The Issue The issues are whether nine workers were employees of Respondent, during part of the audit period; whether Respondent failed to secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage in violation of Section 440.107, Florida Statutes (2003); and whether Petitioner should impose a penalty against Respondent in the amount of $123,960.23.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure the payment of workers' compensation for the benefit of their employees. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. (2002). Respondent is a closely held corporation domiciled in Florida and engaged in the sale and installation of floor coverings. Mr. Dennis Davison and Mrs. Lynne Davison, a married couple, own all of the outstanding stock of Respondent (the owners). Respondent has five in-office employees, including the owners, and had a net worth of approximately $100,000 before paying the proposed penalty. On April 2, 2004, Petitioner's compliance officer conducted a random site inspection of a single-family residence at 213 Northwest 3rd Place, Cape Coral, Florida. Mr. John Walega and Mr. Mike Stephens were laying carpet in the residence (Walega and Stephens, respectively). Walega was a sole proprietor who employed Stephens. The compliance officer determined that Walega was an employee of Respondent because Walega had an expired exemption and no proof of workers' compensation insurance coverage. The compliance officer issued separate stop work orders against Walega and Respondent. The stop work order against Walega is not at issue in this proceeding. The compliance officer issued the stop work order against Respondent even though: she knew that Respondent had compensation coverage for Respondent's five employees through a leasing company; and she had no knowledge that Respondent had subcontractors other than Walega working for Respondent. The compliance officer requested Respondent's business records for the three years from April 2, 2001, through April 2, 2004 (the audit period). Respondent fully complied with the request in a timely manner. The stop work order issued against Respondent on April 2, 2004, also assessed a penalty stated as the greater of $1,000 or 1.5 times the premium Respondent would have paid in premium charges during the period Respondent allegedly failed to secure the payment of workers' compensation insurance. Sometime between April 2 and 16, 2004, Petitioner amended the penalty assessment to $137,820.72. On April 16, 2004, the owners mortgaged their personal residence to pay the amended penalty assessment. Petitioner released the stop work order, but the owners lost business in an unspecified dollar amount while the stop work order was in effect and continue to incur monthly interest expense in the amount of $500 to service the mortgage on their home. On June 28, 2004, Petitioner issued a Seconded Amended Order of Penalty Assessment No. 04-157-D7-2 that reduced the assessed penalty to $123,960.23 (the Seconded Amended Order). Respondent is entitled to a refund in the amount of $13,860.49, but Petitioner had not paid the refund as of the date of hearing. The Second Amended Order is the proposed agency action at issue in this proceeding. The compliance officer is the only employee for Petitioner who investigated and developed the substantive information that forms the basis of Petitioner's proposed agency action. Other employees calculated the actual amounts of the proposed penalties. Respondent does not challenge the mathematical accuracy of the penalty calculations by Petitioner, but challenges the legal and factual basis of Petitioner's determination that nine workers were Respondent's employees. The nine workers are identified in the record as Walega; Messrs. James Allan, Bertin Flores, Cliff Hill, David Lancaster, Earl Lancaster, Jeff Dozier, Anthony Gioe; and Ms. Patricia Lancaster. The statutory definition of an employee for that part of the audit period before January 1, 2004 (the relevant period), was different than the statutory definition that became effective on January 1, 2004. Factual findings concerning the nine workers at issue are driven by one statutory definition during the relevant period and another statutory definition thereafter. Any of the nine workers that satisfied the statutory definition in former Subsection 440.02(15)(d)1, Florida Statutes (2003), of an independent contractor should not have been included in that part of the proposed penalty attributable to the relevant period. Effective January 1, 2004, however, Subsection 440.02(15)(d)1, Florida Statutes (2003), no longer excludes independent contractors in the construction industry from the definition of an employee. Thus, a determination of whether a worker was an independent contractor is not relevant to that portion of the proposed penalty covering any part of the audit period after December 31, 2003. Effective January 1, 2004, Subsection 440.02(15)(c)2, Florida Statutes (2003), no longer excludes a subcontractor, including those that would have satisfied the former definition of an independent contractor, from the definition of an employee unless the subcontractor either executes a valid exemption election or otherwise secures payment of compensation coverage as a subcontractor. There is insufficient evidence to support a finding that any of the nine workers at issue in this proceeding either elected a valid exemption or otherwise secured payment for compensation coverage after December 31, 2003. The nine workers at issue in this proceeding are not excluded from the definition of an employee after December 31, 2004, even if they were independent contractors throughout the audit period. Except for constitutional arguments raised by Respondent over which DOAH has no jurisdiction, Respondent owes that part of the penalty attributable to any period after December 31, 2003. It is undisputed that the nine workers included in that part of the penalty assessment attributable to the relevant period were subcontractors throughout the audit period. Respondent's ledger clearly treated the workers as subcontractors and reported their earnings on Form 1099 for purposes of the federal income tax. Petitioner treated the workers as subcontractors in the penalty calculation. Customers of Respondent paid Respondent for installation of floor coverings they purchased from Respondent, and Respondent paid each of the nine workers to install the floor coverings. The Workers' Compensation Law in effect during the relevant period did not expressly exclude from the definition of an employee those subcontractors who executed a valid exemption election or otherwise secured payment of compensation coverage as a subcontractor. Findings concerning the existence of an exemption election or payment of compensation coverage are neither relevant nor material to the statutory definition of an employee during the relevant period. During the relevant period, the nine workers at issue were excluded