The Issue Whether Petitioner failed to obtain workers’ compensation insurance meeting the requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Olender is a Delaware corporation that is registered to do business in Florida and engaged in the business of construction. Primarily, Olender frames the walls of structures and installs siding, windows and moisture barriers to such structures. Such activities are construction activities under the Florida’s workers’ compensation law. See Ch. 440, Fla. Stat., and Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6. On June 22, 2006, an investigator for the Department visited the Alta Westgate Apartment complex construction project, located at 6872 Alta Westgate Drive, Orlando, Florida. The visit was prompted by a “confidential tip” received by the Department from Tyler Balsinger, a former employee of Petitioner. The Alta Westgate complex is owned by Alta Westgate, LLC. The general contractor responsible for the construction of the complex was W.P. South Builders. The overall project manager for the general contractor was Robert Beliveau. The on-site representative for the general contractor was Danny Campbell. Mr. Campbell provided the Department’s investigator with a list of subcontractors on the project worksite. The list reflected that the subcontractor for framing was Olender and that John Olender was the person in charge of the company’s work at the project site. Among other things, the contract also included the installation of a moisture barrier, generally known as Tyvek, on the framed structures. Because of the nature of construction work, it is not unusual to have several subcontractors on a construction worksite at the same time. It is unlikely that Olender was the only subcontractor working on the day the Department’s investigator visited the Alta Westgate project. The subcontract required that Olender secure the payment of workers’ compensation on its employees. The evidence was not clear regarding whether the general contractor, under its subcontract with Olender, would provide workers’ compensation insurance on the employees of Olender’s subcontractors. However, the evidence was clear that J.P. Builders did not secure such workers’ compensation insurance on the employees of Olender’s subcontractors. Mr. Campbell also provided the certificate of insurance for Petitioner. The certificate reflected that Modern Business Associates, Inc. (MBA), an employee leasing company, provided workers’ compensation for Olender’s leased employees. See § 468.520, Fla. Stat. MBA entered into a client service agreement with Olender. Under the agreement, Olender would lease employees from MBA and MBA would provide payroll services and workers’ compensation coverage for the employees it leased to Petitioner. The agreement terminated on August 30, 2006. MBA’s Client Service Agreement with Petitioner states on p. 3: Insurance Coverage. MBA is responsible for providing Workers’ Compensation coverage to workers employed by MBA and assigned to Client, in compliance with applicable law, and as specified in the Proposal. Workers performing services for Client not covered by this Agreement and not on MBA’s payroll shall not be covered by the workers’ compensation insurance. Client understands, agrees, and acknowledges that MBA shall not cover any workers with workers’ compensation coverage who has not completed and submitted to MBA an employment application and tri- fold, and which applicant has not been reviewed and approved for hire by MBA. (emphasis supplied) Other than information necessary to supply its services, MBA was not aware of any specific project or projects on which Olender was working when it leased employees from MBA. John Olender and Ruben Rojo were two employees that Olender leased from MBA and for whom MBA provided workers’ compensation insurance. The workers’ compensation policy complied with Florida’s workers’ compensation requirements. After speaking with Mr. Campbell, the Department’s investigator, who is fluent in Spanish, walked around the complex’s worksite. She did not have a hardhat on. She eventually saw about 10 to 12 workers on the third floor of one of the buildings under construction (Building 8 or 9). The Department’s investigator could not say if they were framing. At some point, John Olender, the company’s project superintendent, saw the Department’s investigator, noticed she did not have any safety equipment on, and went to meet her. The investigator yelled to the workers on the third floor and showed her Department badge or identification. She was speaking Spanish to them. The workers ran in an effort to avoid the Department’s investigator. Mr. Olender, who does not speak or understand Spanish, sent for Ruben Rojo. Mr. Rojo is the assistant superintendent for Olender and works under John Olender. He is fluent in Spanish. He does not hire employees for Olender, but oversees the work being performed under Olender’s subcontracts. The Department’s investigator continued to attempt to explain to the workers that she was not interested in their immigration status, but was there to make sure they were covered by workers’ compensation insurance. At least some of the workers came down to talk to her. Mr. Rojo thought the investigator was asking about the workers’ immigration status and told them that they did not have to talk to her. However, apparently some workers very