The Issue The issues to determine in this matter are whether Respondent Alpha and Omega Builders of Jacksonville, Inc., failed to secure workers’ compensation coverage for its employees; and, if so, whether Petitioner Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (Department), correctly calculated the penalty assessment it imposed against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with enforcing the requirement of chapter 440 that employers in Florida secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage for their employees. See § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Respondent is a corporation located in Jacksonville, Florida, engaged in the roofing industry. Ms. Beckstrom, the Jacksonville supervisor for workers’ compensation compliance investigators, testified at the final hearing. Ms. Beckstrom largely read from the January 30, 2018, investigative report and narrative completed by Investigator Frank Odom, who did not testify at the final hearing.1/ Ms. Beckstrom did not perform the investigation of Respondent, but authorized Mr. Odom to do so. On January 30, 2018, Mr. Odom investigated the worksite at 5065 Soutel Drive, Jacksonville, Florida, which is the J. Fralin Funeral Home, a commercial business (the Soutel Drive site). Mr. Odom’s narrative stated, “[a]s I approached the site I observed 3 individuals on the roof installing shingles.” Much of the remaining portions of Mr. Odom’s narrative, which ultimately led to his determination that Respondent employed these three individuals without workers’ compensation insurance, is inadmissible hearsay. Although Ms. Beckstrom testified extensively on what Mr. Odom wrote in the investigative report and narrative, the undersigned cannot base findings of fact on inadmissible hearsay unless it explains or supplements other evidence. In contrast, Mr. Jessie, the owner of Respondent, testified at the final hearing that Mr. Odom contacted him the morning of January 30, 2018, by telephone. When Mr. Odom asked if Respondent had three individuals working on the Soutel Drive site, Mr. Jessie testified that he told Mr. Odom that these individuals were not supposed to be working.2/ Mr. Jessie stated that when he arrived at the Soutel Drive site after receiving the call from Mr. Odom, the three individuals had left. On cross-examination, Mr. Jessie did not recognize the names of Roberto Flores, Alex Alvarado, or Dagoberto Lopez, who Mr. Odom identified in the investigative report and narrative as the three individuals working on the roof at the Soutel Drive site. Mr. Jessie testified that he normally employs workers through an organization called Action Labor, who in turn secures the applicable workers’ compensation insurance for them. Mr. Jessie testified that he had arranged, through Action Labor, for three individuals to work on the Soutel Drive site, and that Action Labor had provided him a “ticket” for three individuals to work at the site. His testimony is credited. Although not crystal clear from his testimony, the undersigned understood Mr. Jessie to refer to Action Labor as an employee leasing company.3/ Mr. Jessie further testified that after meeting with Mr. Odom at the Soutel Drive site, he received a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment, as well as a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation (Request for Production). The Request for Production requested several categories of business records from Respondent, for the time period of January 31, 2016, through January 30, 2018, to determine Respondent’s payroll during that time period (audit period). The Request for Production requested that Respondent provide all payroll documents, account documents, disbursements, workers’ compensation coverage, temporary labor service and day labor service records, subcontractors, and documentation of subcontractors’ workers’ compensation insurance coverage. At the final hearing, Ms. Murcia, the Department’s penalty auditor, testified that because Respondent had not timely provided sufficient records in response to the Request for Production, the Department issued the Amended Order. Ms. Murcia testified that the Department received some records requested pursuant to the Request for Production in February 2019 (which was well after the response deadline of 10 business days), but that they were incomplete and thus not sufficient to calculate a penalty. Because Respondent failed to provide sufficient records in response to the Request for Production, the Department calculated the Amended Order based on a completely imputed payroll. Ms. Murcia explained that the Department calculates a gross payroll for an employer (who provides insufficient records) at the statewide average weekly wage multiplied by 1.5 for each employee for the period requested for the calculation of the penalty. Based on this imputation calculation, the Amended Order imposed a penalty in the amount of $166,791.18. The evidence presented at the final hearing was insufficient to establish that the three individuals observed at the Soutel Drive site on January 30, 2018, were Respondent’s employees or subcontractors on that day or at any time during the audit period. The evidence presented at the final hearing established that Respondent failed to timely present sufficient records pursuant to the Request for Production.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the undersigned recommends that the Department enter a final order dismissing the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment, and the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of April, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT J. TELFER III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of April, 2019.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is liable for a penalty of $44,794.51 for the alleged failure to maintain workers' compensation insurance for two employees in violation of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2008).1
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure the payment of workers' compensation insurance for the benefit of their employees in accordance with Section 440.107. Respondent is a Florida corporation engaged in the construction business. Respondent utilizes a payroll service company, identified in the record as Frank Crum Leasing (Frank Crum). Frank Crum pays Respondent's employees and collects premiums for workers' compensation insurance based on payroll and employee hours that Respondent reports to Frank Crum each week. Frank Crum maintains a list of the reported employees that is updated weekly (the weekly Frank Crum list). Respondent reports payroll and employee hours to Frank Crum in arrears. On Wednesday afternoon of each week, Respondent reports payroll and employee hours to Frank Crum for the preceding Wednesday through Tuesday. Frank Crum publishes a weekly Frank Crum list each Thursday. New employees that begin work on Wednesday through Tuesday appear on the next weekly Frank Crum list. For example, new employees that began work anytime from Wednesday, February 18, 2009, through Tuesday, February 24, 2009, are reported on February 25, 2009, and appear on the weekly Frank Crum list dated February 26, 2009. New employees that began work anytime from Wednesday, February 25, 2009, through Tuesday, March 3, 2009, are reported on March 4, 2009, and appear on the weekly Frank Crum list dated March 5, 2009.2 Frank Crum collects workers' compensation insurance premiums from Respondent in arrears based on the payroll and employee hours reported each Wednesday for the previous week. The reporting of payroll and employee hours and the payment of insurance premiums in arrears has been Respondent's customary business practice for the past 13 years. On February 26, 2009, one of Petitioner's investigators conducted a random construction site visit at 6417 Grand Island Road, Apollo Beach, Florida. Four workers, who are identified by name in exhibits of record, were laying a concrete sidewalk at the site. The four workers laying the sidewalk were employees of Respondent. Two of the workers were on the weekly Frank Crum list dated February 26, 2006. The other two workers were not on the same list. The two workers who were not on the Frank Crum list dated February 26, 2006, are identified in the record as Mr. Ricardo Hurtado and Mr. Evelio Bueno. On February 26, 2009, Petitioner issued a Stop-Work Order and Penalty Assessment and requested business records from Respondent. Petitioner reviewed the business records and, on April 10, 2009, issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in the amount of $44,794.51 for failure to maintain workers' compensation insurance coverage for the two workers who were not listed on the weekly Frank Crum list dated February 26, 2009, and identified in record as Mr. Hurtado and Mr. Bueno. Respondent does not dispute the accuracy of the penalty calculation. However, Respondent does dispute that Respondent is liable for the penalty assessment. Respondent maintains that the two unlisted workers were covered by workers' compensation insurance on February 26, 2009. The two unlisted workers began their employment with Respondent on February 25, 2009. On March 4, 2009, Respondent reported the new employees to Frank Crum. Respondent paid premiums to Frank Crum for workers' compensation insurance covering the two workers for the dates of employment on February 25 and 26, 2009. The two unlisted workers were covered by workers' compensation insurance on February 25 and 26, 2009. The weekly Frank Crum lists in Petitioner's exhibits are not clear and convincing evidence of the effective date of workers' compensation insurance coverage. The testimony of Respondent's witness at the hearing was clear and convincing that the two workers were covered by workers' compensation insurance in accordance with the customary business practice of Respondent and Frank Crum for the last 16 years. The terms of the workers' compensation insurance policies would have assisted the fact-finder in resolving any evidential conflicts concerning the effective date of workers' compensation insurance coverage. However, Petitioner did not submit copies of the insurance policies and did not submit the testimony of a representative of the workers' compensation insurance company. In support of Petitioner's assertion that Mr. Hurtado and Mr. Bueno were not covered by workers' compensation insurance, Petitioner cites, in paragraph number 13 of its PRO, the testimony of the general counsel of Frank Crum. Petitioner points to the deposition testimony of the general counsel which, in relevant part, states that she did not know whether the insurance company covered the two unlisted workers. The general counsel explained that such a determination would be up to the insurance company and not the general counsel for Frank Crum. The general counsel is correct. Petitioner submitted no evidence to show that the general counsel of Frank Crum is competent to testify for the insurance company. The evidence is clear that Respondent paid insurance premiums in arrears. The evidence is less than clear that insurance coverage was not in effect before the payment of the premium.3 The pretermitted insurance policy or competent testimony from an insurance representative may have clarified the issue. However, the only testimony concerning the effective date of workers' compensation coverage for the two unlisted workers comes from Respondent's live witness. The fact-finder finds her testimony to be credible and persuasive.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner issue a final order dismissing the Stop-Work Order and Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of August, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of August, 2009.