from the definition of an employee only if they satisfied the definition of an independent contractor in former Subsection 440.02(15)(d)1, Florida Statutes (2003). Each of the nine workers were required to satisfy all of the following requirements: The independent contractor maintains a separate business with his or her own work facility, truck, equipment, materials, or similar accommodations; The independent contractor holds or has applied for a federal employer identification number, unless the independent contractor is a sole proprietor who is not required to obtain a federal employer identification number under state or federal requirements; The independent contractor performs or agrees to perform specific services or work for specific amounts of money and controls the means of performing the services or work; The independent contractor incurs the principal expenses related to the service or work that he or she performs or agrees to perform; The independent contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of work or services that he or she performs or agrees to perform and is or could be held liable for a failure to complete the work or services; The independent contractor receives compensation for work or services performed for a commission or on a per-job or competitive-bid basis and not on any other basis; The independent contractor may realize a profit or suffer a loss in connection with performing work or services; The independent contractor has continuing or recurring business liabilities or obligations; and The success or failure of the independent contractor's business depends on the relationship of business receipts to expenditures. The preponderance of evidence shows that each of the nine workers at issue was an independent contractor during the relevant period. Respondent conducted the ordinary course of its trade or business with each of the nine workers in substantially the identical manner. None of the workers shared office space with Respondent. Each worker used his or her own truck, equipment, and tools to transport the floor coverings sold by Respondent and to install them in a customer's premises. Petitioner admits that Walega was a sole proprietor. Each of the other workers either held a federal employer identification number or was a sole proprietor who was not required to obtain a federal employer identification number. Each worker agreed to perform specific services or work for specific amounts of money and controlled the means of performing the services or work. Each worker incurred his or her own expenses to install floor coverings. Each worker transported floor coverings and necessary materials to the work site in the worker's own truck and used his or her own tools to perform the work. Each worker exercised independent professional judgment to perform the work. Respondent did not perform any pre-installation site inspection and did not perform any site preparation. Respondent did not train workers, instruct workers on how to perform their work, did not supervise their work while it was being performed, and did not perform any post-installation site inspection unless Respondent received a customer complaint. Each worker was responsible for the satisfactory completion of work or services that he or she performed. Each worker was liable to Respondent and the customer for any failure to complete the work or services or for inferior workmanship. Each worker warranted his or her work to the customer's satisfaction and absorbed the costs of rework and any damage to the customer's premises. Respondent paid each worker for work or services performed on a per-job or competitive-bid basis rather than any other basis. Respondent negotiated the price paid to a worker on a square-foot basis. The price did not change regardless of the amount of time the job required or the number of helpers the worker paid to assist the worker on the job. Each worker realized a profit or suffered a loss in installing floor coverings sold by Respondent. Each worker performed work for other vendors and had continuing or recurring business liabilities or obligations apart from installing floor coverings for Respondent. Each worker depended on the relationship of business receipts of expenditures for the success or failure of the worker's business. Each worker maintained his or her own occupational and professional licenses. Each worker maintained his or her own liability insurance. Respondent required each worker to sign a written form stating that the worker was an independent contractor. The form acknowledged the workers' warranty obligations and his or her obligations for their own taxes and insurance. Each form disclosed the workers' social security number or federal employer identification number. Respondent did not withhold federal income taxes from the payments to workers. Petitioner did not explicate the basis for reducing the proposed assessment in the Second Amended Order. However, the evidence reveals that the penalty reduction resulted from the exclusion of corporate subcontractors from the penalty base. The business relationship between Respondent and its corporate subcontractors during the relevant period was substantially the same as that between Respondent and the nine workers at issue. Early in this administrative proceeding on April 8, 2004, the compliance officer advised the owners that she was unable to release the stop work order against Respondent unless she could verify in Petitioner's data base, in relevant part, that the nine workers at issue each had a valid exemption or had insurance. However, Petitioner's database would not have disclosed compensation coverage maintained by a subcontractor through a leasing company. The compliance officer's advice to the owners did not reflect the law in effect during the relevant period. The Workers' Compensation Law in effect during the relevant period did not expressly exclude from the definition of an employee those workers who executed a valid exemption election or otherwise secured payment of compensation coverage as a subcontractor. The law excluded subcontractors from the definition of an employee only if the subcontractors satisfied the statutory definition of an independent contractor. The compliance officer made no effort to determine whether any of the workers she included in the penalty base satisfied the definition of an independent contractor. The compliance officer never advised the owners that establishing a subcontractor as an independent contractor would avoid part of the assessment against Respondent during the relevant period. The compliance officer never advised the owners that Respondent was free to choose to be represented by counsel during the audit process. The compliance officer told the owners that the only thing Respondent could do to avoid the assessment was to provide a certificate of insurance or an exemption for each of the subcontractors included in the penalty base. The compliance