reluctantly gave her limited information. The workers who talked to her were Pedro Antonio Mendez, Jaco Sarmentio, Juan Cardenas, Alvaro Don Juan Diaz, Jose Varela Orellana, Nesto Suarez Ventura, Miguel Martinez Diaz, Jose Perez Renaldo and Antonio Hernandez. She did not obtain any addresses, phone numbers or other identifying information from the employees. The evidence did not show whether these individuals gave the Department’s investigator the correct information. Importantly, they did not tell her who their employer was or what duties they were performing. None of these individuals testified at the hearing. John Olender did not recognize these workers. Mr. Rojo told the investigator that Olender subcontracted the framing portion of its contract to “T-Bo”. T-Bo was also known as Primitivo Torres. In his deposition testimony, Mr. Torres did not recognize these workers’ names. He also thought that most of the workers he employed for his framing subcontract with Olender were illegal immigrants. Mr. Torres was unclear in his testimony regarding his status with Olender. He did indicate that he worked in both Orlando and Tampa. Apparently, at times, he was an employee and at other times he was a subcontractor. He was listed as a leased employee under MBA’s contract with Olender. The evidence suggests, but does not prove, that Mr. Torres was a person who supplied immigrant workers to construction sites. In Orlando, Mr. Torres lived in an apartment complex in the Rosemond area with his employees. The rent was sometimes paid by Olender and then deducted from the remuneration paid to Mr. Torres. Mr. Torres paid his employees from the money he received under his subcontract with Olender. Mr. Torres also testified that when the Department’s investigator contacted him in June 2006, to discuss workers’ compensation insurance, he told her that he neither secured the payment of workers’ compensation for himself nor for the other workers in both Tampa and Orlando. Donna Knoblauch, who oversaw Olender’s main office, received a faxed copy of a certificate of workers’ compensation insurance from Mr. Torres. However, the faxed certificate was an illegible copy of what appeared to be a certificate of liability insurance issued by a company in Texas. The certificate does not have a legible “sent date,” a legible workers’ compensation policy number, legible dates of coverage, a legible producer name, or any information indicating that coverage includes the State of Florida. The document is insufficient to demonstrate that Mr. Torres provided workers’ compensation coverage for his employees that worked under his subcontract with Olender. John Olender testified that Mr. Torres utilized, at most, 20 framers for the construction at Alta Westgate. Mr. Torres corroborates that number and indicates that various people worked in crews of around five. On the other hand, Danny Campbell testified that Olender had approximately 20 workers when the project started, increased to approximately 75 people performing framing duties on the worksite and decreased to about 20 workers by the time the Department’s investigator visited the worksite. Mr. Campbell testified that on January 22, 2006, he believed that Olender had approximately five individuals for the punch-out group, three–to-five cleaners, a forklift operator, approximately two individuals installing the Tyvek moisture- barrier paper, two individuals performing window installation and approximately 15–to-20 individuals installing siding at the worksite. No other testimony supports the number of workers Mr. Campbell believed to be at the jobsite on June 22. On balance, the best evidence of the approximate number of workers was that of Mr. Olender and Mr. Torres. However, these figures were only estimates of the actual number which may have been less than 20 workers. In any event, the employment of these 12 workers on the third floor was not demonstrated by the evidence. Their names did not appear on the list of employees leased by Olender from MBA and were otherwise, unknown to the Mr. Olender, Rojo and Torres. While at the jobsite, the Department’s investigator also spoke with Victor Ibarra. Mr. Ibarra drove a forklift and indicated that he worked for Olender. Again, no address or other identifying information was supplied to the investigator. Later, the investigator spoke with a woman who purported to be Mr. Ibarra’s wife. There was no information on the forklift indicating that it belonged to Olender and Olender denies employing a person named Victor Ibarra. Mr. Campbell testified in his deposition that Olender had forklifts on the jobsite. However, he did not testify that the forklift Victor Ibarra drove on June 22, 2006, was owned by Olender. Likewise, Mr. Campbell did not testify that Mr. Ibarra was an employee of Olender. Mr. Ibarra’s name did not appear on the list of leased employees provided by MBA. The Department's investigator included Mr. Ibarra as an employee of Olender based on Mr. Ibarra’s statements. However, the evidence presented by the Department is not sufficient to establish that Mr. Ibarra was an employee of Olender, since Mr. Ibarra did not testify at the hearing. Mr. Campbell’s testimony does not corroborate the hearsay statements of Mr. Ibarra since the testimony does not indicate the forklift Mr. Ibarra drove belonged to Olender or to another subcontractor on the project. After