called a Professional Employment Organization (PEO); or apply for a Certificate of Exemption from Workers’ Compensation Coverage (Exemption Certificate) assuming certain statutorily mandated criteria are met. These methods are not mutually exclusive of each other. On August 14, 2008, a workers’ compensation compliance investigator employed by Petitioner, visited a construction site in Lee County, Florida. On the site, she observed several groups of men conducting various construction activities including the laying of a sidewalk along Lexington Street in Fort Myers. The work performed involved construction activities as contemplated under the applicable agency rule. Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.021. By a preponderance of evidence, it is determined that among the entities on the worksite was a group of three laborers who worked for Woods Construction. There was no proof of coverage for workers’ compensation for the Woods Construction Company, neither an insurance policy, nor any exemption certificate for the individuals encountered on the worksite. Woods Construction assumed that the three laborers were covered by Able Body Labor, a PEO. The evidence confirmed that two of the three laborers were covered. However, the third laborer, Filberto Castro, was unable to be included on the work roster due to his lack of corresponding documentation necessary for employment in the United States. Therefore, Castro was working without coverage. An SWO was issued and a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Calculation (BRR) was served on J. Woods Construction, Corp. [sic] on August 14, 2008. The SWO was later amended to conform to the correct name of the company, which is not a corporation. The amended SWO was served on John H. Woods on August 22, 2008, via certified mail. Pursuant to the BRR, Respondent provided business records to Petitioner. Petitioner’s Penalty Calculator’s duties are to receive records from the employer, and organize, identify, and audit those records which indicate payroll activities, while delineating other business activities, which may be related to the non-payroll activities of the business such as purchasing supplies, maintaining a place of business, etc. The characterization of the voluminous records received from Respondent were categorized into three distinct categories: reliable, somewhat reliable, and unreliable records. The records were characterized as “reliable” if they were records from an independent third party or the bank with whom Respondent conducted business, and were thus extremely difficult to alter without a high level of expertise. They are considered “source documentation.” The bank records capture the transactions as they occurred, to whom money was paid, and for what amount. The next category of records deemed “somewhat reliable” were those records which, on their face appear to be legitimate records, such as copies of the checks with corresponding amounts and dates to those in the “reliable” category. However, certain inconsistencies in these records demonstrated that they were less than reliable. These records were only used in select instances when there was corresponding source documentation supporting their veracity. A prime example, among many, is check number 1078 for $100.00 indicating a payment for a credit card; the corresponding checkstub indicates that the payment went to “Whitney,” a grand-child of John H. Woods. In toto, the documents illustrated that Respondent failed to follow generally accepted accounting principles by mislabeling or mischaracterizing funds on a regular basis. The third category of records were records which were considered “unreliable” as these records lacked any corresponding source documentation and they could not be considered in assessing the payroll activities of the firm. In the construction industry, there are instruments called “draw requests.” The draw request is an item that a subcontractor or builder will utilize to show partial completion of a project and concurrently request more funds (the draw) to complete the remaining portion of the project. The draw requests are often utilized at pre-measured stages of the project, e.g.: 25 percent completion, 50 percent completion, etc. The draw requests would have attached source documentation such as receipts from suppliers, servicers, and other miscellanea to show that the project is worked upon as opposed to the funds being siphoned off elsewhere. Nowhere, in the box full of records produced, was a proper draw request found with attached receipts. Therefore, none of the records produced could be considered as reliable documents. Many irregularities in Respondent’s methodology of accounting were also noted; as an example, there were numerous times that company checks from Respondent were deposited by an entity known as “Hendry Contracting,” without explanation. Respondent personally held the license as a General Contractor, and would utilize Hendry Contracting as a subcontractor. Hendry Contracting did not have any license whatsoever. It utilized Respondent’s license while performing construction activities. Brad Hendry, the principal of Hendry Contracting, is married to Janice Hendry, the daughter of John H. Woods, the owner of Respondent, Woods Construction. Janice Hendry administered Respondent’s company account and the company account of Hendry Contracting. The evidence is clear that no separation of duties was attempted. Furthermore, Hendry admitted that she did not exercise any sense of separation between the two different accounts (Woods Construction and/or Hendry Contracting). The two businesses were “commingled,” and the