officer admitted that she was unaware that a subcontractor who was an independent contractor during the relevant period was legally excluded from the penalty base. Counsel for Respondent advised the compliance officer of the correct legal standard on April 12, 2004, but the compliance officer refused to release the stop work order unless Respondent paid the assessed penalty. The compliance officer knew that Walega had held a valid exemption at various times in the past as a sole proprietor. She knew Walega had renewed the exemption on October 29, 2003, for five years. However, Petitioner's database showed the exemption had expired on January 1, 2004, by operation of new law. Walega provided Respondent with a copy of the exemption he renewed on October 29, 2003. The exemption stated on its face that it was effective for five years. The owners had no actual knowledge that the exemption expired on January 1, 2004, as a result of a change in the Workers' Compensation Law. Petitioner admits that it issued the exemption to Walega knowing that the exemption would expire on January 1, 2004. Petitioner issued the exemption so that Walega could use it until January 1, 2004.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order dismissing the disputed charges against Respondent for the relevant period, refunding any overpayment by Respondent, and sustaining the remaining allegations and penalties against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of August, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 27th day of August, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: David C. Hawkins, Esquire Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 Susan McLaughlin, Esquire Law Offices of Michael F. Tew Building 800, Suite 2 6150 Diamond Center Court Fort Myers, Florida 33912 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Pete Dunbar, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is subject to assessed penalties as set forth in the Amended Stop Work and Penalty Assessment Order dated March 11, 2003.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency charged with enforcing statutory requirements that employers secure the payment of workers' compensation for their employees. Respondent is a Florida corporation, Federal Employer Identification No. 592489849, located in Ocala, Florida, that provides livestock transportation services. Henry Hayes Hudson, III, is Respondent's president. Martha Hudson is Respondent's vice president. Henry and Martha Hudson are Respondent's only officers and shareholders. On or about March 3, 2003, Petitioner received a complaint alleging that Respondent did not carry workers' compensation coverage. That same day, Petitioner's investigator, William Pangrass, conducted a compliance inspection at Respondent's principal place of business, 5879 West County Road 326, Ocala, Florida. During the investigation, Mr. Pangrass interviewed Martha Hudson and Respondent's bookkeeper, Kelly Hadsock. The investigation revealed that Respondent had no proof of workers' compensation for the prior three years. Petitioner personally served Respondent with a Stop Work and Penalty Assessment Order, No. 03-191-D1, on March 3, 2003. The Order required Respondent to cease all business activities. The Order also assessed the minimum statutory penalty in the amount of $100.00 under Section 440.107(5) and $1,000.00 under Section 440.107(7)(b). Martha Hudson refused to sign the Order. Next, Petitioner personally served a Request for Business Owner Affidavit and Production of Business Records on March 3, 2003. Martha Hudson also refused to sign this document. Respondent subsequently provided Petitioner with copies of its payroll records. The records included Respondent's payroll from March 3, 2000, through March 3, 2003. For all or part of that period, Respondent employed 52 individuals. Petitioner used the payroll records to calculate the penalty assessment for the three-year period of time that Respondent did not provide its employees with workers' compensation. On March 11, 2003, Petitioner issued the Amended Stop Work and Penalty Assessment Order, No. 03-191-D1-2. The Amended Order required Respondent to cease all business operations and to pay a penalty in the amount of $109,500.00, pursuant to Section 440.107(5), and a penalty in the amount of $325,045.57, pursuant to Section 440.107(7)(a). The total assessed penalty was $434,545.57. In a telephone conference on July 11, 2003, the parties stipulated that Respondent had no workers' compensation coverage for the period of time at issue here. They also stipulated that the only remaining issue involved the accuracy of the assessed penalty. During the hearing, Petitioner presented competent evidence to support the accuracy of the assessed penalty. More importantly, Respondent stipulated to the accuracy of the assessed penalty.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order affirming the Amended Stop Work Penalty Assessment Order and directing Respondent to pay a penalty in the amount of $434,545.57. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of November, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 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 November, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Larry Collins, Esquire 202 South Magnolia, Suite 3 Ocala, Florida 34474 Eric Lloyd, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Findings Of Fact 10. The factual allegations contained in the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment issued on February 17, 2009, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on May 19, 2009, and the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on June 5, 2009, which are fully incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted as the Department’s Findings of Fact in this case.
The Issue The issues are whether Petitioner has proved that Respondent failed to secure workers' compensation insurance, as required by section 440.10, Florida Statutes, and, if so, the amount of the penalty, pursuant to section 440.107.