talking to Mr. Ibarra, the Department’s investigator met Rosa Barden, Martha Alvarado and Ismael Ortiz, who were applying a moisture barrier paper known as “Tyvek” to a building at the construction site. The three individuals told the investigator that that they had been hired by Mr. Rojo on behalf of Olender and had only worked for about a day. The investigator included these three individuals as employees of Olender. No addresses or other contact information was obtained by the investigator. None of these individuals testified at the hearing. Mr. Rojo testified that he did not know the three individuals on the “paper crew” and did not hire them. None of the three individuals were listed as leased employees with MBA. However, Olender’s subcontract clearly lists the application of Tyvek as a part of its contract. Additionally, the payment information supplied by the general contractor shows that Olender was paid for Tyvek application on all the buildings in the complex. Unlike Mr. Ibarro’s testimony, the contract and payment evidence independently corroborates the otherwise hearsay statements of these three individuals and Olender should have provided workers compensation insurance on them. There was no evidence that Olender provided such workers’ compensation insurance; such failure violates Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. See §§ 440.10(1)(g) and 440.38(7), Fla. Stat., and Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.019. In total, the Department’s inspector met with John Olender for approximately one hour discussing the work performed by Olender and the employees retained by Olender. During this meeting, Mr. Olender, identified members of a “punch-out” crew who had worked on the project. The punch-out crew repaired any defects in framing prior to inspection. The names supplied by Mr. Olender were Juan Gonzalez, Miguel, Sal, William, WI Gerardo (noted as El Guardo in the third Amended Order of Penalty assessment), Pedro, Jacobo and Boso. Mr. Olender did not know their last names. The evidence did not show the period of time that the punch-out crew would have been working at the project site. Presumably, they would have begun some time after the initial building was framed. The Department’s investigator did not personally see the punch-out crew at the project. Mr. Olender also informed the Department’s investigator that he did not handle matters concerning workers’ compensation insurance and that she would have to contact the Company’s main office in Missouri. He provided the number for the office. He also gave the investigator the number for Michael Olender, the president of the company and the number for Mr. Torres. The investigator issued a Workers’ Compensation Request for Production of Business Records to Olender. She left the Request with John Olender. The request for records asked for certain categories of Olender’s business records for the period of January 22, 2004 to June 22, 2004. Of importance here, the Department requested records in categories 1, 4, 5 and 6. In general, category 1 covers all payroll records, including checks and check stubs, time sheets, attendance records and cash payment records. Categories 4, 5 and 6 cover all records that relate to subcontractors, including their identity, contract, payment thereof, workers compensation coverage for all the subcontractor’s employees, and/ or the employees’ exemption status. These records are required to be maintained by a company doing business in Florida. Mr. Campbell testified that some members of the punch- out crew often approached him about whether he had paid Olender so that they in turn could be paid. Again, none of these individuals testified at the hearing. However, given the admissions of Olender’s employee and Mr. Campbell’s testimony, the evidence supports the conclusion that the eight individuals on the punch-out crew were employed by Olender. None of these employees were leased employees and therefore, were not covered by the workers’ compensation policy provided by MBA. There was no evidence that Olender secured any workers' compensation insurance on these eight employees. Such failure violates Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. See §§ 440.10(1)(g) and 440.38(7), Fla. Stat., and Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.019. The Department’s investigator contacted Ms. Knoblauch while she was on her way to a medical appointment. The investigator requested Olender’s proof of workers’ compensation insurance. Ms. Knoblauch told the investigator that she was not at the office where the records were kept, but on the way to a medical appointment. She said she would be returning to the office after the appointment. The investigator said she needed the records immediately. Ms. Knoblauch offered to skip her appointment and requested time to turn around and return to the office. The investigator refused to permit her the time to return to the office. At some point, MBA supplied the Department’s investigator with a list of Olender’s leased employees. The list did not contain any of the names she had gathered during her visit to the worksite. Within a few hours from the beginning of the investigation, the Department's investigator issued a Stop Work Order and an Order of Penalty Assessment on June 22, 2006. The Order was served via certified mail on Michael Olender and Olender’s legal counsel. The