The Issue Whether Respondent owes $1,568,399.00 or $2,323,765.60 as a penalty for failing to secure workers' compensation insurance for its employees, as required by Florida law.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made to supplement and clarify the sweeping factual stipulations set forth in the parties' June 1, 2005, Joint Stipulation3: Legislative History of the "Penalty Calculation" Provisions of Section 440.107(7), Florida Statutes Since October 1, 2003, the effective date of Chapter 2003-412, Laws of Florida, Section 440.107(7)(d)1., Florida Statutes, has provided as follows: In addition to any penalty, stop-work order, or injunction, the department shall assess against any employer who has failed to secure the payment of compensation as required by this chapter a penalty equal to 1.5 times the amount the employer would have paid in premium when applying approved manual rates to the employer's payroll during periods for which it failed to secure the payment of workers' compensation required by this chapter within the preceding 3-year period or $1,000, whichever is greater. Prior to its being amended by Chapter 2003-412, Laws of Florida, Section 440.107(7), Florida Statutes, read, in pertinent part, as follows: In addition to any penalty, stop-work order, or injunction, the department shall assess against any employer, who has failed to secure the payment of compensation as required by this chapter, a penalty in the following amount: An amount equal to at least the amount that the employer would have paid or up to twice the amount the employer would have paid during periods it illegally failed to secure payment of compensation in the preceding 3-year period based on the employer's payroll during the preceding 3- year period; or One thousand dollars, whichever is greater. The Senate Staff Analysis and Economic Analysis for the senate bill that ultimately became Chapter 2003-412, Laws of Florida, contained the following explanation of the "change" the bill would make to the foregoing "penalty calculation" provisions of Section 440.107(7), Florida Statutes4: The department is required to assess an employer that fails to secure the payment of compensation an amount equal to 1.5 times, rather than 2 times, the amount the employer would have paid in the preceding three years or $1,000, which is greater. There was no mention in the staff analysis of any other "change" to these provisions. The NCCI Basic Manual The National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc. (NCCI) is a licensed rating organization that makes rate filings in Florida on behalf of workers' compensation insurers (who are bound by these filings if the filings are approved by Florida's Office of Insurance Regulation, unless a "deviation" is permitted pursuant to Section 627.11, Florida Statutes). The NCCI publishes and submits to the Office of Insurance Regulation for approval a Basic Manual that contains standard workers' compensation premium rates for specified payroll code classifications, as well as a methodology for calculating the amount of workers' compensation insurance premiums employers may be charged. This methodology is referred to in the Basic Manual as the "Florida Workers Compensation Premium Algorithm" (Algorithm). According to the Algorithm, the first step in the premium calculating process is to determine the employer's "manual premium," which is accomplished by applying the rates set forth in the manual (or manual rates) to the employer's payroll as follows (for each payroll code classification): "(PAYROLL/100) x RATE)." Adjustments to the "manual premium" are then made, as appropriate, before a final premium is calculated. Among the factors taken into consideration in determining the extent of any such adjustments to the "manual premium" in a particular case are the employer's loss experience, deductible amounts, premium size (with employers who pay "larger premium[s]" entitled to a "Premium Discount"), and, in the case of a "policy that contains one or more contracting classifications," the wages the employer pays its employees in these classifications (with employers "paying their employees a better wage" entitled to a "Contracting Classification Premium Adjustment Program" credit). Petitioner's Construction of the "Penalty Calculation" Provisions of Section 440.107(7), Florida Statutes In discharging its responsibility under Section 440.107(7), Florida Statutes, to assess a penalty "against any employer who has failed to secure the payment of compensation as required," Petitioner has consistently construed the language in the statute, "the amount the employer would have paid," as meaning the aggregate of the "manual premiums" for each applicable payroll code classification, calculated as described in the NCCI Basic Manual. It has done so under both the pre- and post-Chapter 2003-412, Laws of Florida, versions of Section 440.107(7). This construction is incorporated in Petitioner's "Penalty Calculation Worksheet," which Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.027 provides Petitioner "shall use" when "calculating penalties to be assessed against employers pursuant to Section 440.107, F.S." (Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.027 first took effect on December 29, 2004.) Penalty Calculation in the Instant Case In the instant case, "1.5 times the amount the [Respondent] would have paid in premium when applying approved manual rates to [Respondent's] payroll during periods for which it failed to secure the payment of workers' compensation" equals $2,323,765.60.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner order Respondent to pay a $2,323,765.60 penalty for failing to secure workers' compensation insurance for its employees. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of August, 2005.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent had workers' compensation insurance coverage for the relevant time period as required by Sections 440.10(1)(a) and 440.38(1), Florida Statutes, and if not, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency responsible for enforcing the requirement that employers secure the payment of workers' compensation insurance for their employees. Respondent is a Florida corporation, incorporated on October 3, 2001. Paul Gilbert is Respondent's only officer and the corporation's managing member. Zurich-American Insurance Group (Zurich) issued a workers' compensation and employer's liability insurance policy (Policy No. WC 3617144) to Mitchell Construction Company (Mitchell) in October 1999. Zurich also provided Mitchell with general liability and business automobile insurance. At that time, Paul Gilbert was the risk manager for Mitchell, which was a large commercial contractor doing business in several states. Mitchell's offices were located in Vidalia, Georgia. In October 2000, Zurich renewed Mitchell's workers' compensation policy (Policy No. WC 3617144-01) for the period October 1, 2000 through October 1, 2001. The original and renewed policies listed other combinable entities as named insureds. Mitchell owned at least 51 percent of its combinable companies, one of which was Wood-Hopkins Contracting Company of Georgia, LLC. The company was also registered in Florida as Wood-Hopkins Contracting Company, LLC. The company was located in Jacksonville, Florida, with a mailing address in Vidalia, Georgia. The type of workers' compensation insurance that Zurich provided to Mitchell was known as a rolling contractor- controlled insurance policy (CCIP). It had endorsements for large deductible reimbursements for paid losses and a set monthly premium based in part on the projected payroll and experience rating modifiers for Mitchell and its combinable entities. The CCIP also covered subcontractors that had a contract with Mitchell for such coverage. The CCIP was renewable on an annual basis. Zurich did not need to re-underwrite the policy each year because the policy was created using three-year parameters. Additionally, Zurich had the option of auditing Mitchell's operations to determine whether there was a substantial change in the business. Palmer and Cay of Georgia (Palmer and Cay) was the producer and the broker of record for Mitchell's original and renewed CCIP. Stephen McMillan, an associate with Palmer and Cay at its offices in Savannah, Georgia, was the insurance agent that helped Mr. Gilbert negotiate and service Mitchell's CCIP with Zurich. In the Fall of 2001, Mr. Gilbert and Mr. McMillan contacted Zurich about renewing Mitchell's CCIP for the period October 1, 2001 through October 1, 2002. In a meeting with Zurich's representatives at its offices in Atlanta, Georgia, Mr. Gilbert advised Zurich that a company bearing the Wood-Hopkins name was going to complete Mitchell's then on-going projects. Zurich's employees believed Mr. Gilbert was referring to Wood- Hopkins Contracting Company, LLC. During the trip to Atlanta, Mr. Gilbert told Mr. McMillan that he was attempting to form a new company. However, Mr. Gilbert did not make it clear in the meeting with the Zurich representatives that he intended to incorporate Respondent, an independent company with a similar name to Wood- Hopkins Contracting Company, LLC, but unrelated to Mitchell. After the meeting in the Fall of 2001, Zurich was unaware that Mitchell and its combinable entities were or soon would be out of business as a general contracting group. Zurich's employees mistakenly believed that Mr. Gilbert continued to work for Mitchell. Mr. Gilbert resigned his position with Mitchell on September 1, 2001. After he incorporated Respondent, it purchased the assets of Mitchell and Wood-Hopkins Contracting Company, LLC, and hired about 100 of Mitchell's employees. Respondent planned to complete Mitchell's on-going projects and then operate primarily as a marine and civil contractor. Respondent was a new company, smaller than Mitchell, with a different risk exposure. Mr. Gilbert provided Zurich's underwriters with the payroll projections and other information necessary to renew Mitchell's CCIP. The data related to Mitchell's on-going projects and loss history as well as Respondent's planned projects. Zurich subsequently issued Policy No. WC 3617144-02 for the period October 1, 2001 through October 1, 2002. The policy designated Mitchell as the primary named insured and Wood-Hopkins Contracting Company, LLC, as one of the combinable entities and an additional named insured. The policy listed Palmer and Cay as the broker of record. The policy did not list Respondent as a named insured. Mr. Gilbert did not receive a copy of the policy until March 2002. However, Mr. Gilbert learned that Zurich had not added Respondent as a named insured to Mitchell's CCIP at least by February 2002. After learning that Zurich had not named Respondent as an insured, Mr. Gilbert continued to operate Respondent as if it had workers' compensation insurance. He was convinced that Respondent's assumption of Mitchell's business presented no additional risk exposure to Zurich. In fact, Mr. Gilbert had a history of spending sufficient funds on safety to reduce a company's loss ratio by half. Additionally, Respondent had suffered no workers' compensation losses. For these reasons, Mr. Gilbert hoped to persuade Zurich to add Respondent retrospectively as a named insured on Mitchell's CCIP policy. Towards the end of 2001 or the beginning of 2002, Zurich learned that Mitchell was going out of business or was no longer in business. Michael Esposito, Mitchell's account manager at Zurich, began to realize that something was wrong when Zurich received a premium payment for Mitchell's CCIP drawn on Respondent's bank account. At that time, Mitchell was behind in making deductible and premium payments to Zurich. Mitchell also was behind in paying Palmer and Cay its fees. On or about January 2, 2002, Mr. Gilbert signed one of Respondent's checks made payable to Palmer and Cay in the amount of $28,740.23. The check included a premium payment in the amount of $3,818.00 for October 2001 workers' compensation insurance. Mr. Gilbert wrote the check pursuant to a Palmer and Cay invoice addressed to The Mitchell Group. The record indicates that Respondent sent its check to Palmer and Cay's lockbox in Atlanta, Georgia, and that it was cashed. By letter dated February 7, 2002, Palmer and Cay advised Mitchell that it resigned as broker of record for The Mitchell Group. The most persuasive evidence indicates that Palmer and Cay resigned due to a dispute with Respondent over fees, not premium payments. By the end of February 2002, Mr. Esposito became aware that Mr. Gilbert wanted Zurich to continue Mitchell's CCIP with Respondent, a totally new company, listed as a named insured. Mr. Esposito then told Mr. Gilbert that Respondent would have to pay Mitchell's past-due premiums and provide Zurich with the necessary information to re-underwrite the policy, reflecting the change in ownership and operations. There is no persuasive evidence that Palmer and Cay or Mr. Gilbert ever provided Zurich with this information. Despite its resignation as broker of record for Mitchell's CCIP, Palmer and Cay agreed to continue servicing the policies until Zurich advised otherwise. For example, on or about February 22, 2002, Mr. Gilbert asked Palmer and Cay to add Respondent as a named insured, along with Wood-Hopkins