Findings Of Fact On September 18, 2013, the owner and Jesus Rodriguez, representing Respondent, signed a permit application for reroofing of a single-family residence located at 4311 Southwest 15th Street, Miami. An official of the Miami-Dade County Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources approved the plans on September 27, 2013. The record does not disclose when work commenced. However, at about 9:00 a.m. on September 25, 2013, an investigator of the Division of Workers' Compensation was randomly canvassing the area, noticed roofing work at the subject address, and conducted an inspection. The investigator observed three persons on the roof engaged in roofing work. When the investigator asked the three workers for whom they worked, one of them replied, "Oval Construction," and added that it was owned by Pedro Alfaro and Jesus R. Rodriguez (Mr. J. Rodriguez). When asked for a phone number for the owners, the worker gave the investigator a cell number for Mr. Alfaro. Prior to calling Mr. Alfaro, while still at the work site, the investigator researched Oval Construction and learned that it was an active corporation with two corporate officers: Mr. Alfaro and Mr. J. Rodriguez. The investigator learned that the corporation showed no workers' compensation exemptions for the officers or any workers' compensation coverage. While still at the worksite, the investigator then called Mr. Alfaro and asked him if Oval Construction had workers' compensation insurance. Mr. Alfaro said that Mr. J. Rodriguez handled such matters, so the investigator told Mr. Alfaro to have Mr. J. Rodriguez call the investigator immediately. Mr. J. Rodriguez did so and informed the investigator that the three workers worked for him, but not under Oval Construction; they worked for Respondent, and Respondent had workers' compensation insurance. Mr. J. Rodriguez stated that he did not have the insurance information at the moment, but would call back with the information. In the meantime, the investigator researched Respondent and learned that it was an active corporation with two officers: Mr. J. Rodriguez and Mr. Alberto Rodriguez (Mr. A. Rodriguez), who were not related. (Mr. J. Rodriguez is deceased.) Both officers had current workers' compensation exemptions, and the database indicated that Respondent leased its employees from South East Personnel Leasing Company. The investigator contacted South East Personnel Leasing and learned that the leasing contract had terminated on July 24, 2013, and Respondent had no current workers' compensation coverage through South East Personnel Leasing. At this point, the investigator called Mr. J. Rodriguez, who repeated that the workers were employed by Respondent, not Oval Construction. Subsequently, the investigator tried unsuccessfully several times to speak to Mr. J. Rodriguez. A few days after the inspection, Mr. A. Rodriguez called the investigator and arranged for a meeting between the investigator and Mr. J. Rodriguez for October 1, 2013. On October 1, 2013, the investigator and Mr. J. Rodriguez met, and the investigator served on him, in the name of Respondent, a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation for the three-year period ending on September 25, 2013. Respondent never produced any business records to Petitioner. On October 2, 2013, Mr. J. Rodriguez caused the transfer of the building permit for the roofing work from Respondent to Blue Panther Roofing. On October 1, 2013, Mr. J. Rodriguez signed a Hold Harmless agreement holding Miami-Dade County harmless and assuming responsibility for any work already performed under the building permit issued to Respondent. Mr. A. Rodriguez testified that he knew nothing about the subject job. But Mr. J. Rodriguez was the qualifying general contractor of Respondent, was an officer of Respondent, and owned 20% of Respondent. In fact, Mr. J. Rodriguez was the only licensed or certified contractor employed by Respondent and was the sole person who could obtain building permits for work to be performed by Respondent. Mr. A. Rodriguez's lack of knowledge of the subject job is therefore not dispositive because Mr. J. Rodriguez had the authority to, and did, apply for the building permit in the name of Respondent, and he had the authority to, and did, obligate Respondent to do the subject reroofing work. During the above-described three-year period, according to Petitioner Exhibit 6, page 20, Respondent had workers' compensation insurance from October 4, 2010, through January 1, 2013. Additionally, according to Petitioner Exhibit 6, page 23, Respondent had workers' compensation insurance through South East Personnel Leasing from October 18, 2012, through February 20, 2013, and March 7, 2013, through July 24, 2013. This is borne out by the testimony of the investigator. (Tr., pp. 99-101.) Respondent thus did not have workers' compensation coverage for a total of 85 days during the three years at issue, during which time Respondent actively performed construction work in Florida. The three periods of noncoverage during the three years at issue are September 26 through October 3, 2010, for a total of 8 days; February 21, 2013, through March 6, 2013, for a total of 14 days; and July 25, 2013, through September 25, 2013, for a total of 63 days. A conflict in the evidence prevented Petitioner from proving by clear and convincing evidence a fourth period of noncoverage: October 4 through 17, 2012. Additionally, Mr. J. Rodriguez was listed as secretary of Respondent and exempt from workers' compensation insurance from March 1, 2013, through March 1, 2015, so he would be counted as an employee during the noncoverage periods of September 26, through October 3, 2010, and February 21, 2013, through February 28, 2013. Mr. A. Rodriguez was listed as president of Respondent and exempt from workers' compensation insurance from October 22, 2012, through October 22, 2014, so he would be counted as an employee during the noncoverage period of September 26, 2010, through October 3, 2010. Mr. A. Rodriguez's wife, Yubanis Ibarra, was also a corporate officer and was not exempt during one week of one noncoverage period: September 26 to October 3, 2010. On October 30, 2013, Petitioner issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessing a penalty of $15,594.34 pursuant to section 440.107(7)(d). The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is supported by a Penalty Calculation Worksheet, which based the penalty on the three employees found on the job on the day of the inspection as employees during all periods of noncoverage and the three above-identified corporate officers during their respective periods of nonexemption that occurred while they served as officers. Subject to two exceptions, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment correctly calculates the gross payroll based on the statewide average weekly wage multiplied by 1.5, applies the correct manual rates to the gross payroll, determines the correct evaded premium, and determines the correct penalty based on the premium multiplied by 1.5. The first exception is that Petitioner failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence a lack of coverage for the above-described 13 days in October 2012. This failure of proof noted in the preceding paragraph concerns four employees who generated total penalties of $2510.88, so the corrected total penalty would be $13,084.46. The second exception concerns the proof of the duration of employment of the three employees working on the roof at the time of the inspection on September 25, 2013. Petitioner has proved by clear and convincing evidence their employment only during the noncoverage period of July 24, 2013, through September 25, 2013, as discussed in the Conclusions of Law. For the two other noncoverage periods--three, if the period noted in paragraph 15 already had not been rejected--the penalty of $3220.05 has not been established, leaving a net penalty of $9864.41.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of not securing workers' compensation and imposing a penalty of $9864.41. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of November, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of November, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: Leon Melnicoff, Qualified Representative Thomas Nemecek, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 (eServed) Mariem Josefina Paez, Esquire The Law Offices of Mariem J. Paez, PLLC 300 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 304 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 (eServed) Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 (eServed)