Stop Work Order required that Olender "cease all business operations in this state" and advised that a penalty of $1,000.00 per day would be imposed if Olender were to conduct any business in violation of the Stop Work Order. Additionally, along with the Order, the Department issued and served on Petitioner via certified mail a Division of Workers’ Compensation Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Calculation, requesting records for a period of three years. The request, made pursuant to Section 440.107(7), Florida Statutes, asked the employer to produce, for the preceding three years, documents that reflected payroll, proof of insurance, workers’ compensation audit reports, identity, duration, contracts, invoices and check stubs reflecting payment to subcontractors, proof of workers’ compensation coverage for those subcontractors, employee leasing company information, temporary labor service information, and any certificate of workers’ compensation exemption. The request asked for the same type of records that had been requested earlier. Neither request for records was specific to a particular construction job that Olender may have performed work on. The investigator informed Mr. Campbell that Petitioner was being issued a Stop-Work Order and gave him a copy of the Order. Mr. Campbell faxed the Order to Olender’s office in Missouri. The Department’s investigator also checked the Department’s Coverage and Compliance Automated System (“CCAS”) database. The system tracks workers' compensation insurance policy information provided by workers’ compensation carriers on an insured employer. The database did not contain an entry that reflected a current State of Florida workers' compensation insurance policy for Olender. The database did reference that Olender had a stop-work order served on it on July 12, 2002, which had been lifted on July 31, 2002, with payment of the penalty. Florida law requires that employers maintain a variety of business records involving their business. See § 440.107(5), Fla. Stat., and Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.015. The Rule is limited to records regarding a business’ employees and any payout by the employer to any person. In this case, under the Rule, the only records Olender was required to maintain related to its employees and its subcontractor, Mr. Torres. There was no evidence regarding any other subcontractors Olender may have contracted with. The only records supplied by Olender to the Department were the records from MBA that included workers’ compensation information and W-2 forms for Olender’s leased employees, the illegible proof of insurance for Mr. Torres and copies of checks from Olender to Mr. Torres for the subcontract. Those records reflected that John Olender, Ruben Rojo and Primitivo Torres were leased employees and covered by workers’ compensation insurance under Olender’s contract with MBA. Olender supplied no records regarding workers’ compensation coverage for the eight employees who were members of the punch- out crew, the three workers who were members of the paper crew or the 12 workers who were on the third floor. When an employer fails to provide requested business records that the statute requires it to maintain, the Department is required to impute the employer's payroll using "the statewide average weekly wage as defined in Section 440.12(2)." § 440.107(7)(e), Fla. Stat., and Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.028. The penalty for failure to secure the workers' compensation insurance coverage required by Florida law is 1.5 times the premium that would have been charged for such coverage for each employee identified by the Department. The premium is calculated by applying the approved manual rate for workers' compensation insurance coverage for each employee to each $100.00 of the gross payroll for each employee. In this case, the Department, after several amended assessments, imputed the payroll for Olender for the period beginning January 22, 2004, Petitioner’s date of incorporation, and ending June 26, 2006. Included in the calculation were the eight individuals on the punch-out crew identified by John Olender, the 12 employees who were working on the third floor, the forklift driver Victor Ibarra, and the three individuals on the paper crew. In calculating the premium for workers' compensation insurance coverage, the Department's investigator used the risk classifications and definitions of the National Council of Compensation Insurance, Inc. ("NCCI") SCOPES Manual. The appropriate code for Olender’s employees was classification code 5561 which covers framing of multiple family dwellings. The gross payroll imputed to each of the 27 employees was $683.00 per week. The Department then utilized the imputed payroll for same employees for the years 2004 and 2005. The Department’s calculation resulted in an assessed penalty of $1,205,535.40. However, the evidence establishes that Olender had 11 direct employees rather than 27 employees during the period of the Alta Westgate contract. Olender’s performance under that contract began on April 3, 2006. Other than the period of time involved with the Alta Westgate project, there was no evidence regarding the period of time Olender conducted business in Florida that would require it to comply with Florida law. The date of incorporation of Olender is insufficient to demonstrate that Olender engaged in any business in Florida that would require it to comply with Florida’s workers’ compensation law. Therefore, the penalty calculation must be modified to reflect only those eleven employees for the time period Olender performed under its contract on the Alta Westgate project.