Contracting Company, LLC, to Mitchell's railroad protection policies. Palmer and Cay referred this request to Zurich. Effective February 26, 2002, Zurich issued a Notice of Cancellation for Mitchell's Policy No. WC 3617144-02. The notice indicates that the policy was cancelled due to nonpayment of premium. About that time, Mr. Gilbert began trying to find a replacement for Palmer and Cay as broker of record. Willis of Florida, an affiliate of Willis of North America, Inc. (Willis), is an insurance broker with offices located in Tampa, Florida. Robert Allen is an insurance agent associated with Willis of Florida. Mr. Allen and Mr. Gilbert had a social and business relationship for many years prior to the time frame at issue here. Toward the end of February 2002, Mr. Allen and Mr. Gilbert had a telephone conference with Mr. Esposito. During that conversation, Mr. Allen indicated that his company was not interested in becoming the broker of record for Mitchell. However, Mr. Allen agreed that, in order to assist Zurich, Willis would issue Certificates of Liability Insurance for Respondent. At that time, Mr. Allen was under the impression that Respondent was a named insured under the Mitchell CCIP. As authorized by Zurich, Palmer and Cay issued three Certificates of Liability Insurance to the Florida Department of Transportation on March 4, 2002. The certificates indicate that Zurich provided commercial general liability and railroad protection insurance for CSX Transportation, Inc., Norfolk Southern Corporation, and Florida East Coast Railway as the named insureds. The certificates state that Wood-Hopkins Contracting Company, LLC, and Respondent were the contractors. Palmer and Cay issued these certificates for the Beaver Street viaduct bridge replacement in Jacksonville, Florida, a project begun by Wood-Hopkins Contracting Company, LLC, during the time that Palmer and Cay was acting as Mitchell's broker of record. On or about March 6, 2002, Mr. Gilbert signed one of Respondent's checks made payable directly to Zurich in the amount of $24,848.00. The check included premium payments in the amount of $3,818.00 for Policy No. WC 3617144-02 for the months of February and March 2002. The record indicates that this check was sent to Zurich's lockbox in Chicago, Illinois, and that it was cashed. On or about March 7, 2002, Zurich reinstated Policy No. WC 3617144-02 without lapse of coverage. The Notice of Reinstatement indicates that Mitchell was the named insured and that Palmer and Cay was the broker of record. On or about March 20, 2002, Zurich sent Mitchell a Notice of Cancellation. The notice states that Mitchell's Policy No. WC 3617144-02 would be cancelled effective June 8, 2002, due to a material change in exposures. Mr. Gilbert did not receive a copy of this cancellation notice. Mr. Gilbert and Mr. Allen did not learn about the cancellation until November 2002. On or about April 17, 2002, Mr. Gilbert signed one of Respondent's checks made payable directly to Zurich in the amount of $12,424.00. The check included a premium payment in the amount of $3,818.00 for Policy No. WC 3617144-02 for the month of April 2002. The record indicates that this check was sent to Zurich's Illinois lockbox and cashed. On April 25, 2002, Willis issued a Certificate of Liability Insurance to American Home Assurance with Respondent as the named insured. The certificate indicates that Zurich provided commercial general liability, automobile liability, and workers' compensation insurance for Respondent on the Beaver Street viaduct bridge replacement project with American Home Assurance and the Florida Department of Transportation as additional named insureds with respect to the general liability coverage. Mr. Allen signed this certificate. On May 6, 2002, Willis issued a Certificate of Liability Insurance to the University of Georgia Athletic Association with Respondent as the named insured. The certificate indicates that Zurich provided commercial general liability, automobile liability, and workers' compensation insurance for Respondent on an academic achievement center project. Mr. Allen signed this certificate. On or about June 13, 2002, Mr. Gilbert signed one of Respondent's checks made payable directly to Zurich in the amount of $12,424.00. The check included a premium payment in the amount of $3,818.00 for Policy No. WC 3617144-02 for the month of May 2002. The record indicates that this check was sent to Zurich's Illinois lockbox and cashed. On July 18, 2002, Willis issued a Certificate of Liability Insurance to Crowley Maritime Corporation with Respondent as the named insured. The certificate indicates that Zurich provided general liability, automobile liability, and workers' compensation insurance to Respondent for a barge loading ramp concrete removal and replacement in Jacksonville, Florida, and that Crowley Maritime Corporation was an additional named insured with respect to general liability coverage. Mr. Allen did not know the policy was cancelled when he signed this certificate. On August 12, 2002, Willis issued a Certificate of Liability Insurance to Martin K. Eby Construction Company with Respondent as the named insured. The certificate indicates that Zurich provided general liability, automobile liability, and workers' compensation insurance for Respondent on the Wonderwood Expressway channel excavation with the Jacksonville Transit Authority and J. E. Sverdrup (Engineer) as additional named insureds as to general liability coverage. Mr. Allen did not know the policy was cancelled when he signed this certificate. On or about August 15, 2002, Mr. Gilbert signed one of Respondent's checks made payable directly to Zurich in the amount of $12,424.00. The check included a premium payment in the amount of $3,818.00 for Policy No. WC 3617144-02 for the month of June 2002. The record indicates that this check was sent to Zurich's Illinois lockbox and cashed. On or about October 1, 2002, Mr. Gilbert signed one of Respondent's checks made payable directly to Zurich in the amount of $12,424.00. The check included a premium payment in the amount of $3,818.00 for Policy No. WC 3617144-02 for the month of September 2002. The record indicates that this check was sent to Zurich's lockbox in Illinois and cashed. In November 2002, Petitioner issued a Stop Work and Penalty Assessment Order for failing to secure workers' compensation insurance. In November and December 2002, Mr. Gilbert and Mr. Allen attempted to persuade Seth Hausman, Zurich's regional manager, to provide retroactive coverage for Respondent under the Mitchell workers' compensation policy, to reinstate the coverage, and to let the policy continue until it lapsed at expiration. Mr. Hausman concluded that Zurich could not assume the exposure without an underwriting evaluation. Mr. Hausman told Mr. Gilbert what information he had to provide in order for Zurich to conduct such an evaluation. In January 2003, Mr. Hausman advised Mr. Gilbert that Zurich had been unable to collect on a surety bond and that Mitchell owed Zurich approximately $750,000.00 in uncollected deductible payments. Mr. Hausman stated that in order to amend the workers' compensation policy to include Respondent as a named insured and to rescind the cancellation retroactively to allow the policy to run full term, Zurich would have to be paid for all outstanding balances. In that event, Zurich was willing to talk about extending workers' compensation coverage to Respondent as requested. When Petitioner issued the Stop Work and Penalty Assessment Order in November 2002, Respondent had about 20 employees. For the period October 1, 2001 through December 31, 2001, Respondent had the following amounts of payroll by class code: Class Code Payroll 5213 $126,739.96 5606 $170,615.31 5610 $5,391.51 6003 $5,777.00 6217 $62,691.54 7335 $73,434.08 8227 $135,572.71 8810 $27,503.88 41. For the period October 1, 2001 through December 31, 2001, the workers' compensation premium rates per $100.00 of payroll for each relevant Class Code class code were as follows: Premium Rates 5213 $33.02 5606 $4.76 5610 $18.08 6003 $62.53 6217 $14.27 7335 $25.97 8227 $9.80 8810 $0.59 For the period October 1, 2001 through December 31, 2001, the premium Respondent would have paid for workers' compensation coverage Class Code by class codes was as follows: Premium 5213 $41,849.53 5606 $8,121.29 5610 $974.79 6003 $3,612.36 6217 $8,946.08 7335 $19,070.83 8227 $13,286.13 8810 $162.27 For the period January 1, 2002 through November 5, 2002, Respondent had the following amounts of payroll by class code: Class Code Payroll 5213 $360,825.22 5403 $7,969.23 5606 $355,253.16 5610 $93,981.09 6003 $17,977.19 6217 $237,889.32 7335 $212,654.00 8227 $261,091.70 8810 $162,068.41 For the period January 1, 2002 through November 5, 2002, the workers' compensation premium rates per $100.00 of payroll for each relevant Class Code class code were as follows: Premium Rates 5213 $32.31 5403 $30.39 5606 $4.91 5610 $17.91 6003 $57.57 6217 $13.52 7335 $29.60 8227 $10.80 8810 $0.65 For the period January 1, 2002 through November 5, 2002, the premium Respondent would have paid for workers' compensation coverage by class codes was as follows: Class Code Premium 5213 $116,582.63 5403 $2,421.85 5606 $17,442.93 5610 $16,832.01 6003 $10,349.46 6217 $32,162.64 7335 $62,945.58 8227 $28,197.90 8810 $1,053.44 Respondent was out of compliance with the workers' compensation law for 398 calendar days between October 1, 2001 and November 5, 2002. Petitioner properly assessed penalty of $100.00 per day, totaling $39,800.00. Respondent would have paid a premium of $384,011.72 to secure workers' compensation insurance for its employees and owes a $39,800.00 penalty for the days it operated without coverage during the period October 1, 2001 through November 5, 2002. Accordingly, Respondent owes a total penalty in the amount of $423,811.72.
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 $423,811.72. 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.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Customs Logistics Services, Inc., failed to secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage for its employees in violation of chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is the state agency charged with enforcing the requirement in chapter 440 that employers in Florida secure workers' compensation coverage for their employees. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was a corporation registered to do business in Florida. Respondent is a family-owned-and-operated customs brokerage service with its principal office located at 6940 Northwest 12th Street, Miami, Florida 33126. At the time of the inspection giving rise to this proceeding, Respondent employed seven or eight employees.2/ The Compliance Inspection On September 29, 2014, Petitioner's compliance inspector, Hector Fluriach, conducted an onsite inspection at Respondent's principal office to determine whether Respondent was in compliance with the workers' compensation coverage requirements established in chapter 440. At that time, Respondent's co-owners, Astrid Escalona and Carlos Henoa, told Fluriach that Respondent employed six employees and two corporate officers, and also paid two family members who did not work at the principal office. Upon inquiry, Escalona and Henoa informed Fluriach that Respondent did not have workers' compensation insurance coverage for its employees. Using Petitioner's Coverage and Compliance Automated System ("CCAS") and the National Council for Compensation Insurance ("NCCI") insurance coverage verification system, Fluriach confirmed that Respondent had not obtained workers' compensation insurance coverage for its employees, and that it was not in compliance with chapter 440 during certain periods within the two years preceding the inspection. Under the NCCI basic occupational classification system and Scopes Manual, six of Respondent's employees are classified as clerical (Code 8810), and one is classified as a driver (Code 7380). None of Respondent's employees is classified as employed within the construction industry. As a private entity employing four or more employees in a non-construction industry occupation, Respondent was required under chapter 440 to provide workers' compensation coverage for its employees. Respondent's corporate officers were eligible under section 440.05 to elect to be exempt from the workers' compensation coverage requirements of chapter 440; however, none had elected to be exempt. Fluriach issued Stop-Work Order No. 14-329-D5 ("Stop- Work Order"), personally