The Issue Whether the Respondent, Steve Mundine Construction, Inc., timely challenged the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment and, if not, whether pursuant to the doctrine of equitable tolling Respondent’s untimely filed challenge should be accepted.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of enforcing and assuring employers meet the requirements of chapter 440, Florida Statutes. The law in Florida requires employers to maintain appropriate workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. At all times material to this case, the Respondent was doing business in Florida and was subject to the requirements of the law. On May 6, 2015, Stephanie Scarton, an investigator employed by the Petitioner, stopped at one of the Respondent’s construction sites and initiated an investigation as to whether the Respondent maintained appropriate workers’ compensation for the two employees found at the job site. After determining that the requisite documentation for workers’ compensation coverage was not produced, Ms. Scarton issued a Stop-Work Order (Petitioner’s Exhibit A). The Stop- Work Order advised the Respondent that he, Steven Mundine, d/b/a, Steve Mundine Construction, Inc., was in violation of Florida law by “failing to obtain coverage that meets the requirements of chapter 440, F.S., and the Insurance Code.” Petitioner’s Exhibit A included a Notice of Rights that provided, in part: You have a right to administrative review of this action by the Department under sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. * * * FAILURE TO FILE A PETITION WITHIN THETWENTY-ONE (21) DAYS CONSTITUTES A WAIVER OF YOUR RIGHT TO ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OF THEAGENCY ACTION. [Emphasis in original] In response to the Stop-Work Order, the Respondent met with Cathy Nunez on May 7, 2016, and executed an Agreed Order of Conditional Release from Stop-Work Order (Petitioner’s Exhibit B). In addition to signing the agreed order, the Respondent submitted an affidavit that provided: I Steve Mundine have terminated Bill Busch and Karl G. Kerr. I am no longer conducting business as Steve Mundine Const. Inc. I have opened a new company Paradigm Building, LLC but will not work til we applied and received exemptions. Including Richard Hans. Under the terms of the Agreed Order of Conditional Release from Stop-Work Order the Respondent represented that he would remit periodic payments of the remaining penalty amount pursuant to a Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty with the Department or pay the remaining penalty amount in full within 28 days after the service of the Stop-Work Order. As a condition of receiving the conditional release the Respondent remitted $1,000.00 toward the penalty amount. In order to assist the Petitioner with the accurate calculation of the penalty that would be due, the Respondent was advised that he needed to submit records. When the Respondent asked Cathy Nunez if he needed to retain a lawyer, she did not tell him that he did not need a lawyer. She advised him that a lawyer was not required to produce the records that were needed to make the penalty calculation. The Respondent did produce records to the Petitioner and in turn an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment (Petitioner’s Exhibit C) was completed that advised the Respondent that he owed a total penalty of $63,837.82. Cathy Nunez hand-delivered the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to the Respondent on July 24, 2015. Included was a second Notice of Rights that advised the Respondent of his right to challenge the assessment. Additionally, the Respondent was advised that a petition to seek administrative review of the action had to be filed within twenty-one days. After considering additional records submitted by the Respondent, the Petitioner prepared a Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment (Petitioner’s Exhibit D) to itemize the revised amount owed by the Respondent. The Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment ordered the Respondent to pay a total penalty of $47,006.28. Stephanie Scarton delivered the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to the Respondent on December 22, 2015. At the same time (December 22, 2015), Ms. Scarton presented the Respondent with a Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty (Petitioner’s Exhibit E). The payment agreement acknowledged that the Respondent had previously remitted $1,000.00 toward his penalty and allowed for the remaining $46,006.28 to be repaid over the course of 60 monthly payments. The Respondent did not agree to sign the payment agreement. Accordingly, a blank agreement was left with the Respondent, not the one providing for the payments previously described. On December 22, 2015, the Respondent disagreed with the repayment amount and believed the penalty had been incorrectly calculated. On December 22, 2015, the Respondent knew he had a limited amount of time to challenge the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. On December 22, 2015, Ms. Scarton hand-delivered to the Respondent the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment including a Notice of Rights. The only documents not left with the Respondent on December 22, 2015, were copies of the payment agreement signed by Ms. Scarton. On December 22, 2015, the Notice of Rights provided to the Respondent was identical to the Notice of Rights previously provided to him. Before leaving the Respondent on December 22, 2015, Ms. Scarton reminded the Respondent he had a limited amount of time to file a petition seeking administrative review of the agency action. The Petitioner did not misrepresent the procedural requirements to challenge the agency action, did not lull the Respondent into a false sense of security or inaction, and did not advise the Respondent as to whether he should retain a lawyer in connection with an administrative review of the penalty assessment. The weight of the credible evidence supports the finding that when the Respondent eventually filed a petition to challenge the agency action, it was beyond the 21 days allowed by law.