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, enter a final order: Finding that Olender Construction Co., Inc., failed to have Florida workers' compensation insurance coverage for 11 of its employees, in violation of Sections 440.10(1)(a) and 440.38(1), Florida Statutes; and Recalculating the penalty against Olender. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of March, 2008, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of March, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Colin M. Roopnarine, Esquire Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers Compensation 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 Jeremy T. Springhart, Esquire Broad and Cassel 390 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1500 Orlando, Florida 32801 Honorable Alex Sink Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Daniel Y. Sumner, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2013)1/, by failing to obtain workers? compensation insurance coverage, as alleged in the Stop-Work Order and Amended Order of Penalty Assessment; and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement that employers secure the payment of workers? compensation insurance coverage, pursuant to chapter 440, Florida Statutes, for their employees. Respondent is a Florida-limited liability company engaged in business operations for the time period of March 16, 2010, through March 15, 2013. Mark Markisen is the managing member of Respondent listed with the State of Florida, Division of Corporations. On March 15, 2013, Jack Gumph, an investigator with the Department, conducted a random on-site compliance inspection of a construction site for a single family residence. Gumph determined that the general contractor for the job was Gulf Shore Homes and that it had subcontracted with Tradewinds Design for certain work inside the home. As Gumph interviewed the different workers present on the worksite, he spoke with Mark and Brett Markisen, who informed him that they worked for Tradewinds Design. Gumph observed Brett Markisen installing a wine cabinet in the home. Gumph confirmed through the Department?s online records that Gulf Shores Homes and Tradewinds Design had current workers? compensation insurance coverage on March 15, 2013. Based on this initial information, Gumph left the worksite. On March 19, 2013, Gumph subsequently learned from a conversation with Mark Markisen that Mark and Brett Markisen were not employees of Tradewinds Design. Rather, Tradewinds had subcontracted with Respondent, Cabinetry by Design of Collier County, L.L.C., to build and install the wine cabinets. Mark Markisen stated that he was the managing member of Cabinetry by Design of Collier County, L.L.C., and that he had selected to be exempt from workers? compensation insurance coverage. Gumph confirmed that Mark Markisen had selected to be exempt from workers? compensation insurance coverage. However, because Respondent did not have worker?s compensation coverage for Brett Markisen, the Department issued a Stop-Work Order on March 19, 2013, and Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation on April 8, 2013. Mark Markisen possessed an exemption from the workers? compensation insurance coverage requirement during the penalty period of March 16, 2010, through March 15, 2013. Brett Markisen did not possess an exemption from the workers? compensation insurance coverage requirement during the penalty period. Brett Markisen was employed by Respondent throughout the penalty period. During the penalty period, Brett Markisen received approximately $187,000.00 from Respondent. The amount of this money attributed to wages is unclear, based on the fact that Mark Markisen indicated that some of the payments reflected loans, not wages. Respondent was an “employer” as defined in chapter 440, Florida Statutes, throughout the penalty period. On March 15, 2013, Brett Markisen was Respondent?s “employee” working on the installation of cabinets in the single family residence.2/ On March 15, 2013, Respondent failed to provide workers? compensation insurance coverage for Brett Markisen. Respondent also failed to provide coverage during the penalty period of March 16, 2010, through March 15, 2013. Therefore, the Department properly entered a Stop-Work Order on March 19, 2013. Respondent failed to provide sufficient business records in order to establish a payroll. Therefore, the Department correctly imputed payroll against Respondent. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment used the proper class code for the calculation of the penalty, concerning the installation of cabinets, and correctly followed the procedure set out in section 440.107(7)(d)1, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.028.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order upholding the Stop-Work Order and Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, assessing a penalty against Respondent in the amount of $21,436.61. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S THOMAS P. CRAPPS 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 30th day of December, 2013.