served it on Respondent, and explained it to Escalona. The Stop-Work Order included an Order of Penalty Assessment, ordering assessment of a penalty against Respondent in an amount equal to two times the amount Respondent would have paid in workers' compensation coverage premiums when applying the approved manual rates to Respondent's payroll during the periods for which it had failed to secure workers' compensation coverage during the preceding two years (for convenience, hereafter referred to as the "look-back period"). Fluriach also served a business records request, requesting Respondent to provide specified business records3/ for Petitioner's use in determining the penalty. In a series of submittals, Respondent provided the requested business records to Petitioner. The evidence showed that during the two-year look- back period, Respondent did not have workers' compensation coverage for its employees during a substantial portion of the period in which it employed four or more employees, and none of its corporate officers were exempt from the workers' compensation coverage requirement. As such, Respondent violated chapter 440 and, therefore, is subject to penalty under that statute. Petitioner's Computation of Penalty Amount To calculate the applicable penalty, Petitioner must determine, from a review of the employer's business records, the employer's gross payroll for the two-year look-back period. For days during the look-back period for which records are not provided, Petitioner imputes the gross payroll based on the average weekly wage for the state of Florida. Here, the look-back period for purposes of calculating the applicable penalty commenced on September 30, 2012, and ended on September 29, 2014, the day on which the compliance inspection was conducted. Respondent's business records revealed that Respondent had fewer than four employees between January 1 and March 31, 2013, so Respondent was not required to have workers' compensation coverage for that period. Thus, Petitioner did not assess a penalty against Respondent for that period. For the rest of the look-back period, Respondent employed four or more employees, so was required to obtain workers' compensation coverage for those employees for that portion of the period. Respondent provided business records sufficient for Petitioner to determine Respondent's gross payroll for all but September 30, 2012. For that day, Petitioner imputed Respondent's gross payroll using Florida's statewide average weekly wage. On the basis of Respondent's business records submittals, Petitioner's auditor, Eric Ruzzo, recalculated the penalty to be assessed against Respondent. Petitioner issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on October 17, 2014, imposing a total penalty of $5,617.04. On November 7, 2014, following receipt of additional records, Petitioner issued a Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, reducing the penalty to $3,982.52. Finally, after receiving more records, Petitioner issued a Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on January 12, 2015, further reducing the penalty to $3,205.70. Each of these penalty assessments was served on Respondent. Petitioner seeks to impose a $3,205.70 penalty against Respondent in this proceeding. In calculating the penalty, Ruzzo examined three-month (i.e., quarterly) periods within the two-year look-back period. Ruzzo identified the occupational class code applicable to each of Respondent's employees. As stated above, all but one of Respondent's employees were classified as clerical, and one of Respondent's employees was classified as a driver. For each employee, Ruzzo determined the gross payroll paid to that employee for the specific quarter in which Respondent was non-compliant during the look-back period, divided the employee's gross payroll by 100 pursuant to Petitioner's calculation methodology, then multiplied that amount by the numeric rate set by NCCI for that employee's specific occupational class code. This calculation yielded the workers' compensation coverage premium for that specific employee for the specific quarter for which Respondent was non- compliant during the look-back period. The premium amount then was multiplied by two, as required by statute, to yield the penalty to be imposed for failure to provide workers' compensation coverage for that specific employee. As previously noted, Respondent did not provide gross payroll records covering September 30, 2012; thus, for that day, Ruzzo imputed the gross payroll for each of Respondent's employees using the statewide average weekly wage as defined in section 440.12(2)4/ multiplied by two. Ruzzo then performed the same computations to yield the penalty amount to be imposed for Respondent's failure to provide workers' compensation on September 30, 2012. Ruzzo then added each penalty amount determined for each employee using actual gross payroll and imputed payroll, to yield the total penalty amount of $5,286.70. Because Respondent had not previously been issued a stop-work order, pursuant to section 440.107(7)(d)1., Petitioner applied a credit toward the penalty in the amount of the initial premium Respondent paid for workers' compensation coverage. Here, the premium payment amount for which Respondent received credit was $2,081.00. This was subtracted from the calculated penalty of $5,286.70, yielding a total penalty of $3,205.70. Respondent's Defense At the final hearing, Escalona testified that she and the other co-owners of Respondent always have attempted to fully comply with every law applicable to Respondent's business, and have never had compliance problems. She testified that neither she nor the other co-owners of Respondent realized that Respondent was required to have workers' compensation coverage for its employees, and they did not intentionally violate the law. Petitioner apparently mailed a memorandum regarding verifying workers' compensation coverage requirements to businesses in the area before it conducted compliance inspections. The memorandum was dated October 8, 2014, and Escalona testified Respondent received it on October 13, 2014, approximately two weeks after the compliance inspection that Fluriach conducted. Escalona asserted that had Respondent received the memorandum before the compliance inspection was conducted, she would have called Petitioner to determine if Respondent needed to obtain workers' compensation coverage, would have asked how to obtain it, and would have obtained coverage for its employees and exemptions for its corporate officers. Escalona testified that the $3,205.70 penalty is a substantial amount that Respondent, a small family-owned business, cannot afford to pay. Findings of Ultimate Fact Petitioner has shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent violated chapter 440, as charged in the Stop-Work Order, by failing to secure workers' compensation coverage for its employees. Petitioner has shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that the $3,205.70 penalty proposed to be assessed against Respondent pursuant to the Third Amended Penalty Assessment is the correct amount of the penalty to be assessed in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, enter a final order determining that Respondent, Customs Logistics Services, Inc., violated the requirement in chapter 440 to secure workers' compensation coverage and imposing a total penalty of $3,205.70. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of August, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida S CATHY M. SELLERS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of August, 2015.
The Issue The issues to be determined in this case are whether Respondent Lockhart Builders, Inc., violated state laws applicable to workers’ compensation insurance coverage by failing to secure coverage for three employees and failing to produce records requested by Petitioner Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (Department) and, if so, what penalty should be assessed for the violations.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for the enforcement of the workers’ compensation insurance coverage requirements established in Chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2007).1 Respondent is a Florida corporation with its office in Bradenton. William Lockhart is Respondent’s president. Respondent is licensed to engage in construction activity in Florida. Respondent was engaged to construct a two-story duplex at 2315 Gulf Drive in Bradenton. Respondent began work at the job site on or about February 21, 2007. On August 22, 2007, Lockhart received a proposal from Burak Yavalar, owner of BY Construction, to do the exterior stucco work on the duplex building for a flat fee of $10,750. The proposal was accepted by Respondent on August 23, 2007. Yavalar presented Lockhart with a certificate of liability insurance which indicated that he had obtained workers’ compensation coverage for his employees. The certificate was issued by Employee Leasing Solutions, Inc. (ELS), a professional leasing company in Bradenton. ELS provides mainly payroll services and workers’ compensation insurance coverage for its clients. Lockhart did not ask for, and Yavalar did not provide Lockhart with, a list of the names of the BY Construction employees who were covered by the insurance. Lockhart made a call to ELS to verify that BY Construction had workers’ compensation insurance coverage, but he did not ask for a list of BY Construction employees covered by its insurance policy. BY Construction began work at Respondent’s job site on or about September 10 or 11, 2007. On September 12, 2007, BY Construction had eight employees at the job site. One employee, Justin Ormes, had previously worked for BY Construction, had quit for a while, and had just returned. Two other employees, Carlos Lopez and Jaime Alcatar, had been working on a nearby job site and were asked by Yavalar to come to work at Respondent’s job site. Yavalar claims that on the morning of September 12, 2007, Ormes, Lopez, and Alcatar had not yet been employed or authorized to start work for BY Construction. On September 12, 2007, Petitioner’s investigators Germaine Green and Colleen Wharton performed a random compliance check at Respondent’s job site. Without being specific about what particular work was being performed at the site by Ormes, Lopez, and Alcatar, the investigators testified that when they arrived at the job site they observed all eight men performing stucco work. The investigators spoke to Yavalar, Lockhart and the workers at the job site to determine their identities and employment status. Yavalar told the investigators his eight employees had workers’ compensation insurance coverage through ELS. However, upon checking relevant records, the investigators determined that insurance coverage for Ormes, Lopez, and Alcatar had not been secured by either BY Construction or Respondent. Wharton issued a statewide stop-work order to BY Construction for its failure to obtain workers’ compensation coverage for the three employees. After the stop work order was issued, Yavalar left the job site with Lopez and Alcatar to complete their paperwork to obtain insurance coverage through ELS. Yavalar’s wife was able to re-activate Ormes’ insurance coverage with ELS over the telephone. By the end of the day on September 12, 2007, insurance coverage was secured by BY Construction for Ormes, Lopez, and Alcatar. The business records of BY Construction produced for the Department indicated that Ormes had been paid by BY Construction in the period from March to July 2007, and then on September 12, 2007; Lopez had been paid on August 24, 2007, and then on September 12, 2007; Alcatar had been paid on September 12, 2007. All three men were paid only $28 on September 12, 2007. This evidence supports the testimony of Yavalar that these three had arrived at Respondent’s job site for the first time on September 12, 2008. BY Construction was later served with an amended order of penalty for its failure to obtain workers’ compensation coverage for the three employees. It arranged with the Department to pay the penalty through installments and was conditionally released from the stop-work order. When the Department's investigators were at the job site on September 12, 2007, they informed Lockhart about the stop-work order being issued to BY Construction and gave Lockhart a Request for Production of Business Records for the purpose of determining whether Respondent had obtained proof of workers’ compensation insurance coverage from BY Construction before BY Construction commenced work at Respondent’s job site. Respondent produced the requested records. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law, Florida law charges a contractor with the duty to secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage for any uninsured employees of its subcontractors. On this basis, the Department served Respondent with a Stop-Work Order and an Order of Penalty Assessment on September 21, 2007, for failing to secure coverage for Ormes, Lopez, and Alcatar. On September 21, 2007, the Department served a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation to Respondent. The Department’s request asked Respondent to produce records for the preceding three years, including payroll records, tax returns, and proof of insurance. Respondent produced some records in response to this second request, which the Department deemed insufficient to calculate a penalty. However, the evidence shows Respondent produced the only records that it possessed regarding its association with BY Construction. The Department’s proposed penalty does not include an assessment based solely on Respondent’s failure to produce requested records. When an employer fails to provide requested business records within 15 days of the request, the Department is authorized to assess a penalty by imputing the employer's payroll using "the statewide average weekly wage as defined in Section 440.12(2), multiplied by l.5." § 440.107(7)(e), Fla. Stat., and Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.028. Imputing the gross payroll for Ormes, Lopez and Alcatar for the years 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007, by using the average weekly wage for the type of work, the Department assessed Respondent with a penalty of $138,596.67 and issued an Order of Penalty Assessment to Respondent on October 31, 2007. Petitioner later amended the penalty to $70,272.51, based on the fact that BY Construction was not incorporated until January 1, 2006, and issued a Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on December 20, 2007.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department enter a final order that amends its penalty assessment to reflect one day of non-compliance by Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 2008.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Forgue General Contracting, Inc., violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by failing to secure the payment of workers’ compensation coverage; and, if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with enforcing workers’ compensation coverage requirements in Florida, including the requirement that employers secure the payment of workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. See § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Respondent operates a construction company in Florida, and Respondent has been in business since 2004. On October 31, 2018, Margaret Cavazos, a compliance investigator with the Department, conducted a random workers’ compensation check at a worksite located at 1172 East State Road 434 in Winter Springs, Florida. The worksite is a two-story commercial building with five individual storefronts. Investigator Cavazos arrived at the worksite at 8:30 a.m. There, she observed four individuals who she believed were preparing the exterior of the building for painting. One person was covering a window with tape and brown construction paper. Two more individuals were standing in the bucket of a boom lift approximately 15 feet above the ground next to the building. They appeared to be placing blue tape over a sign of one of the businesses in the building. A fourth person was positioned by a truck supervising the activity. Investigator Cavazos further noticed that several of the business names had already been covered with construction paper and tape. Investigator Cavazos approached the person standing by the truck and introduced herself. He identified himself as Jose Luis Chachel. Mr. Chachel informed Investigator Cavazos that he and the other three individuals at the worksite were working for a company called RC Painting Services, Inc. (“RC Painting”). Mr. Chachel further stated that they were preparing the building to be painted. The other three individuals at the worksite identified themselves to Investigator Cavazos as Juan Carlos Vasquez Garcia, Artemia Vasquez, and Jenny Araque. Investigator Cavazos watched the four individuals work at the jobsite for about an hour, then they departed. Investigator Cavazos, however, did not obtain any information from Mr. Chachel or the other individuals concerning how long they had worked for RC Painting, when they had arrived at the jobsite, their rate of pay, or whether RC Painting had actually paid them for their work. At the final hearing, Investigator Cavazos testified that her duties for the Department include inspecting businesses and worksites to determine whether a business has obtained the required workers’ compensation insurance coverage. Investigator Cavazos explained that a business that performs construction- related work must have workers’ compensation coverage. Therefore, Investigator Cavazos believed that, prior to beginning the painting activities, RC Painting should have secured sufficient workers’ compensation coverage for all four individuals identified at the worksite. After learning the name of the business that arranged for the presence of the four individuals at the jobsite, Investigator Cavazos consulted the Department’s Coverage and Compliance Automated System (“CCAS”) database for information on RC Painting. CCAS is a Department database that tracks workers’ compensation insurance coverage. CCAS contains coverage data from insurance carriers, as well as any workers’ compensation exemptions on file with the Department. Insurance providers are required to report coverage and cancellation information, which the Department uses to update CCAS. CCAS had no record that RC Painting carried any workers’ compensation coverage for the four individuals Investigator Cavazos observed at the worksite. While reviewing CCAS, Inspector Cavazos also noted that the Department did not have on file any request from RC Painting for an “exemption” from workers’ compensation coverage. An exemption is a method by which a business’s corporate officer may exempt him or herself from the requirements of chapter 440. See § 440.05, Fla. Stat. CCAS also revealed to Investigator Cavazos that on the date of her inspection, RC Painting had an active employee leasing agreement with SouthEast Personnel Leasing (“SouthEast Leasing”), an employee staffing company. At the final hearing, Inspector Cavazos explained that a business is not required to obtain workers’ compensation insurance for its employees if coverage is properly provided by or through an employee leasing company’s workers’ compensation policy. However, in order for an employee leasing company to become responsible for the workers’ compensation coverage of a particular employee, the business seeking coverage for that employee must ensure that the employee submits an application to the leasing company. Thereafter, if (and only if) the leasing company accepts the application, the leasing company becomes accountable for the workers’ compensation insurance coverage for that employee. Investigator Cavazos contacted SouthEast Leasing. SouthEast Leasing provided Investigator Cavazos an active roster of employees it leased to RC Painting. However, neither Mr. Chachel, Juan Carlos Vasquez Garcia, Artemia Vasquez, nor Jenny Araque were listed on this roster. Therefore, Investigator Cavazos concluded that none of the four individuals she identified at the worksite were covered by workers’ compensation insurance under RC Painting’s leasing arrangement with SouthEast Leasing on October 31, 2018. After determining that neither CCAS nor SouthEast Leasing recorded any workers’ compensation coverage for the persons at the worksite, Investigator Cavazos contacted RC Painting’s owner, Roberto Chavez. (Mr. Chachel provided Investigator Cavazos with his phone number during her inspection.) Investigator Cavazos testified that, during their phone call, Mr. Chavez confirmed that the four individuals worked for him. Mr. Chavez further informed Investigator Cavazos that RC Painting had been hired by Respondent to paint the building. At that point, Investigator Cavazos called Respondent to inquire about workers’ compensation coverage for Jose Luis Chachel, Juan Carlos Vasquez Garcia, Artemia Vasquez, and Jenny Araque. Investigator Cavazos spoke with one of Respondent’s employees, Anthony Gonzalez. Mr. Gonzalez confirmed that Respondent engaged RC Painting to paint the building. Continuing to search for active workers’ compensation coverage, Investigator Cavazos discovered that Respondent also had an employee leasing agreement with SouthEast Leasing. Investigator Cavazos reviewed SouthEast Leasing’s roster which recorded only two covered employees for Respondent, Anthony Gonzalez and Edward Forgue (Respondent’s president). As with RC Painting’s leasing agreement, Respondent’s leasing agreement with SouthEast Leasing did not cover Jose Luis Chachel, Juan Carlos Vasquez Garcia, Artemia Vasquez, or Jenny Araque on October 31, 2018. As detailed below, under section 440.10(1), a contractor is liable for, and is required to secure, workers’ compensation coverage for all employees of a subcontractor to whom the contractor sublets work. (Section 440.10(1)(c) also directs the contractor to require a subcontractor to provide evidence of workers’ compensation insurance.) Therefore, as a contractor hiring a subcontractor for construction work, Respondent was required to exercise due diligence to ensure that all RC Painting’s employees who were painting the building were covered by workers’ compensation insurance. On October 31, 2018, based on her findings, Investigator Cavazos issued a Stop-Work Order to RC painting. Later that day, Mr. Chavez ventured to the Department’s local office to determine how his business could be released from the Stop-Work Order. There, he met with district supervisor, Salma Qureshi. Ms. Qureshi informed Mr. Chavez that, in order for his company to return to work, he needed to pay a $1,000 fine and complete an Affirmation. She explained to Mr. Chavez that on the Affirmation, he was to describe how RC Painting intended to come into full compliance with workers’ compensation coverage requirements. Mr. Chavez had, in fact, brought with him a cashier’s check for $1,000. (The amount was included on the Stop-Work Order.) Mr. Chavez then completed an Affirmation before Ms. Qureshi. On the Affirmation, Mr. Chavez wrote the names of the four individuals Investigator Cavazos identified at the jobsite. Next to each name, Mr. Chavez wrote “$20.” Below the names, he wrote “I am terminating.” Mr. Chavez then signed and dated the Affirmation. At the final hearing, Ms. Qureshi expressed that Mr. Chavez told her that he was going to pay each of the four individuals $20 for the day’s work they performed on October 31, 2018, and then he was terminating them. In addition to issuing the Stop-Work Order to RC Painting, on October 31, 2018, Investigator Cavazos issued a Stop-Work Order for Specific Worksite Only to Respondent, which was served on November 2, 2018. Investigator Cavazos also served Respondent with a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation. Through this document, the Department requested several categories of business records from Respondent for the period of November 1, 2016, through October 31, 2018. The requested documents pertained to: employer identification, payroll documents, account documents, disbursements, workers’ compensation coverage, professional employer organization records, temporary labor service, exemptions, subcontractor records, and subcontractors’ workers’ compensation coverage. Based on Investigator Cavazos’s investigation, the Department determined that Respondent failed to secure adequate workers’ compensation coverage for its employees. Therefore, the Department proceeded to calculate a penalty based on Respondent’s lack of compliance with chapter 440. The Penalty Calculation: Nathaniel Hatten, the penalty auditor who determined the penalty the Department seeks to impose on Respondent, testified regarding his computation. Mr. Hatten explained that the penalty essentially consists of the “avoided” premium amount, or the actual premium the employer would have paid in workers’ compensation insurance for the uncovered employees, multiplied