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 determining the Respondent’s request for administrative review of the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was not timely filed. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of May, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of May, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Christopher Ivey Miller, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) John Laurance Reid, Esquire Dickens Reid PLLC 517 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Young J. Kwon, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Michael Joseph Gordon, Esquire Florida Department of Financial Services Workers Compensation Compliance 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 (eServed)
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Respondent was operating its business without workers' compensation coverage for employees in violation of the below-referenced provisions of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, whether it continued its business operations in violation of a Stop Work Order issued August 11, 2005, in purported violation of Section 440.107(7)(a), Florida Statutes (2005), and what, if any, penalty is warranted.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation (Department) is an agency of the State of Florida charged with enforcing the statutory requirements requiring employers to secure the payment of workers' compensation benefits by obtaining insurance coverage therefor for employees, as mandated by Section 440.107, Florida Statutes (2005). The Respondent, Krashco, Inc., d/b/a J. Krash's Sports Bar (Krashco, Inc.) is a Florida corporation domiciled in Panama City, Florida. On August 11, 2005, it was engaged in the business of operating J. Krash's Sports Bar at 1508 Calhoun Avenue in Panama City, Florida. Patricia Krossman is a Workers' Compensation Investigator for the Department. She conducts investigations into all types of business to verify that they have required workers' compensation insurance coverage or are statutorily exempt. She visited J. Krash's Sports, Bar accompanied by her supervisor, William Dorney, and another investigator on August 11, 2005. J. Krash's Sports Bar is a business owned by the Respondent Krashco, Inc. Upon entering the bar, Ms. Krossman, observed several customers and a bartender. She inquired of the bartender whether the owner was present. She was then introduced to Mr. Matthew McDonough who identified himself as the accountant for Krashco, Inc. Mr. Dorney was present and witnessed this encounter with Mr. McDonough. Mr. Krossman interviewed Mr. McDonough who stated that he handled all the business for Krashco, Inc., and that Krashco, Inc., had one full-time employee and six hourly employees. Mr. McDonough provided the names of those employees to Ms. Krossman and told her that Krashco, Inc., had no workers' compensation insurance policy to cover those employees. This revelation was corroborated by Mr. Dorney who was also present. Mr. McDonough identified Ms. Janis Kay Porter-Krasno as the sole officer of the corporation, Krashco, Inc. He provided the telephone number for Ms. Krasno and Investigator Krossman telephoned Ms. Krasno. She confirmed the number and the names of the employees of Krashco, Inc., and J. Krash's Sports Bar. She also confirmed that Krashco, Inc., had no workers' compensation coverage. In accordance with Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, insurance carriers report to the Department the issuance to businesses of workers' compensation insurance policies. The Department issues workers' compensation insurance exemptions also. The Department maintains an electronic database of employer coverage and exemptions in its Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS), which allows investigators to determine whether an employer has secured workers' compensation insurance coverage or whether that employer has an exemption from coverage. This database is used in the normal course of the Department's investigations. Ms. Krossman utilized the CCAS data base in the subject investigation. This database confirmed that the Respondent had no workers' compensation coverage and no exemption from coverage from any officer of the Respondent corporation at the time of the investigation. (See Department exhibits three and four in evidence). The Department has a policy or statutory interpretation which it carries out, concerning its duties under Section 440.107(7)(a), Florida Statutes (2005), requiring that if an employer who is required to secure payment of workers' compensation benefits has failed to do so, that failure is deemed an immediate serious danger to public health safety or welfare and results in the issuance of a "Stop Work Order" by the Department. In view of her investigation as described, Investigator Krossman determined that the Respondent was in violation of the workers' compensation law. This was because it employed more than four individuals, for whom the Respondent was required to secure the payment of workers' compensation and yet had no workers' compensation for any of its employees. Investigator Krossman's supervisor, Mr. Dorney, reviewed the results of Ms. Korssman's investigation and agreed with her and authorized her to issue a Stop Work Order to the Respondent due to its failure to comply with the relevant requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. Indeed, the Respondent ultimately stipulated its liability for the charge that it violated Section 440.107(7), Florida Statutes (2005), by not securing the payment of workers' compensation for the employees in question. The Stop Work Order was served on Krashco, Inc., on August 11, 2005, alerting that employer in accordance with Section 440.107(7)(d), Florida Statutes (2005), that a penalty would be assessed and that the penalty might be amended based on further information obtained, including the production of business records by the employer. The Stop Work Order also advised that if the employer conducted any business operations in violation of the Stop Work Order that a penalty of $1,000.00 per day of violation would be assessed. Under the mandate of Section 440.107(5), Florida Statutes (2005), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.015, Florida employers are required to maintain business records that enable the Department to determine whether an employer is complying with the workers' compensation law. On August 11, 2005, Ms. Krossman issued and hand served on Krashco, Inc., a written request for production of business records for purposes of a penalty assessment calculation. On September 14 and 19, 2005, the Respondent's accountant provided business records to the Department. After reviewing those business records, Investigator Krossman again consulted with her supervisor Mr. Dorney, who authorized her to issue an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is the Department's Exhibit 9 in evidence. The Amended Order was issued and served on Respondent on September 26, 2005, and assessed a total penalty of $49,979.79 under the authority of Section 440.107(7)(d)1. and (c), Florida Statutes (2005). The penalty calculations pertaining to each of the employees listed appeared in a three page worksheet attached and incorporated as part of Department's exhibit nine in evidence. Investigator Krossman selected the appropriate NCCI class code for Krashco Inc.'s business, and its corresponding premium rate, in order to apply that to each employee's wages. The Department relies on these premium rates and the classification codes for these purposes in the normal course of its regulation of such matters.1/ Ultimately, at hearing, the Respondent stipulated that it did not dispute the charge in the Amended Order and does not dispute the accuracy of the penalty calculation.2/ In light of the requirements of Section 440.107(7)(d)1., Florida Statutes (2005), Investigator Krossman calculated the penalty for the period of non-compliance back to September 1, 2002, pursuant to the three year "reach back standard" in the statute. The premium which had thus been evaded which the Respondent would have paid had it secured workers' compensation insurance was thus shown to be $7,986.43. The statutorily provided penalty on that amount of evaded premium multiplied by the statutory standard of 1.5 times resulted in a penalty amount of $11,979.79. Respondent