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the stipulations of fact, the deposition of Luis Martinez, a senior appeals referee, taken on May 18, 1979, with exhibits and the stipulated documentary evidence adduced in this proceeding, the following relevant facts are found: At the time of the filing of the instant petition challenging Rule 8B- 5.13(1), both petitioner Cotilla and petitioner Prieto were parties in proceedings before the respondent to obtain unemployment compensation benefits. Their applications for benefits had originally been denied for lack of sufficient wage credits. Both petitioners had been continuously employed by Florida East Coast Deliveries, Inc. from 1974 through December of 1978. The finding of lack of credits was based on the employer's switch from the Florida Unemployment Compensation System to coverage under the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act. By letters dated March 29, 1979, the attorney for the petitioners made a request to Manuel M. Garcia, the appeals referee, for subpoenas to produce certain documents and a witness at the hearing scheduled for April 12, 1979. The letter requesting subpoenas stated that the records and witnesses are expected to provide evidence to show that the claimants had in fact been paid sufficient wages for insured work under Fla. Stat. 443.05(1)(e), during their base periods to qualify for Florida Unemployment Compensation benefits, which they have earned." By letter dated March 30, 1979, Appeals Referee Garcia denied the request for subpoenas "at this point in time," stating that "I will take into consideration your request, and if necessary, subpoenas will be issued later. However, sufficient cause has not been shown at this point to warrant subpoenas. There is no indication in your letter that the employer has refused to comply with any request for documents and/or witnesses. In addition, is questionable whether subpoenas can be issued and served prior to the April 12, hearing. Finally, the documents and information you are requesting are so general in nature, and its relevancy is at best questionable." Petitioners' attorney requested a reconsideration of her subpoena request by letter dated April 2, 1979. This letter stated in great detail why the attorney for the claimants (petitioners herein) felt that the information and documents requested were relevant to the issue in dispute. On April 9, 1979, Referee Garcia again denied the request for subpoenas by a letter stating: Most of the information that you provided as to why these documents should be subpoenaed refer to the instant employer's liability under the Florida Unemployment Compensation Law. In addition, your clients' position, earnings, and weeks of employment with the instant employer are not being disputed, as far as I can tell. My previous denial of your request for subpoenas at this point in time still stands. I will consider a second Hearing near the employer's vicinity, subpoena or a field investigation after the hearing, if such are necessary to comply, with due process. To clarify one point the subpoenas you are requesting are not being denied because of the time involved in issuing and serving subpoenas. The matter was mentioned because it is impractical to request documents of unproven relevancy, which in all probability will not be available for the April 12, 1979, Hearing, even if the subpoenas are issued." A hearing was held in petitioner Cotilla's appeal on April 12, 1979. The employer, Florida East Coast Deliveries, Inc., refused to voluntarily supply the requested information. The petitioners did not have knowledge of or access to the requested information except by the subpoenas which were refused. Thomas J. Edwards appeared at the April 12th hearing as agent of the employer, but he did not have the information requested in the subpoena request. Other agents of the employer did have the requested information. Petitioner Prieto's hearing was postponed until May 7, 1979. By letter dated April 23rd, his attorney renewed her requests for subpoenas and the request was again denied. Since the basis for the denial of petitioners' unemployment benefits was the question of the employer's liability under the Florida Unemployment Compensation Act, the information requested was relevant to the proof of their case. In addition, in petitioner Prieto's case, it was relevant to the issue concerning the timeliness of his appeal, in that the testimony and evidence sought were relevant to the wrongfulness of the respondent's actions in denying him benefits which petitioner Prieto contends was a cause of his failure to file his appeal within ten (10) days. At their unemployment hearing, the petitioners were unable to prove the circumstances under which their former employer switched coverage from the Florida Unemployment Compensation Act to the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act. Petitioner Cotilla has not received any unemployment compensation benefits, and no decision has been rendered in the case of petitioner Prieto. The basis for all of the denials of the subpoena requests which have occurred in the unemployment compensation proceedings of the petitioners is the challenged Rule 8B-5.13(1). This Rule, which is set forth in full below, provides in pertinent part that subpoenas "may" be issued by the appeals referee upon timely