by two. To calculate the appropriate penalty for Respondent’s failure to secure workers’ compensation coverage, the Department first ascertained Respondent’s period of non-compliance. To determine this time frame, the Department referred to Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.028(2), which directs that: The employer’s time period or periods of non-compliance means the time period(s) within the two years preceding the date the stop-work order was issued to the employer within which the employer failed to secure the payment of compensation pursuant to chapter 440, F.S., and must be either the same time period as set forth in the business records request for the calculation of penalty or an alternative time period or period(s) as determined by the Department, whichever is less. The employer may provide the Department with records from other sources, including, but not limited to, the Department of State, Division of Corporations, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, licensing offices, and building permitting offices to show an alternative time period or period(s) of non- compliance. Based on these instructions, the Department deduced that Respondent’s period of non-compliance ran from November 1, 2016, through October 31, 2018, which was the two-year period preceding the date of the Stop-Work Order. (This two-year period was also the time for which the Department requested business records from Respondent.) After determining Respondent’s period of non- compliance, the Department then calculated the monetary penalty it should impose upon Respondent. In accordance with section 440.107(7)(d)1., the Department must assess against an employer: a penalty equal to 2 times the amount the employer would have paid in premium when applying approved manual rates to the employer’s payroll during periods for which it failed to secure the payment of workers’ compensation required by this chapter within the preceding 2-year period or $1,000, whichever is greater. Therefore, the Department reviewed the business records Respondent provided to ascertain the amount of Respondent’s payroll during the two-year period of non-compliance. In response to the Department’s request for documents, Respondent produced its client leasing agreement with SouthEast Leasing. This leasing agreement, however, only covered Mr. Forgue and Mr. Gonzalez. Further, the leasing agreement was only in effect from February 7, 2018, through October 30, 2018, for Mr. Forgue and February 21, 2018, through October 30, 2018 for Mr. Gonzalez. No evidence establishes that Respondent made any other payments for workers’ compensation insurance coverage outside of the SouthEast Leasing agreement. Consequently, the evidence in the record establishes that Respondent had no workers’ compensation coverage for any of its employees, officers, or subcontractor employees from November 1, 2016, through February 6, 2018. And, only Mr. Forgue and Mr. Gonzalez were covered from February 2018 through October 30, 2018. Further, Respondent did not provide any payroll information to the Department per its request for business records. Consequently, the documentation was not comprehensive enough for the Department to determine all the wages Respondent paid to its employees, or the work they performed for the period of November 1, 2016, through October 31, 2018. Therefore, the Department determined that Respondent did not provide business records sufficient for it to calculate Respondent’s complete payroll or the actual employee wages it paid over the two-year period of non-compliance. Accordingly, the Department exercised its option to “impute” Respondent’s weekly payroll from November 1, 2016, through October 31, 2018. To calculate Respondent’s imputed weekly payroll, section 440.107(7)(e) directs that the gross payroll for an employer who provides insufficient business records is imputed at the statewide average weekly wage, multiplied by 1.5, for each employee who worked during the period requested for the penalty calculation. Therefore, the Department obtained the statewide average weekly wage effective at the time of the Stop- Work Order ($917.00)2/ for each identified employee, corporate officer, and subcontractor, then multiplied that number by 1.5. See § 440.107(7)(e), Fla. Stat.; and Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L- 6.028(3)(a). The Department imputed the payroll for all four individuals Investigator Cavazos observed at the worksite on October 31, 2018 (Jose Luis Chachel, Juan Carlos Vasquez Garcia, Artemia Vasquez, and Jenny Araque), for all periods of non- compliance (November 1, 2016 through October 31, 2018). No evidence established that these individuals were covered under a workers’ compensation policy either through Respondent, RC Painting, or SouthEast Leasing. The Department also included Mr. Forgue for a period of non-compliance from January 22, 2018, through February 8, 2018. The Department imputed his payroll during this period of time explaining that Respondent did not have an active workers’ compensation exemption on file for Mr. Forgue. Neither was he covered by SouthEast Leasing’s policy during this brief timeframe. Therefore, Respondent was required to carry workers’ compensation for Mr. Forgue from January 22, 2018, through February 8, 2018. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.028(3)(b). To calculate a penalty based on the imputed payroll, the Department assigned Respondent’s employees the highest rated workers’ compensation classification code. The classification code is based on either the business records submitted or the investigator’s observation of the employees’ activities. In this case, the business records Respondent provided to the Department were not sufficient to categorize the exact type of work that the identified workers performed for Respondent over the two-year period of non-compliance. However, during her investigation of the jobsite on October 31, 2018, Investigator Cavazos observed the four employees engaging in activities associated with “painting.” According to the Scopes Manual issued by the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc. (“NCCI”), class code 5475 is applied to “painting contractors engaged in painting.”3/ Consequently, the Department used class code 5474 for all Respondent’s employees and corporate officer for the penalty period. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.028(3)(b) and 69L- 6.021(2)(jj)(painting is classified as “construction activity”). Therefore, to calculate the premium amount for the workers’ compensation insurance Respondent should have paid for its “employees” (Jose Luis Chachel, Juan Carlos Vasquez Garcia, Artemia Vasquez, and Jenny Araque) and officer (Mr. Forgue), the Department applied the manual rates corresponding to class code 5474. Thereafter, based on: 1) the total periods of non- compliance, 2) Respondent’s calculated payroll for the periods of non-compliance, and 3) the estimated premium for workers’ compensation insurance, the Department issued the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment (“Penalty Assessment”) on November 30, 2018, which was served on Respondent on February 28, 2019. The Penalty Assessment seeks to impose a penalty of $129,089.60 against Respondent. At the final hearing, Respondent argued that the individuals Investigator Cavazos identified at the worksite on October 31, 2018, were never hired by Respondent’s subcontractor, RC Painting. Therefore, they are not “employees” under chapter 440, and Respondent is not an “employer” for purposes of securing workers’ compensation coverage. Consequently, Respondent argues that the penalty the Department seeks to assess against Respondent is not warranted. Mr. Chavez testified at the final hearing for Respondent describing his employment relationship with Jose Luis Chachel, Juan Carlos Vasquez Garcia, Artemia Vasquez, and Jenny Araque. Initially, Mr. Chavez confirmed that Respondent hired RC Painting to paint the exterior of the shopping plaza. Regarding the four individuals Investigator Cavazos identified at the jobsite, however, Mr. Chavez denied that they were “employees” of RC Painting on October 31, 2018. Mr. Chavez explained that he used SouthEast Leasing to “hire” his employees. Mr. Chavez asserted that before he puts someone to work, he requires them to complete an employment application with SouthEast Leasing. Only after SouthEast Leasing approved the employee would he allow the individual to work on a job. In this matter, Mr. Chavez denied that he had ever worked with Mr. Chachel before, or ever met the other three individuals that Mr. Chachel brought with him to the jobsite. Mr. Chavez maintained that he called Mr. Chachel on the evening of October 30, 2018, about the prospective painting job. He then asked Mr. Chachel to bring two other workers and meet him at the jobsite the following morning. Mr. Chavez testified that he instructed Mr. Chachel that he would need to send information to SouthEast Leasing before anyone actually started working on the project. Mr. Chavez further contended that he did not have any discussion with Mr. Chachel about wages or the rate of pay for the job. He declared that he never commits to paying any prospective employee before ascertaining what type of skills they possess. Mr. Chavez explained that, “anyone can tell you, ‘I’ve been painting all of my life,’ and they show up and don’t know how to paint, or they don’t know how to do anything.” In response to Inspector Cavazos’s testimony, Mr. Chavez exclaimed that he never told her that the four individuals were his “employees.” He merely relayed that they were “with” him. Mr. Chavez also insisted that he never authorized Mr. Chachel or his crew to start preparing the building for painting prior to meeting with him. Mr. Chavez further relayed that Respondent provided the boom lift for the job. But, he never instructed Mr. Chachel to begin using it. Mr. Chavez arrived at the shopping plaza around 9:30 a.m. However, by that time Investigator Cavazos had issued the Stop- Work Order, and only Mr. Chachel remained at the scene. Regarding the Affirmation he completed at the Department’s district office, Mr. Chavez testified that, other than Mr. Chachel, he did not know the names of individuals who Investigator Cavazos identified at the jobsite. He asserted that he wrote their names on the Affirmation only after Ms. Qureshi spelled them out for him on a sticky note. Mr. Chavez further professed that he only penned “$20” by each name because Ms. Qureshi told him that the Department would not release him from the Stop-Work Order until he added the wages he paid to each individual. Mr. Chavez claimed that Ms. Qureshi specifically instructed him to insert a number by each employee. Mr. Chavez declared that he felt like he had no choice but to include “$20” on the Affirmation if he wanted to return to work. In actuality, however, Mr. Chavez insisted that he did not pay Jose Luis Chachel, Juan Carlos Vasquez Garcia, Artemia Vasquez, or Jenny Araque anything for their activities on October 31, 2018. Ms. Qureshi testified for the Department on rebuttal. She credibly voiced that she did not write out the names of the four “employees” for Mr. Chavez to list on his Affirmation. Neither did she suggest a wage amount for their work, or force Mr. Chavez to write that he “terminated” them. On the contrary, Ms. Qureshi attested, clearly and without hesitation, that Mr. Chavez independently completed his sworn Affirmation, and he did not ask for her assistance with the specific information he wrote down. Ms. Qureshi persuasively stated that Mr. Chavez knew the names of Jose Luis Chachel, Juan Carlos Vasquez Garcia, Artemia Vasquez, and Jenny Araque when he composed the Affirmation. Further, Mr. Chavez expressly told her that he was going to pay the four individuals $20 for the day, and that he was terminating them. The competent substantial evidence in the record establishes that Jose Luis Chachel, Juan Carlos Vasquez Garcia, Artemia Vasquez, and Jenny Araque were “employees” of RC Painting under section 440.02(15) on October 31, 2018. Based on this finding, the Department demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent failed to secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage or a workers’ compensation exemption for four employees for the period of November 1, 2016, through October 31, 2018, as well as its corporate officer from January 22, 2018, through February 8, 2018. Accordingly, the Department met its burden of proving that Respondent violated chapter 440 and should be penalized.