also stipulated at the hearing that it had violated the Stop Work Order issued on August 11, 2005, by continuing to conduct its business operations of J. Krash's Sports Bar through September 19, 2005. This engendered an additional penalty as provided in Section 440.107(7)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes (2005). Investigator Krossman calculated the additional penalty at $1,000.00 per day of violation time from August 12, 2005 through September 19, 2005, at $38,000.00. This results in a total aggregate assessed penalty, pursuant to the Amended Order, of $49,979.79. The business of Respondent Krashco, Inc., is J. Krash's Sports Bar. Its principal place of business is 1508 Calhoun Avenue, Panama City, Florida 32405. Section 440.107(7)(a), Florida Statutes (2005), requires a cessation of all business operations by an employer when a Stop Work Order is issued by that employer by the Department. The Stop Work Order "shall remain in effect until the Department issues an order releasing the Stop Work Order upon a finding that the employer has come into compliance with the coverage requirements of this Chapter and has paid any penalty assessed under this section."3/ Krashco, Inc., has never paid any part of the assessed penalty pursuant to the Amended Order or the Second Amended Order filed later. The Department has never issued an Order of Release from the Stop Work Order. Nevertheless, the Respondent Krashco, Inc., after September 19, 2005, continued the business operations of J. Krash's Sports Bar. Officers of corporations may elect an exemption from coverage under the workers' compensation law as an employee (see Section 440.05). This exemption is effective, however, only for the corporation listed in the eligible officer's Notice of Election to be Exempt and which is paying that officer's salary or wages. Three new corporations were formed whereby the previous employees of Krashco, Inc., d/b/a J. Krash's Sports Bar became officers of Krashco, Inc., and those three new corporations. This is because Krashco, Inc., needed people to operate the bar on its behalf to buy goods and services to sell and dispense at its business, J. Krash's Sports Bar. Krashco, Inc.'s former employees became officers of these three newly created corporations and two of the former employees became officers of the Respondent Krashco, Inc. Krashco, Inc., d/b/a J. Krash's Sports Bar verbally contracted with these new officers of the new corporations to perform the same services for its business, J. Krash's Sports Bar, that those same individuals had been performing before becoming officers of these corporations, performing security, catering, and bartending services. Krashco, Inc.'s, principals were of the belief that it was necessary to secure the services in this manner in order to continue the operation of its business, without employees, so that it would no longer be required to have workers' compensation coverage for them. After August 11, 2005, and through most of the remainder of 2005, Ms. Janis Krasno, the President of Krashco, Inc., continued to pay these new officers, the former employees, directly with checks drawn on Krashco Inc.'s account and made payable to the individual officers as payees (not to their corporation) for the same services they had performed for the benefit of J. Krash's Sports Bar.4/ Keith Larson, an employee of Krashco, Inc., became an officer of the original Krashco, Inc., as well as Crashco, Inc., one of the three newly created corporations. Keith Larson elected an exemption from Chapter 440 as an officer of Krashco, Inc. Larson's election of exemption with Krashco, Inc., however, did not become effective until November 2, 2005. Consequently, Keith Larson continued to be paid by Krashco, Inc., as an employee through at least November 1, 2005. Six other Krashco, Inc., employees were granted exemptions (as officers of the other corporations) by the Petitioner from the requirement of workers' compensation coverage, which were all effective on August 22, 2005. This reduced the number of employees of record to less than the compliment of four (or more) for which coverage is required. This would seem, under only these circumstances, to represent the expiration of liability by the Respondent for failure to secure payment of workers' compensation and to also be the date the Stop Work Order should be rescinded and further penalties tolled. The fact is, however, that Ms. Krasno and the Respondent, Krashco, Inc., as found below, continued to pay these "former employees" with Krashco, Inc., checks made to them individually (not to their corporations), for the same job duties, until December 15, 2005. Thus they continued to function as employees of the Respondent, Krashco, Inc., until that date. After that date they were paid by a new corporation, Crashco, Inc. Ms. Janis Krasno, President of Krashco, Inc., continued to operate and run J. Krash's Sports Bar as an officer of and on behalf of Krashco, Inc., through April 28, 2006. This included payment of Krashco's expenses occasioned in the operation of the business. Ms. Krasno, President of Krashco, Inc., wrote checks through December 15, 2005, drawn on Krashco, Inc.'s bank account to pay for Krashco, Inc.'s business operation expenses, all of which were for the benefit of operating J. Krash's Sports Bar. Ms. Krasno as President of Krashco, Inc., issued checks through December 15, 2005, drawn on that corporation's account to pay the individual officers of the three new corporations which had been formed, and of Krashco, Inc., for those officers' bartending, security, and catering services, all of which were performed to continue and perpetuate the operation of J. Krash's Sports Bar. Ms. Krasno issued checks through December 15, 2005, on Krashco, Inc.'s account, to promote sales, by the promotion of upcoming activities to be held at the bar, or to purchase goods for sale at J. Krash's Sports Bar, from various vendors, for non-alcoholic drinks, restaurant supplies, food and other goods for parties. Such payments were also used to pay vendors such as Goldring Gulf Distributing Company and other distributors for alcoholic beverages to be sold in the operation of J. Krash's Sports Bar, and for incidental expenses. From August 12, 2005 through December 15, 2005, and through April 28, 2006, J. Krash's Sports Bar was generally open for business seven days a week from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 a.m. Since September 19, 2005 through April 28, 2006, Ms. Krasno still controlled the management and operations of Krashco, Inc., d/b/a J. Krash's Sports Bar. On December 21, 2005, however, Krashco, Inc.'s, president, Ms. Krasno, who also became president of Crashco, Inc., began issuing checks drawn on the bank account of Crashco, Inc., to pay for expenses occasioned in the operation of the Respondent's business J. Krash's Sports Bar. These were payments to the same officers she had been paying since September 19, 2005, for their bartending, security, and catering services, as well as to essentially the same vendors for purchases of alcoholic beverages, etc. for sale at J. Krash's Sports Bar. Through the date of the final hearing Ms. Krasno, with checks drawn on the account of Crashco, Inc., purchased alcoholic beverages on behalf of Krashco, Inc., the holder of liquor license BEV1301819, in order to continue the business operations of Krashco, Inc., d/b/a J. Krash's Sports Bar. After December 21, 2005 and through April 28, 2006, income of sales at J. Krash's Sports Bar was deposited in Crashco, Inc.'s account. After entry of the Amended Order on September 26, 2005, the Respondent timely filed its request for a formal proceeding on October 14, 2005. This rendered the initial agency action to be non-final, to await the outcome of this de novo, proceeding.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, the 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, under the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment and the Stop-Work Order, a penalty in the total amount of $136,979.80, together with an additional assessment for failure to secure coverage for the period of September 19, 2005 through December 15, 2005, in the manner provided in Subsection 440.107(7)(d)1., Florida Statutes (2005). DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of January, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of January, 2007.