written application and that the application must state the "reason for appearance to include what testimony or evidence the witness is expected to provide." Pursuant to Rule 8B-5.13(1), it is the current practice of respondent's appeals referees to deny requests for subpoenas which do not contain a written explanation of the reason the subpoena is needed prior to the hearing. The explanation must state, to the satisfaction of the appeals referee, the materiality, relevance and competence of the testimony or evidence sought. Absent such a showing which is deemed satisfactory by the referee, the request for subpoenas will be denied. Even when the request provides an explanation which illustrates that the evidence or testimony sought is material, relevant and competent, it is typical practice for the appeals referee to attempt to use other means of obtaining the facts sought. For example, someone from the referee's office will telephone the person to whom the subpoena request is directed and ask them to voluntarily appear at the hearing. Also, the referees may request a field auditor or field examiner to examine employer records and file a report at the hearing. If it becomes apparent to the referee at the hearing that a witness or document is needed, the hearing will be continued and a subpoena will be issued.
The Issue 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 Petitioner properly issued a Stop-Work Order and Penalty Assessment against Respondent for failing to obtain workers' compensation insurance that meets the requirements of chapter 440, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for enforcing the Florida Workers' Compensation Law, chapter 440, Florida Statutes, including those provisions that require employers to secure and maintain payment of workers? compensation insurance for their employees who may suffer work- related injuries. Respondent is an active Florida limited liability company, having been organized in 2006. Howard?s Famous Restaurant is a diner-style restaurant located at 488 South Yonge Street, Ormond Beach, Florida. It seats approximately 60 customers at a time, and is open for breakfast and lunch. In 2006, Edward Kraher and Thomas Baldwin jointly purchased Howard?s Famous Restaurant. They were equal partners. Mr. Baldwin generally handled the business aspects of the restaurant, while Mr. Kraher was responsible for the food. At the time the restaurant was purchased, Mr. Baldwin organized That?s Right Enterprises, LLC, to hold title to the restaurant and conduct the business of the restaurant. Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Kraher were both identified as managing members of the company.1/ On June 27, 2007, a 2007 Limited Liability Company Annual Report for That?s Right Enterprises, LLC, was filed with the Secretary of State. The Annual Report bore the signature of Mr. Kraher, and contained a strike-through of the letter that caused the misspelling of Mr. Kraher?s name. Mr. Kraher testified that the signature on the report appeared to be his, but he had no recollection of having seen the document, or of having signed it. He suggested that Mr. Baldwin may have forged his signature, but offered no explanation of why he might have done so. Although Mr. Kraher could not recall having signed the annual report, and may have had little understanding of its significance, the evidence supports a finding that Mr. Kraher did, in fact, sign the annual report for That?s Right Enterprises, LLC, as a managing member of the business entity. From March 9, 2009, through March of 2011, Mr. Kraher and Mr. Baldwin received salaries as officers, rather than employees, of That?s Right Enterprises, LLC. Their pay was substantially equivalent during that period. The paychecks were issued by the company?s accountant. Mr. Kraher denied having specific knowledge that he was receiving a salary as an officer of That?s Right Enterprises, LLC. Since Mr. Baldwin left the company, Mr. Kraher has continued to use the same accountant, and has continued to receive his salary as an officer of That?s Right Enterprises, LLC. On March 24, 2011, after having bought out Mr. Baldwin?s interest in the company by paying certain company- related debt owed by Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Kraher filed an annual report for That?s Right Enterprises, LLC. In the annual report, which was prepared and filed at his request, Mr. Kraher assumed control as the sole member and registered agent of the company. Mr. Baldwin was removed as a managing member and registered agent, and other changes were made consistent therewith. Mr. Kraher denied any understanding of the significance of his operating as the same corporate entity, but rather thought he was “buying a new LLC.” On March 8, 2012, Petitioner's investigator, Carolyn Martin, conducted an inspection of Howard?s Famous Restaurant. Ms. Martin introduced herself to one of the waitresses working at the restaurant. The waitress called Mr. Kraher from the kitchen to speak with Ms. Martin. Mr. Kraher identified himself as the owner of the restaurant for the past six years. Ms. Martin asked Mr. Kraher for evidence that Respondent?s employees were covered by workers? compensation insurance. Mr. Kraher retrieved a folder containing the restaurant?s insurance policies and information. Ms. Martin reviewed the folder, and determined that Respondent did not have