The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is liable for a penalty for failure to maintain workers’ compensation insurance in violation of relevant provisions in Chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2007).1
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure the payment of workers’ compensation for the benefit of their employees. § 440.107. Petitioner is a limited liability company domiciled in Florida and engaged in the sale of stone countertops. The disputed issues of fact arise from a single, integrated transaction involving “one and the same business” within the meaning of Subsection 440.10(1)(b). The “business” includes a contractor, a wholesaler, and two subcontractors, one of which is Petitioner. The integrated transaction is between the business and a homeowner. The contractor is identified in the record as Manasota Land Development (Manasota). The homeowner owns a residence on Agate Road in Port Charlotte, Florida (the homeowner). The contractor referred the homeowner to Petitioner for the purpose of selecting granite countertops. Petitioner’s representative visited the residence, took measurements, and received the order for granite from the homeowner. Petitioner placed the order with the wholesaler, the name of which is not material to this proceeding. The wholesaler delivered granite to a fabricator and installer designated by Petitioner and identified in the record as Granite Exclusive (the installer). The installer fabricated the countertops and installed them at the residence. Petitioner visited the residence to ensure customer satisfaction, and Petitioner paid the wholesaler and installer from funds provided by Manasota. Petitioner did not collect payment from the homeowner. Rather, Petitioner agreed with Manasota to a total price of $7,141.00. Petitioner billed Manasota for $3,570.00, an amount equal to approximately one-half of the total agreed price, on May 21, 2008, inferentially when the homeowner placed the order with Petitioner. Manasota paid Petitioner the 50 percent deposit. Petitioner billed Manasota for the balance due, in the amount of $3,571.00, on July 22, 2008, when the work was completed to the satisfaction of the homeowner, and Manasota paid the balance due. Petitioner was a sales agent, order processor, and a collection and payment processor for Manasota. Petitioner paid the wholesaler and installer from funds provided by Manasota. The fact-finder draws a reasonable inference from the evidence that Manasota collected a sum from the homeowner that was equal to or greater than the price Manasota paid to Petitioner. Petitioner and the installer are subcontractors of Manasota. Petitioner had no supervisory control over the installer. Respondent’s claim that a written or oral contract existed between Petitioner and the wholesaler and installer is not supported by clear and convincing evidence. It is undisputed that neither the installer nor Petitioner have workers’ compensation insurance, and the two subcontractors are, by operation of Subsection 440.10(1)(b), the employees of Manasota in “one and the same business.” Manasota is responsible for providing workers’ compensation coverage by operation of the statute. Petitioner mistakenly believed, in goof faith, that it was exempt from the requirements of Chapter 440. A company officer of Petitioner obtained an exemption certificate and, reasonably, concluded that the exemption was for Petitioner and both of Petitioner’s officers or employees. Such an exemption was the officer’s stated purpose when she entered the local state office responsible for issuing exemption certificates. The state employee represented that the exemption certificate actually issued achieved the officer’s stated purpose. The express terms of the exemption certificate provide that the exemption is for the person “and” company named in the certificate. However, Subsection 440.05 makes clear that an exemption covers only the company officer named in the certificate and that each of the two officers must be named in the certificate or that each officer must obtain a separate certificate. Petitioner did not engage in the business of fabricating or installing the stone countertop. Petitioner made a sale of the granite countertop and placed an order with a wholesaler. The wholesaler shipped the countertop to a the installer designated by Petitioner based on proximity to the project site. The fabricator installed the countertop. Petitioner did not supervise the fabrication or installation of the countertop. The fact-finder has considered and weighed conflicts in the evidence pertaining to the issue of whether Petitioner engaged in the business of fabricating and installing the stone countertop and has resolved any evidential conflicts in favor of Petitioner. The testimony of Petitioner’s witness, describing the nature and scope of Petitioner’s business, is consistent with Article 5 in Petitioner’s Articles of Incorporation which states: The general purpose for which the Company is organized is to engage in the business of natural stone countertop sales. . . . On June 3, 2008, Respondent’s investigator, conducted a compliance check at 8206 Agate, South Gulf Cove, Florida, to verify compliance with the workers’ compensation statutes. At the worksite, Respondent’s investigator observed three men installing a stone countertop for the installer. Installation of stone countertops is part of the construction industry and is assigned Class Code 5348 in the Scopes Manual, published by the National Council on Compensation Insurance and adopted in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.021. The investigator interviewed the three men and requested proof of compliance with the workers’ compensation law. One of the three men, neither furnished proof of an election to be exempt from workers’ compensation nor showed that he had secured workers’ compensation coverage. Utilizing the Department of Financial