Findings Of Fact The factual allegations contained in the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment issued on August 23, 2010, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on September 13, 2010, and the Order Closing File which are fully incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted as the Department’s Findings of Fact in this case.
Conclusions THIS PROCEEDING came on for final agency action and Jeff Atwater, Chief Financial Officer of the State of Florida, or his designee, having considered the record in this case, including the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, the Petition for Request of Hearing, and the Order Closing File, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby finds that: 1. On August 23, 2010, the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (hereinafter “Department”) issued a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 10-341-1A to AN & YA CONSTRUCTION, INC. 2. On August 23, 2010, the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment was personally served on AN & YA CONSTRUCTION, INC. A copy of the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit A” and incorporated herein by reference. 3. On September 13, 2010, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 10-341-1A to AN & YA CONSTRUCTION, INC. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $75,724.80 against AN & YA CONSTRUCTION, INC. 4. On September 20, 2010, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served by certified mail on AN & YA CONSTRUCTION, INC. A copy of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit B” and incorporated herein by reference. 5. On October 8, 2010, AN & YA CONSTRUCTION, INC filed a Petition for Request of Hearing (“Petition”) with the Department in response to the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. A copy of the Petition is attached hereto as “Exhibit C” and incorporated herein by reference. 6. On November 24, 2010, the Petition was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned DOAH Case No. 10-10421. 7. On April 28, 2011, an Order Closing File was entered in Division of Administrative Hearings Case. No. 10-10421. A copy of the Order Closing File is attached hereto as “Exhibit D” and incorporated herein by reference.
The Issue Whether the Respondent was required to carry workers' compensation insurance coverage for its employees and, if it failed to do so, whether the Amended Notice and Penalty Assessment Order is correct.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Petitioner, the Department of Labor and Employment Security, Division of Workers’ Compensation was the state agency charged with the responsibility of administering compliance with state laws governing workers’ compensation (WC). The Respondent, A. J. Interiors, Inc., is a Florida corporation doing business at 1825 Mears Parkway, Margate, Florida. At all times material to this case, Robert Barnes was an investigator employed by the Department to perform compliance investigations for WC. On July 6, 2000, Investigator Barnes performed a random construction site inspection at a new construction project located at 16687 Jog Road, Delray Beach, Florida. While at that location, Investigator Barnes observed two men wearing T-shirts bearing the company name "A. J. Interiors, Inc." along with its telephone number. The men were installing metal framing in order to hang and finish drywall. The field interview with the two men, identified in this record as Sergio and Jaime Gonzalez, revealed that neither was covered by WC insurance. This information was later confirmed by Investigator Barnes. Additionally, neither man had obtained an exemption from coverage as the sole proprietor of a business. Based upon the field interview of the two men, a review of Department records, and contact with the Respondent's insurance agent, Investigator Barnes correctly determined that the men were the Respondent’s "employees” as that term is defined by the WC law. The men did not supply materials to the job site but agreed to perform work based upon a price described as a "per board" industry standard rate. In other words, the men would hang the drywall at a flat rate (established by and consistent with the local industry standard) for each job accepted through the Respondent. If the work were completed, the men expected to be paid by the Respondent. The men did not contract with or work for the general contractor of the job. The only requirement for payment was the performance of the work. The only risk incurred by the workers related to their relationship with the Respondent. Having concluded that the workers were not covered by WC and were not exempt, Investigator Barnes caused a stop work order to be issued against the Respondent. In conjunction with that order, the Department requested copies of the Respondent's business records. A review of the "vendor accounts” supplied by the Respondent established that its workers were paid amounts presumably based upon the number of boards hung per job identified. The payments were not always the same amount as the number of boards hung for a given job could vary. Additionally, the Respondent allowed workers to receive "draws" against the expected payments for uncompleted jobs. The Respondent’s claim that the workers were independent contractors has not been deemed credible. Based upon the testimony of the Respondent's witness all of the workers performed as outlined by the men interviewed by Investigator Barnes. The Respondent did not have a valid WC policy during the three years preceding the stop work order. The Amended Notice and Penalty Assessment Order prepared by Investigator Barnes accurately calculates the amounts owed by the Respondent for the three-year period.