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, enter a final order determining that Respondent, Forgue General Contracting, Inc., violated the requirement in chapter 440 to secure workers’ compensation coverage, and imposing a total penalty of $129,089.60. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of October, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of October, 2019.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Raul A. Correa, M.D. (Dr. Correa), failed to provide workers' compensation coverage, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing section 440.107, Florida Statutes (2013). That section mandates, in relevant part, that employers in Florida secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage for their employees. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. At all times relevant, Dr. Correa was a Florida small business engaged in the practice of medicine, with his principal office located at 2505 Manatee Avenue West, Bradenton, Florida. Dr. Correa is not incorporated. On February 12, 2014, Ms. Green conducted an on-site workers’ compensation compliance investigation (compliance investigation) of Dr. Correa’s office. After identifying herself to the receptionist, Ms. Green met Dr. Correa and explained the reason for her presence, a compliance investigation. Dr. Correa telephoned his wife who handles his office management from their residence. Mrs. Correa immediately faxed a copy of the liability insurance policy to the office. However, that liability policy did not include workers’ compensation coverage. After a telephonic consultation with her supervisor, Ms. Green served a Request for Production of Business Records (Request) on Dr. Correa at 11:50 a.m. on February 12, 2014. This Request encompassed records from October 1, 2013, through February 12, 2014, for all of Dr. Correa’s payroll documents, account documents, disbursements, and workers’ compensation coverage policies. Ms. Green consulted the Department’s Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) database to determine whether Dr. Correa had secured workers’ compensation coverage or an exemption from the requirements for coverage for his employees. CCAS is a database Ms. Green consults during the course of her investigations. Ms. Green determined from CCAS that Dr. Correa did not have any current workers’ compensation coverage for his employees and he did not have an exemption from such coverage from the Department. The records reflected that Dr. Correa’s last active workers’ compensation coverage was in 2004. Dr. Correa obtained workers’ compensation coverage on February 20, 2014. Approximately one month later, Ms. Green served a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation on Dr. Correa. Dr. Correa produced the requested records. These records were given to Lynne Murcia, one of the Department’s penalty auditors, to calculate the penalty. Ms. Murcia determined that the appropriate classification code for Dr. Correa’s employees was 8832, which incorporates physicians and clerical workers. This code was derived from the Scopes Manual, which lists all of the various jobs that may be performed in the context of workers’ compensation. The manual is produced by the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc., the nation’s most authoritative data collecting and disseminating organization for workers’ compensation. Dr. Correa listed seven employees on the Florida Department of Revenue Unemployment Compensation Tax (UCT-6) form for the time period of the non-compliance. The UCT-6 form lists those employees who are subject to Florida’s Unemployment Compensation Law. Ms. Murcia reasonably relied upon the UCT-6 filings for the relevant time period to calculate Dr. Correa’s gross payroll in Florida. Using Dr. Correa’s payroll chart, the UCT reports, and the classification codes for each employee, Ms. Murcia calculated the penalty assessment for the three-year penalty period preceding the investigation. This three-year period is the allocated time for reviewing coverage for those who do not have the appropriate workers’ compensation coverage. On April 9, 2014, Ms. Murcia determined the penalty to be $4,287.12. However, upon receipt of additional information regarding a former employee of Dr. Correa, an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment of $3,898.77 was issued on July 28, 2014. Dr. Correa’s position is that his practice is a small “mom and pop” operation. He employs members of his family to run the business side of his practice. His daughter, Antonia, works as Dr. Correa’s “doctor’s assistant.” She works at the various nursing homes that Dr. Correa services. Antonia believed that the nursing homes’ liability insurance would cover her, and she was not subject to workers’ compensation coverage. However, she was, in fact, paid by Dr. Correa. Dr. Correa’s daughter-in-law, Valeria, works from her home computer completing the medical billing for her father-in- law. She has been working in this capacity for approximately 14- 16 years, and it never occurred to her that she needed workers’ compensation coverage. She was paid by Dr. Correa. Dr. Correa’s brother-in-law, Mr. Collado, runs all the errands for the practice. He may go to the bank, take care of car maintenance, buy office supplies or fix things, all in support of Dr. Correa’s practice. Mr. Collado receives regular pay checks from Dr. Correa. Dr. Correa testified that his wife is his office manager and has been since he opened the practice in 1978. Mrs. Correa works from their home, in a small home office. She does all the paper work related to the practice. Dr. Correa firmly believed that he did not require workers’ compensation coverage because some of his employees were “independent contractors” or never worked in his office, but at other locations (individual homes, nursing homes, or just outside the office). Dr. Correa believed his insurance agent who did not think Dr. Correa needed the workers’ compensation coverage. Based upon the testimony and exhibits, the amended penalty assessment in the amount of $3,898.77 is accurate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, issue a final order upholding the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and assessing a penalty in the amount of $3,898.77. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of September, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of September, 2014.
The Issue The issues in this matter are whether Countrywide Siding and Windows, Inc., failed to secure workers compensation that meets the requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and, if so was correctly assessed a penalty for violating, the workers’ compensation laws of Florida.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure workers’ compensation for the benefit of their employees. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. (2009). Respondent is a corporation domiciled in Florida and engaged in the construction industry. On February 13, 2009, Petitioner’s investigator, Carl Woodall, stopped to spot check a house in the Cabrille Lane area of Panama City, Florida, where he saw workers installing siding. Petitioner’s investigator is the only employee for Petitioner who investigated and developed the substantive evidence in this case. Other employees, who have no direct knowledge of the underlying facts, calculated the amounts of the proposed penalties. Mr. Woodall inquired of the workers and ascertained that they worked for Respondent. The investigator then contacted the Respondent to determine whether Respondent had secured or obtained workers’ compensation insurance under Florida’s workers’ compensation law. Respondent’s representative indicated that it maintained workers’ compensation insurance through Employee Leasing Service (ELS), an employee-leasing company. There is no dispute that in February 2009, Respondent leased its workers from ELS and that under the lease agreement, ELS provided workers’ compensation coverage to Respondent and its leased workers. Other evidence suggested that in past years, Respondent had leased its workers from other employee-leasing companies. The evidence was not specific as to who those companies were. The evidence, while not specific, also suggested that Respondent paid its leased employees bonuses and sometimes loaned them money.1/ In general, employee-leasing agreements provide clerical duties to client companies including tax deduction and workers’ compensation, in exchange for a fee. Client companies’ workers who are registered with the leasing company are employees of the leasing company, not the client company. In this case, the specific contract between ELS and Respondent was not introduced into evidence. Likewise, neither the contract nor the proof of coverage between ELS and its workers’ compensation insurer was introduced into evidence and it is unknown who the actual workers’ compensation insurer was or is. Therefore, there is no credible evidence regarding the specific terms of the contract between ELS, Respondent or the workers’ compensation insurer. Importantly, there is no evidence regarding any fee arrangement between ELS and Respondent showing that workers’ compensation coverage was provided based on payroll or that direct payments to Respondent’s workers constituted payroll under the terms of the lease contract for which workers’ compensation had not been secured. Petitioner’s investigator telephoned ELS and learned from some person (purportedly Ellen Clark) that it did have an employee-leasing contract with Respondent and did maintain workers’ compensation on Respondent’s workers. The investigator was also told that ELS intended to or had cancelled its employee-leasing contract with Respondent effective either February 14 or 15, 2009. No one from ELS testified at the hearing and the substance of the above conversation, as with all the testimony about purported ELS statements, constitutes hearsay that was not corroborated by other credible evidence in the record. As such, the substance of these conversations is not found as facts, other than to establish that Petitioner’s investigator had a conversation with a person purporting to Represent ELS. However, on February 14, 2010, the investigator did not take any action against Respondent since he felt Respondent was in compliance with Florida’s workers’ compensation law. On February 17, 2009, Mr. Woodall again returned to the Cabrille Lane area and observed Respondent’s workers installing siding on a house. One of the workers, Mike Moore, revealed to Mr. Woodall that he was a subcontractor of Respondent, but that the other worker, Ryan Grantham, was Respondent’s employee. The subcontractor was in compliance with Florida’s workers’ compensation laws. In order to find out if the other worker was covered by workers’ compensation insurance, Mr. Woodall met with Ronnie Creed, Respondent’s owner and officer, who was exempt under Florida’s workers’ compensation law. Mr. Creed was unaware of Respondent’s workers’ compensation status but put Mr. Woodall in contact with his wife, India Creed, who was also exempt from Florida’s workers’ compensation law. Ms. Creed told Mr. Woodall that Respondent had received a letter from ELS that day, purportedly notifying it that ELS intended to cancel or had cancelled its employee-leasing contract with Respondent. The letter was not introduced into evidence and it is unclear whether the letter discussed the workers’ compensation insurance coverage ELS maintained on its employees that it leased to Respondent. Again, no one from ELS or its workers’ compensation insurer testified at the hearing regarding its lease or which workers were covered under the lease. The record is devoid of any evidence that these employees were no longer employed by ELS and, more importantly, not covered by ELS’s workers’ compensation coverage on February 17, 2009.2/ Mr. Woodall also checked the Department’s Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) database. CCAS is a database that maintains information on business entities in Florida and whether they have secured workers’ compensation and /or whether exemptions from workers’ compensation have been granted to eligible company officers. CCAS did not reflect that Respondent had a workers’ compensation insurance policy in place. However, the investigator did not check to see if ELS or another employee-leasing company had such a policy. Similarly, the investigator did not investigate the terms of those contracts and