ability to retain any form of standard accounting requirement of checks and balances has been nullified. Numerous irregularities that defied “generally accepted accounting principles” appeared, including personal loans to family members, wholesale transfers of monies from Respondent to Hendry Contracting without explanation, and checks drafted to Brad Hendry (personally). Further, Woods testified that he exercised little or no control over his company in the last ten years. Hendry also confirmed the haphazard method of managing the two firms’ different accounts by writing checks from one firm to another, when the other firm’s account was running low. Hendry’s testimony regarding the financial cooperation of Respondent and Hendry Contracting is indicative of the commingling of accounts, as well. Hendry testified that each entity would draw on each other’s accounts depending on the cash levels within each respective account. Hendry also testified that Hendry Contracting was utilized for obtaining bank loans and utilizing Hendry’s name to purchase materials when the other accounts were depleted. By utilizing only the bank records, a general ledger for Respondent was constructed which derived the amounts that came into the business and the amounts paid out for labor. The fact that Respondent had no general ledger meant that some items would never be accounted for, such as building supply costs. Based on that caveat, Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L- 6.035(i) was applied to the total payroll derived from the bank records. This had the effect of reducing total payroll by twenty percent to account for building supplies (which were never accounted for due to the non-existent business ledger of Respondent). The amount of money flowing and commingling between the two firms (Respondent and Hendry Contracting) and among family members, numbered in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. The commingled money was utilized for all manners of payments: loans (not expected to be paid back) to family members, inflated wages to family members for de minimis services, or payment for services/goods for family members’ personal residences. A proposed penalty in the amount of $365,876.82 was originally assessed, as reflected in the AOPA, and served on Respondent on August 26, 2008. Based on further records produced and the understanding that Respondent was a construction firm but was unable to show any receipts of building supplies, the proposed penalty, utilizing Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L- 6.035(i), decreased the payroll by 20 percent to account for building supplies that were not documented. After consideration of the documents provided and application of the rule, a Second AOPA was prepared showing an assessment in the amount of $306,876.82. With Hendry as the sole financial officer of Respondent, approximately $351,632.43 of payroll was allocated to various family members. There was unambiguous testimony from Woods and Hendry that family members were employed in various roles, most notably the grand-daughters who were earning wages while conducting secretarial duties. A further $472,292.94 was paid to Hendry Contracting during the three-year audit time- period. Hendry Contracting never had any discernible workers’ compensation coverage for this amount of payroll, rendering Respondent liable for failure to secure workers’ compensation coverage for the monies paid. The remainder of the unsecured payroll assessed to Respondent was for various non-family workers for whom no proof of workers’ compensation coverage could be ascertained. The Second AOPA was computed by calculating Respondent’s payroll for the past three years using the business records Respondent provided. The payroll was then divided for each year by 100 and that figure was multiplied by an approved manual rate assigned to the classification codes (class codes) found in the National Council on Compensation Insurance’s Scope of Trade Manual (Scopes Manual). Class codes were assigned to the individuals listed on the penalty worksheet according to their historical duties. The grand-daughters and other female employees of Respondent were listed as clerical employees (classification code 8810), while the remaining names were listed as general carpentry workers (classification code 5645). Next, the product of the approved manual rate and the payroll for each year divided by 100 was then multiplied by 1.5, pursuant to statute, to derive the penalty for each year or part of a year. The penalties for each employee and year or part of a year were then added together to come up with a total penalty of $306,213.78. Based on the assessment of the financial records in conjunction with the documents admitted into evidence, the grand total of $306,213.78 is a true and correct penalty amount for Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Chief Financial Officer of the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, enter a final order: Finding that Respondent failed to secure the payment of workers’ compensation insurance coverage for its employees in violation of Subsections 440.10(1)(a) and 440.38(1), Florida Statutes; and Assessing a penalty against Respondent in the amount of $306,213.78, which is equal to 1.5 times the evaded premium based on the payroll records provided by Respondent and on the applicable approved manual rates and classification codes for the period extending from August 15, 2005, through August 14, 2008, as provided in Subsection 440.107(7), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of July, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of July, 2009.