Services’ Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS), the investigator was unable to determine that the employee of the installer was exempt from the requirements of the workers’ compensation law or that Petitioner had secured the payment of workers’ compensation. On June 4, 2008, the investigator issued a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment against Petitioner for failure to meet the requirements of Chapter 440. Respondent ordered Petitioner to cease all business operations and assessed a $1,000.00 penalty against Petitioner pursuant to Subsection 440.107(7)(d). On June 4, 2008, the investigator issued a Division of Workers’ Compensation Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation. Petitioner complied with the Request and provided the required records. Based on Petitioner’s business records, the investigator issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on June 11, 2008, in the amount of $1,218.52. Mr. Thomas Harvey, a company officer of Petitioner, did not posses an election to be exempt from workers’ compensation. Ms. Leslie Lockett, the other company officer had applied for and obtained an exemption from workers’ compensation coverage. Ms. Lockett’s exemption from workers’ compensation lists the scope of business or trade as countertops, pursuant to instructions from the agency employee who issued the certificate. Ms. Lockett’s exemption from workers’ compensation is a construction industry exemption. Ms. Lockett applied for a Notice of Election to be Exempt as a member of a limited liability company in the construction industry pursuant to the instructions previously described. In the transaction at issue in this proceeding, Petitioner collected payment for materials and installation of a stone countertop from Manasota. Petitioner did not collect payment from the homeowner and had no control or authority over either the wholesaler or the installer.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent issue a final order dismissing the Stop-Work Order and Amended Order of Penalty Assessment against Petitioner and Mr. Harvey. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of October, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of October, 2008.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Section 550.2415(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1996)1 by allowing a greyhound with a drug, medication, stimulant, depressant, hypnotic, narcotic, or local anesthetic, in its system to enter and complete a race and, if so, what, if any, disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's pari-mutuel wagering occupational and business licenses.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for regulating the pari-mutuel industry in the state, including the regulation and discipline of licensees such as Respondent. Respondent holds an Unrestricted "U1 " Professional individual pari-mutuel wagering occupational license, number 0526562-1081, and a business occupational pari-mutuel wagering license, number 1364008-1080, for Ron Runge Kennel. Respondent is the trainer of record for Prunella Scales ("Prunella"), a greyhound. On February 22, 1997, the Respondent entered Prunella in the thirteenth race at Sanford-Orlando Kennel Club (the "race") and allowed Prunella to complete the race. Prior to the start of the race, urine sample number 267912 was taken from Prunella. The urine analysis conducted by the Bureau of Laboratory Services revealed the presence of ecgonine methyl ester in sample number 267912. Ecgonine methyl ester is a metabolite of cocaine. Cocaine is a topical anesthetic and a class 1 drug. Respondent violated Section 550.2415(1)(a) by entering Prunella in the race with an impermissible drug in its system and allowing Prunella to complete the race in such a condition. As the trainer of record, Respondent is responsible for of the condition of a greyhound that he or she enters in a race. Respondent has an extensive disciplinary history. In August 1994, Petitioner fined Respondent $25.00 for racing a greyhound on an impermissible drug and redistributed the purse money. In September 1994, Petitioner fined Respondent a total of $50.00 for racing two greyhounds on an impermissible drug. In one instance, Petitioner redistributed the purse money. In November 1994, Petitioner fined Respondent $25.00 for racing a greyhound on an impermissible drug. Respondent's pari-mutuel occupational license was suspended until he paid the fine. In September 1995, Petitioner fined Respondent a total of $50.00 for racing two greyhounds on an impermissible drug. In one instance, the purse money was redistributed. In January 1996, Petitioner fined Respondent $100.00 for racing a greyhound on an impermissible drug and suspended Respondent's pari-mutuel occupational license until Respondent paid the fine. In March 1996, Petitioner fined Respondent $50.00 for racing a greyhound on procaine, an impermissible substance. In March 1997, Petitioner summarily suspended Respondent's licenses and denied Respondent all access to pari-mutuel grounds during the period of suspension. In addition to the foregoing drug violations, Respondent was found guilty of improperly using rabbits in the training of racing greyhounds in November 1991. He was fined $250.00 for that violation. On March 11, 1995, Respondent was fined $50.00 for presenting the wrong greyhound at the weigh-in, and on July 30, 1996, he was fined $50.00 for failure to present the proper greyhound at the weigh-in. Prior disciplinary action has been ineffective in rehabilitating Respondent. Respondent persists in the prohibited practice of racing animals on impermissible substances. License suspension and fines have no deterrent effect on Respondent. Respondent is not a viable candidate for rehabilitation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order and therein find Respondent guilty of violating Section 550.2415(1)(a) by racing an animal with an impermissible drug in its system and revoke Respondent's licenses. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of January, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Hearings Hearings DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 9th day of January, 1998.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Cobo Company, Inc., is a mechanical contractor located in Miami, Florida, whose qualifying agent, Jose Cobo, is certified in that capacity pursuant to Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. By letter of August 18, 1980, Respondent Department of General Services confirmed Petitioner's annual prequalification as a potential bidder for building construction contracts pursuant to Section 255.29, Florida Statutes, for the "type or class as defined in your license." (Testimony of Cobo, Exhibit 1) At an undisclosed date, Respondent published an advertisement for bids for Project No. DGS-7969-C, "Major Repairs-Chiller Replacement, Graham Building, Miami, Florida." The advertisement required all bidders to submit prequalification data of their eligibility to submit proposals if not previously qualified for the current fiscal year. The advertisement and invitation for bids stated that bids must be submitted in full in accordance with the requirements of the drawings, specifications, bidding conditions, and contractual conditions, and that sealed bids would be opened on September 30, 1980. Section B-2 of the specifications required that the bidder present evidence that he was "authorized to perform the work required in these documents in accordance with the applicable provisions of Florida Statutes governing contractors." (Exhibit 4) Respondent's Instructions to Bidders further required that bidders submit evidence of ability to provide necessary performance and labor and material payment bonds, and that bids should be accompanied by a bid guarantee of not less than 5 percent of the amount of the bid. The instructions also required bidders to submit a list of previous contracts involving similar work which had been satisfactorily completed, and to list those qualified subcontractors which the bidder intended to be employed on the contract. They further required a bidder to indicate bid prices on the proposal form for the entire work and for any alternates on which he bids. The instructions stated that if the base bid was within the amount of funds available to finance the contract and the owner (Respondent) wished to accept alternate additive bids, contract award would be made to that responsible bidder submitting the low combined bid, consisting of the base bid plus alternate additive bids. Section B-24 of the contract document reads in part as follows: B-24 CONTRACT AWARD The Contract will be awarded by the Executive Direction, Department of General Services, as soon as possible, to the lowest qualified bidder provided his bid is reasonable and it is in the best interest of the Owner to accept it. The Owner reserves the right to waive any informality on bids received when such waiver is in the interest of the Owner. The Agreement will only be entered into with reasonable contractors, found to be satisfactory by the Owner, qualified by experience and in a financial position to do the work specified. Section 01010 of the specifications provides in part as follows: SECTION 01010 - SUMMARY OF WORK 1. GENERAL DESCRIPTION. The project in general consists of the construction of the contract entitled Major Repairs-Chiller Replacement, Graham building, Miami, Florida, State Project NO. DGS-7069-C. A general description of the project and its scope include the following: Replacement of chiller for central air conditioning system. Install new cooling towers and pump. The contract drawings and specifications provided for the removal of a portion of an interior wall, and removal of an exterior wall window and masonry work below the window to provide access for removal of the existing chiller and its replacement with new equipment. In addition, the contract included electrical work incident to the installation of the chiller, removal of an existing hand rail for clear access to the equipment and later replacement, installation of pitch pans for pipes and other openings on the roof, and the erection and installation of structural steel cooling towers. The specifications call for painting, plaster work, replacement of flooring and ceiling, and installation of a window wall panel, as required in restoring the demolished area. They further called for a replacement demountable interior wall partition to provide future access to the air conditioning equipment, as an alternate portion of the project. Section 01021 of the specifications described the bid items as a Base bid, Additive Alternate No. 1 for using higher efficiency chiller, and Additive Alternate No. 2 for installation of the demountable partition. However, the specifications had been altered prior to the issuance of the bid invitation to provide for the higher efficiency chiller as part of the base bid, but Section 01021 had not been changed accordingly. Respondent's proposal form for use by bidders, however, had provisions for entry of only a Base bid and Alternate No. 1 for the installation of the demountable partition. (Testimony of Karagianis, Exhibits 4-6) Petitioner submitted its bid for the project on September 30, 1980. Its base bid was $225,440. It also bid on the alternate for installation of demountable partitions in the sum of $1,170, and added to the bid form an alternate for the use of higher efficiency chiller in the amount of $1,150. Seven other bids were submitted on the proposal ranging from $239,300 by Sam L. Hamilton, Inc., to a high bid of $430,624. Hamilton's additive bid for the alternate partitions was in the amount of $1,950. Petitioner enclosed with its proposal the required contractor's qualification statement showing previous experience as a mechanical contractor, bid bond, and other