whether those contracts considered any bonuses or loans paid by Petitioner to its employees to be payroll, and if it was, whether any workers’ compensation coverage was dependent on such payments being reported to these companies. As such, the information in that system is hearsay which may or may not indicate a need to investigate further. Moreover, CCAS is simply a database of information reported by others and maintained by the Petitioner. Its reliability is questionable in this case given the multiple contractual entities involved in the provision of workers’ compensation to Respondent and the lack of any direct evidence from those contractual entities. Therefore, the fact that CCAS did not reflect that Respondent had workers’ compensation insurance is not given weight in this Order and is neither clear nor convincing evidence demonstrating that Respondent failed to secure workers’ compensation insurance on February 17, 2009, or for prior years. Based on his belief that Respondent had not secured workers’ compensation on its workers, Mr. Woodall issued a Stop- Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment and a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation to Respondent (Request) asking for Respondent’s business and financial records related to Respondent’s business and employee leasing for the last 3 years. The records were requested to construct Respondent’s alleged payroll and determine the employees of Respondent. There was no evidence that there was any inquiry into past employment leasing companies that Petitioner contracted with or the terms of those contracts. As with the contract with ELS, there was no inquiry into whether loans or bonuses or any other money paid by Respondent to its workers was considered payroll, required to be reported, or had any impact on workers’ compensation coverage that the leasing companies provided on the employees they leased to Respondent. Respondent complied with the Request and provided the requested business records to Petitioner. Mr. Woodall forwarded the financial records to Petitioner’s penalty calculator, Monica Moye. Beyond checking CCAS, Ms. Moye was not responsible for factually determining whether Respondent had properly secured workers’ compensation insurance during the period under review. Using Respondent’s financial records, Ms. Moye calculated a penalty to be assessed to Respondent based on class code 5645 for siding installation as established by the National Council on Compensation Insurance in the Scopes Manual. She also separated Respondent’s periods of alleged noncompliance based on periodically changing approved manual rates. Approved manual rates are set by the National Council on Compensation Insurance and represent the amounts employers would pay in workers’ compensation premiums for tasks performed by their employees. On March 13, 2009, Petitioner issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, assessing a penalty of $159,002.46 to Respondent. Based on additional records submitted by Respondent, Petitioner recalculated the previously-assessed penalty and issued a 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to Respondent on June 9, 2009, reducing the assessed penalty to $130,914.99. Additionally, following the hearing, the Department revised the assessed penalty and issued a 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment (3rd Amended Order) reducing the assessed penalty to $130,135.03.3/ The list of employees attached to the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment contains several incidents of imputed employment listed as “cash,” “unknown” or “Star H.” There is nothing in the record that supports a finding that these amounts were paid for employment purposes. However, the evidence did not establish that Petitioner did not secure workers’ compensation coverage and the issues regarding the correctness of the amount of penalty assessed against Respondent is not addressed in this Recommended Order. Since the evidence did not establish that Respondent failed to secure workers’ compensation, the Stop-work order should be cancelled and the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a Final Order that Petitioner failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner failed to secure workers’ compensation to its employees and canceling the Stop Work Order and dismissing the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of April, 2010.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2016), by failing to secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage, as alleged in the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment; and, if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement of chapter 440 that employers in Florida secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage for their employees and corporate officers. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. Respondent owns and operates a gas station/convenience store in Miami, Florida. The Investigation. The Department received a public referral that Respondent was operating without workers' compensation coverage. The case was assigned by the Department to Compliance Investigator Julio Cabrera ("Cabrera"). Cabrera first checked the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations, Sunbiz website to verify Respondent's status as an active corporation. Cabrera then checked the Department's Coverage and Compliance Automated System ("CCAS") to see whether Respondent had a workers' compensation policy or any exemptions. An exemption is a method in which a corporate officer can exempt himself from the requirements of chapter 440. See § 440.05, Fla. Stat. CCAS is the Department's internal database that contains workers' compensation insurance policy information and exemption information. Insurance providers are required to report coverage and cancellation information, which is then input into CCAS. Cabrera's CCAS search revealed that Respondent had no coverage or exemptions during the relevant period. On February 23, 2016, Cabrera visited Respondent's place of business and observed two women, Margarita Maya ("Maya"), and Nuri Penagos ("Penagos") serving customers. Cabrera asked to speak to the owner. Maya telephoned John Obando ("Obando"). After introducing himself, Cabrera asked how many employees worked for the business. Obando indicated he needed to check with his accountant. Shortly thereafter, Obando called Cabrera back and indicated that his employees included Maya; Carolina Santos ("Santos"); his wife, Marta Ayala ("Ayala"); and himself. Obando confirmed that the business did not currently have workers' compensation insurance coverage nor did any of the members of the LLC have an exemption. The LLC had three managing members: Obando; Maria Rios ("Rios"); and Carlos Franco ("Franco"). Obando explained that Rios lived out of the country and did not provide services to Respondent. According to Obando, Franco also resides outside of the United States, but he travels to Florida and periodically assists with the running of Respondent's business enterprise. Cabrera contacted his supervisor and relayed this information. With his supervisor's approval, Cabrera issued a SWO and served a Business Records Request. Respondent provided the requested business records to the Department. The evidence showed that during the two-year look-back period, Respondent did not have workers' compensation coverage for its employees during a substantial portion of the period in which it employed four or more employees, including managing members without exemptions. As such, Respondent violated chapter 440 and, therefore, is subject to penalty under that statute. Penalty Calculation. The Department assigned Penalty Auditor Matt Jackson ("Jackson") to calculate the penalty assessed against Respondent. Jackson used the classification code 8061 listed in the Scopes® Manual, which has been adopted by the Department through Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.021(1). Classification code 8061 applies to employees of gasoline stations with convenience stores. Classification codes are four-digit codes assigned to various occupations by the National Council on Compensation Insurance to assist in the calculation of workers' compensation insurance premiums. In the penalty assessment, Jackson applied the corresponding approved manual rate for classification code 8061 for the related periods of non-compliance. The corresponding approved manual rate was correctly utilized using the methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)1. and rule 69L-6.027 to determine the final penalties. Utilizing the business records provided by Respondent, the Department determined Respondent’s gross payroll pursuant to the procedures required by section 440.107(7)(d) and rule 69L- 6.027. The Department served an Amended OPA on March 29, 2016, imposing a total penalty of $29,084.62. On May 6, 2016, following receipt of additional records, the Department issued a Second Amended OPA, reducing the penalty to $25,670.88. Because Respondent had not previously been issued a SWO, pursuant to section 440.107(7)(d)1., the Department applied a credit toward the penalty in the amount of the initial premium Respondent paid for workers' compensation coverage. Here, the premium payment amount for which Respondent received credit was $1,718.00. This was subtracted from the calculated penalty of $25,670.88, yielding a total remaining penalty of $23,952.88. No records were provided regarding the compensation of Penagos, who was observed working on the date of the inspection. According to Respondent, Penagos was present and working on that date, not as an employee, but as an unpaid volunteer who was testing out the job to see if it was to her liking. The Department imputed gross payroll for Penagos for February 23, 2016, which resulted in a penalty in the amount of $16.26 and was included in the Second Amended OPA. Respondent's Defenses. At the final hearing, Obando testified that he and the other co-owners of Respondent always attempted to fully comply with every law applicable to Respondent's business and have never had compliance problems. He testified that the business carried workers' compensation coverage until 2013, when its insurance agent advised Respondent it could go without coverage due to the size of the business, if the managing members of the LLC were to apply for, and be granted, an exemption. Obando offered no explanation why Respondent failed to secure the exemptions before letting coverage lapse during the penalty period. Obando also argues that on the date of the investigation, Penagos was not an employee, but rather his sister-in-law, who was trying out the job for a day as a volunteer to determine if she would replace Obando's wife, Ayala, who no longer wanted to work in the store. Obando asserts that only two employees were actually working in the store that day, so Respondent should not have been considered out of compliance. Obando also testified that at most, no more than three employees work at the store on any particular day. Obando testified that Respondent has ample liability coverage and that each worker has health insurance, suggesting that workers' compensation insurance coverage is unnecessary. According to Obando, the $23,952.88 penalty is a substantial amount that Respondent, a small family-owned business, cannot afford to pay. Findings of Ultimate Fact. Excluding Penagos as a volunteer, and Rios as a managing member of the LLC with no active service to Respondent, Respondent was a covered employer with four or more employees at all times during the penalty period. The Department demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent violated chapter 440, as charged in the SWO, by failing to secure workers' compensation coverage for its employees.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, enter a final order determining that Respondent, S & S of Florida, LLC, violated the requirement in chapter 440 to secure workers' compensation coverage and imposing a total penalty of $23,936.62. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of December, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY 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 7th day of December, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Joaquin Alvarez, Esquire Trevor Suter, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 (eServed) John J. Obando S & S of Florida, LLC 8590 Southwest Eighth Street Miami, Florida 33144 Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 (eServed)