The Issue The issues to be determined in this case are whether Respondent Lockhart Builders, Inc., violated state laws applicable to workers’ compensation insurance coverage by failing to secure coverage for three employees and failing to produce records requested by Petitioner Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (Department) and, if so, what penalty should be assessed for the violations.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for the enforcement of the workers’ compensation insurance coverage requirements established in Chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2007).1 Respondent is a Florida corporation with its office in Bradenton. William Lockhart is Respondent’s president. Respondent is licensed to engage in construction activity in Florida. Respondent was engaged to construct a two-story duplex at 2315 Gulf Drive in Bradenton. Respondent began work at the job site on or about February 21, 2007. On August 22, 2007, Lockhart received a proposal from Burak Yavalar, owner of BY Construction, to do the exterior stucco work on the duplex building for a flat fee of $10,750. The proposal was accepted by Respondent on August 23, 2007. Yavalar presented Lockhart with a certificate of liability insurance which indicated that he had obtained workers’ compensation coverage for his employees. The certificate was issued by Employee Leasing Solutions, Inc. (ELS), a professional leasing company in Bradenton. ELS provides mainly payroll services and workers’ compensation insurance coverage for its clients. Lockhart did not ask for, and Yavalar did not provide Lockhart with, a list of the names of the BY Construction employees who were covered by the insurance. Lockhart made a call to ELS to verify that BY Construction had workers’ compensation insurance coverage, but he did not ask for a list of BY Construction employees covered by its insurance policy. BY Construction began work at Respondent’s job site on or about September 10 or 11, 2007. On September 12, 2007, BY Construction had eight employees at the job site. One employee, Justin Ormes, had previously worked for BY Construction, had quit for a while, and had just returned. Two other employees, Carlos Lopez and Jaime Alcatar, had been working on a nearby job site and were asked by Yavalar to come to work at Respondent’s job site. Yavalar claims that on the morning of September 12, 2007, Ormes, Lopez, and Alcatar had not yet been employed or authorized to start work for BY Construction. On September 12, 2007, Petitioner’s investigators Germaine Green and Colleen Wharton performed a random compliance check at Respondent’s job site. Without being specific about what particular work was being performed at the site by Ormes, Lopez, and Alcatar, the investigators testified that when they arrived at the job site they observed all eight men performing stucco work. The investigators spoke to Yavalar, Lockhart and the workers at the job site to determine their identities and employment status. Yavalar told the investigators his eight employees had workers’ compensation insurance coverage through ELS. However, upon checking relevant records, the investigators determined that insurance coverage for Ormes, Lopez, and Alcatar had not been secured by either BY Construction or Respondent. Wharton issued a statewide stop-work order to BY Construction for its failure to obtain workers’ compensation coverage for the three employees. After the stop work order was issued, Yavalar left the job site with Lopez and Alcatar to complete their paperwork to obtain insurance coverage through ELS. Yavalar’s wife was able to re-activate Ormes’ insurance coverage with ELS over the telephone. By the end of the day on September 12, 2007, insurance coverage was secured by BY Construction for Ormes, Lopez, and Alcatar. The business records of BY Construction produced for the Department indicated that Ormes had been paid by BY Construction in the period from March to July 2007, and then on September 12, 2007; Lopez had been paid on August 24, 2007, and then on September 12, 2007; Alcatar had been paid on September 12, 2007. All three men were paid only $28 on September 12, 2007. This evidence supports the testimony of Yavalar that these three had arrived at Respondent’s job site for the first time on September 12, 2008. BY Construction was later served with an amended order of penalty for its failure to obtain workers’ compensation coverage for the three employees. It arranged with the Department to pay the penalty through installments and was conditionally released from the stop-work order. When the Department's investigators were at the job site on September 12, 2007, they informed Lockhart about the stop-work order being issued to BY Construction and gave Lockhart a Request for Production of Business Records for the purpose of determining whether Respondent had obtained proof of workers’ compensation insurance coverage from BY Construction before BY Construction commenced work at Respondent’s job site. Respondent produced the requested records. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law, Florida law charges a contractor with the duty to secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage for any uninsured employees of its subcontractors. On this basis, the Department served Respondent with a Stop-Work Order and an Order of Penalty Assessment on September 21, 2007, for failing to secure coverage for Ormes, Lopez, and Alcatar. On September 21, 2007, the Department served a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation to Respondent. The Department’s request asked Respondent to produce records for the preceding three years, including payroll records, tax returns, and proof of insurance. Respondent produced some records in response to this second request, which the Department deemed insufficient to calculate a penalty. However, the evidence shows Respondent produced the only records that it possessed regarding its association with BY Construction. The Department’s proposed penalty does not include an assessment based solely on Respondent’s failure to produce requested records. When an employer fails to provide requested business records within 15 days of the request, the Department is authorized to assess a penalty by imputing the employer's payroll using "the statewide average weekly wage as defined in Section 440.12(2), multiplied by l.5." § 440.107(7)(e), Fla. Stat., and Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.028. Imputing the gross payroll for Ormes, Lopez and Alcatar for the years 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007, by using the average weekly wage for the type of work, the Department assessed Respondent with a penalty of $138,596.67 and issued an Order of Penalty Assessment to Respondent on October 31, 2007. Petitioner later amended the penalty to $70,272.51, based on the fact that BY Construction was not incorporated until January 1, 2006, and issued a Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on December 20, 2007.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department enter a final order that amends its penalty assessment to reflect one day of non-compliance by Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BRAM D. E. CANTER 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 31st day of March, 2008.
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.