required information. It listed L. Milton Construction, Inc., as a general construction subcontractor and Sparta Insulation as an insulation contractor. Although Petitioner intended that Lloyd N. Jones perform the electrical work on the project, he was not listed as a subcontractor because Petitioner did not know at that time whether he would be a subcontractor of Milton or of his own firm. Petitioner included the alternate bid for the higher efficiency chiller because it was required under Section 01021 of the specifications. Milton's bid to Petitioner for the construction work on the contract was in the sum of $7,000. (Testimony of Cobo, Exhibits 2-3) By letter of October 7, 1980, Respondent informed Petitioner that it intended to contract with Sam L. Hamilton, Inc., which had been determined the qualified low bidder meeting the requirements of the specifications. The letter advised the Petitioner that is bid was rejected because it was not a certified or registered general or building contractor as required by Section 489.105, Florida Statutes. Attached to the letter was a copy of a letter of William J. Roberts, attorney for the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, to Respondent, dated October 18, 1977, setting forth a legal opinion that a mechanical contractor could not be the prime contractor on a state contract in which the bulk of the work is mechanical in nature, but the remaining portion is to be subcontracted to a general contractor. Roberts testified at the hearing that he had drafted legislation which changed the definition of "contractor" previously found in subsection 478.102(1), and in his view, under such definition, a mechanical contractor would not be authorized to become a prime contractor is it were necessary for him to subcontract any non-mechanical work called for under the contract provisions which he was not qualified to perform. (Testimony of Roberts, Exhibit 7) Respondent's project director estimates that the chiller replacement project was approximately 90 to 93 percent mechanical in nature, and 7 to 10 percent requiring general construction and electrical work. It was his understanding of departmental policy that if any portion of a contract involved general construction work, only a general contractor would be eligible to receive the award and that, in this case, Petitioner could not therefore be accepted as a prime contractor. Respondent's Chief of the Bureau of Construction has instructed Bureau personnel not to award contracts to mechanical contractors which involve non-mechanical work unless the contractor is certified in the non-mechanical area for which the work is required. Several contracts awarded by Respondent to mechanical contractors in 1980 which involved non-mechanical work were "incorrect" awards, in the view of the Chief of the Bureau of Construction. (Testimony of Karagianis, Scaringe, Composite Exhibit 8) General contractors and mechanical contractors are required to be licensed under Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. Any person who desires to be certified statewide in a particular contracting area must establish his competency and qualifications by a combination of education and experience, plus the successful completion of an appropriate examination. The general contractor's examination and mechanical contractor's examination have similar portions relating to applicable federal and state laws and regulations in the contracting field. The remaining and major portion of the mechanical contractor's examination deals with subjects of that specialty such as air conditioning, refrigeration, heating, and the like. The general contractor's examination primarily covers matters relative to construction, such as site work, excavation, structural steel, masonry walls, piles, columns, and form work. (Testimony of Allen, Composite Exhibits 9-10) In the opinion of an expert in the field of architecture, there are no parts of the chiller replacement project which require the services of a general contractor. The demolition of the interior partition and the window wall properly may be accomplished by a mechanical contractor and installation of demountable partitions in lieu thereof can be obtained from speciality suppliers. Other aspects of the project, such as concrete pads, installation of cooling tower, pitch pans, and painting similarly are all considered to be incidental work to a project that is basically mechanical in nature. Certain large mechanical contractors customarily employ qualified individuals to perform specialty tasks such as painting and demolition work, but smaller contractors accomplish such portions of a job by subcontract. (Testimony of Coxen) A recent contract award was made by Dade County to a mechanical contractor for a project similar to the one here in controversy. In that case, the mechanical contractor had listed a general contractor as a subcontractor for the project. (Exhibit 11)
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent on the basis of alleged violations of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, set forth in an Administrative Complaint signed March 3, 1987. Specifically, the Respondent is charged with having violated Section 489.129(1)(k), Florida Statutes, "by abandonment of a construction job Respondent was engaged on" and with having violated Section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes, "by failure to subcontract work in violation of 489.113(3)." At the hearing the parties agreed to an amendment to paragraph 8 of the Administrative Complaint to reflect that there were two contracts, one for $15,500.00 and one for $1,491.00, for a total contractual price of $16,991.00. The Respondent also stipulated to most of the allegations of the Administrative Complaint. Thereafter, the Petitioner presented the testimony of two witnesses and offered six exhibits, all of which were received in evidence. The Respondent then testified on his own behalf and offered two exhibits, both of which were received in evidence. At the conclusion of the hearing the parties were given 30 days from the date of the filing of the transcript within which to file their proposed Recommended Orders. The transcript was filed on October 2, 1987, and the Petitioner thereafter filed a timely proposed Recommended Order containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. As of the date of this Recommended Order, the Respondent has not filed a proposed Recommended Order nor any other document containing proposed findings of fact. Specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner are contained in the Appendix which is attached to and incorporated into this Recommended Order.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulation of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the sworn testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: Stipulated Facts Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of contracting, pursuant to Section 20.30 and Chapter 455, Florida Statutes. At all times relevant hereto, Respondent was licensed by the Construction Industry Licensing Board as a certified general contractor. At all times relevant hereto, Respondent had been issued by said Board, and held, license number CG C031803. Respondent's address of record is in Jacksonville, Florida. Respondent did, through the contracting business Respondent was then associated with and responsible for in his capacity as a licensed contractor, contract with Irene McIntosh to perform certain contracting work. The contracting work generally consisted of remodeling a church. The contracts for the remodeling work were entered into on or about March 6, 1986. One contract was for $15,500.00 and one was for $1,491.00. The jobs were located in Jacksonville, Florida. Respondent's contracting business thereafter began the jobs described above. In the course of said jobs, Respondent did, himself or through his unlicensed employees, perform plumbing work. At no time relevant hereto was Respondent licensed to engage in plumbing work. The Rest of the Findings Respondent began work on the two contracts sometime during the latter part of 1985. Respondent continued to perform work on the two contracts until sometime during March of 1986. Respondent finished most of the work under the two contracts, but he did not finish all of the work he had agreed to perform. Respondent has not performed any work on either of the contracts since March of 1986. Apparently some form of dispute, the exact nature of which is not revealed in the record of this case, arose between the parties to the contract. The last time the Respondent attempted to do any work under the contracts, he was unable to do so because the locks on the premises had been changed. At about that same time, a representative of the church told the Respondent that the Respondent would not be paid any more money for work on the contracts. After being locked out of the premises, the Respondent did not attempt to contact Irene McIntosh to arrange to finish the work or to notify her that he was terminating the work. There is no evidence that Irene McIntosh attempted to contact the Respondent after he was locked out of the premises. The Respondent has not been paid the contracted amount of $1,491.00 under the second contract. If the Respondent were to be paid the $1,491.00 that is owed to him, he would be willing to finish all of the work under the two contracts. A general contractor cannot lawfully perform plumbing work in the City of Jacksonville without a plumbing license.
Recommendation Based upon all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board issue a final order in this case to the following effect: Dismissing the charge that the Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(k), Florida Statutes, by abandoning a construction project; Finding the Respondent guilty of the charge that he violated Section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes; and Imposing a penalty of a fine in the amount of two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) and a suspension of the Respondent's license for a period of ninety (90) days. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 4th day of December, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of December, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-2220 The following are my specific rulings on each of the findings of fact proposed by the parties: Findings proposed by the Petitioner: Paragraph 1: Accepted. Paragraph 2: Accepted with exception of contract amount. There were two contracts for a total price of $16,991.00. Paragraph 3: Accepted in essence, with exception of exact month. Exact month is not established by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Paragraph 4: Accepted. Paragraph 5: The proposed list of work remaining to be finished is rejected because it is not all supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence and also because it constitutes unnecessary subordinate details. It is sufficient to find that the Respondent did not finish all of the work under the contracts. Paragraph 6: The essence of this proposal is accepted with a different emphasis and with additional findings in the interest of clarity. Paragraph 7: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 8: Accepted. Paragraph 9: Accepted. Findings proposed by the Respondent: (none) COPIES FURNISHED: E. Raymond Shope, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Mr. Eugene Williams, Jr. 10337 Jolynn Court West Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Honorable Tom Gallagher Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Mr. Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering (Department) is a state agency charged with the duty and responsibility for regulating the pari-mutuel wagering industry in Florida and those licensed under Chapter 550, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Respondent, Jack J. Garey, held pari-mutuel wagering license number 1470144-1081, was a licensed thoroughbred owner, and was a permitholder authorized to conduct horseracing at permitted facilities in the State of Florida. Calder Race Course (Calder) was, at all times material hereto, a permitholder authorized to conduct horseracing in the State of Florida. Incident to the operation of that business, Calder extended check cashing privileges to trainers, owners and other pari-mutuel wagering licensees. On or about November 3, 1997, Respondent endorsed and presented to Calder for payment two checks, each in the amount of $500.00, which were payable to Respondent and drawn on the account of Karin Montejo and Ramiro Montejo at Barnett Bank. Both checks, which Calder paid, were returned unpaid because the account was closed. On or about November 12, 1997, Respondent endorsed and presented to Calder for payment a check in the amount of $1,600.00 which as payable to Respondent and drawn on the account of Karin Montejo and Ramiro Montejo at Barnett Bank. The check, which Calder paid, was, as the previous check drawn on such account, returned unpaid because the account was closed. In late November 1997, Michael Abes, the vice president of finance at Calder, spoke with Respondent regarding the returned checks and demanded repayment. In turn, Respondent acknowledged the debt and promised to repay it; however, no payments were forthcoming. On or about December 27, 1997, Respondent endorsed and presented to Calder two more checks for payment. One check was in the amount of $2,000.00 and the other in the amount of $500.00, and each was payable to Respondent and drawn on the account of Karin Montejo and Ramiro Montejo at Barnett Bank. The checks, paid by Calder, were, as with the previous checks drawn on the same account, returned unpaid because the account was closed. Given the return of the previous checks and his discussion with Mr. Abes, it cannot be subject to serious dispute that Respondent knew when he presented the checks to Calder for payment, that the account on which the checks were drawn had been closed and that they would not be honored by the bank. Despite numerous demands, Respondent did not pay any portion of the outstanding obligation owed Calder until February 1998, when a payment of $300.00 was remitted. Subsequently, on June 5, 1998, the balance of the outstanding obligation due Calder was paid.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of violating the provisions of Subsection 550.105(6), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint and imposing, as a penalty for such violation, an administrative fine of $300.00, a 30-day suspension, and exclusion from all pari-mutuel facilities in the state for the period of suspension. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 9th day of March, 1999.
The Issue Whether Petitioner should receive a waiver of criminal conviction, making him eligible to receive an occupational license from Respondent, the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner submitted an application to Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering (Division) on or about July 25, 2009, for a pari-mutuel wagering occupational license. The Division is the state agency charged with regulation of pari-mutuel wagering pursuant to Chapter 550, Florida Statutes, and is responsible for licensing employees of pari-mutuel facilities. The following question appeared on Respondent's application for licensure: Have you ever been convicted of or had adjudication withheld for any crime, or pled guilty or nolo contendere to any criminal charges against you? If yes, give details in the space provided below. In the space provided, Petitioner disclosed a 1996 felony conviction for Trafficking Cocaine in Dodge County, Georgia. In August 1996, in the Superior Court of Dodge County, Georgia, Petitioner pled guilty to the charges of Trafficking in Cocaine, a felony, and to the lesser included offense of Obstruction of an Officer, a misdemeanor. Petitioner was sentenced to 10 years in prison.1/ On August 13, 2009, Petitioner completed a waiver application for a pari-mutuel wagering license (PMW license). Charles Taylor is an investigator for the Division. He was assigned Petitioner's case and conducted a waiver interview of Petitioner. Mr. Taylor has been an investigator for the Division for approximately three years. His duties include conducting investigations of waiver cases, processing any documents, and obtaining any necessary information. He also performs other types of investigations for the Division and has approximately 18 years of experience in the pari-mutuel wagering industry. Mr. Taylor conducts such interviews to meet the waiver applicant and obtain any mitigating or aggravating circumstances regarding their criminal history and to discuss with the applicant what has happened since the conviction. That is, Mr. Taylor looks for evidence of rehabilitation and evidence of good moral character. While Petitioner received a 10-year sentence, he left prison in 1999 and was placed on parole for six years, which terminated in 2005. Petitioner attended A.A. and N.A. meetings while incarcerated. While on parole, he submitted to drug tests. Since leaving prison, Petitioner has not been in any trouble with the law. He has been driving a truck and training horses in Georgia. He wants his Florida PMW license to train horses at Hialeah. Petitioner believes that he has changed and has turned his life around from his criminal past. Petitioner has four children, one of which lives with him. He participates in church.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered denying Petitioner’s application for a pari-mutuel license at this time. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of April, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS 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 22nd day of April, 2010.