workers? compensation insurance. Mr. Kraher, who was very cooperative with Ms. Martin throughout the inspection, was genuinely surprised that the restaurant employees were not covered by workers? compensation insurance. He had taken out “a million-dollar insurance policy” that he thought covered everything he needed to have. While Ms. Martin was at the restaurant, Mr. Kraher called his insurance agent who, after reviewing his file, confirmed that Respondent did not have workers? compensation insurance. Mr. Kraher immediately asked his agent to bind a policy, and paid his first six-month premium using a business credit card. A copy of the policy was quickly faxed by the agent to Ms. Martin. Ms. Martin took the names of Respondent?s employees, which included two kitchen staff and four wait staff. Some of the employees worked in excess of 30 hours per week, while others worked part-time. Ms. Martin went to her vehicle and completed a Field Interview Worksheet. Ms. Martin reviewed the Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS), which is the statewide database for workers? compensation information, to confirm Respondent?s status in the workers? compensation system. Using the CCAS, Ms. Martin confirmed that Respondent had no workers? compensation coverage on file for any employee of the company. She also accessed the Florida Division of Corporations website to ascertain Respondent?s corporate status. After having gathered the information necessary to determine Respondent?s status, Ms. Martin contacted her supervisor and received authorization to issue a consolidated Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment. The Stop-Work Order required Respondent to cease all business operations statewide. The Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a penalty, pursuant to section 440.107(7)(d), equal to 1.5 times the amount the employer would have paid in premium when applying the approved manual rates to the employer's payroll for the preceding three-year period. The consolidated order was hand- delivered to Mr. Kraher on behalf of Respondent at 11:00 a.m. on March 8, 2012. At the time she delivered the consolidated Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment, Ms. Martin also hand- delivered a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation. The Request required that Respondent produce business records for the preceding three-year period, from March 9, 2009, through March 8, 2012. Respondent was given five days in which to provide the records. On or about March 12, 2012, Mr. Kraher produced three boxes of business records to Ms. Martin. Those records were forwarded by Ms. Martin, and placed in the queue for review by the penalty auditor. The records were reviewed by Petitioner?s penalty auditor, Lynne Murcia, and were found to be insufficient to establish the actual compensation paid to Respondent?s employees for the preceding three year period. Therefore, pursuant to section 440.107(7)(e), salaries were imputed for each of the six employees based on the statewide average weekly wage. Ms. Murcia used the “Scopes Manual” published by the National Council on Compensation Insurance to ascertain the classification of Respondent?s business, based upon the nature of the goods and services it provided. Class code 9082, titled “Restaurant NOC,” is described as “the „traditional? restaurant that provides wait service.” Ms. Murcia correctly determined that Howard?s Famous Restaurant fell within class code 9082. The salaries of Respondent?s six employees, as employees of a class code 9082 restaurant, were imputed as though they worked full-time for the full three-year period from March 9, 2009, to March 8, 2012, pursuant to section 440.107(7)(e). The total imputed gross payroll amounted to $1,130,921.64. The penalty for Respondent?s failure to maintain workers? compensation insurance for its employees is calculated as 1.5 times the amount Respondent would have paid in premium for the preceding three-year period. The National Council on Compensation Insurance periodically issues a schedule of workers? compensation rates per $100 in salary, which varies based on the Scopes Manual classification of the business. The workers? compensation insurance premium was calculated by multiplying one percent of the imputed gross payroll ($11,309.21) by the approved manual rate for each quarter (which varied from $2.20 to $2.65, depending on the quarterly rate), which resulted in a calculated premium of $26,562.06. The penalty was determined by multiplying the calculated premium by 1.5, resulting in the final penalty of $39,843.18. On March 28, 2012, Petitioner issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessing a monetary penalty amount of $39,843.18 against Respondent. Respondent subsequently provided Petitioner with additional payroll records regarding the six employees. The records had been in the possession of Respondent?s accountant. The records, which included Respondent?s bank statements and payroll records for the six employees, were determined to be adequate to calculate the actual employee salaries for the preceding three-year period. Ms. Murcia revised her penalty worksheet to reflect that payroll was now based on records, rather than being imputed.2/ Respondent?s total payroll for the three-year period in question was determined to be $154,079.82. Applying the same formula as that applied to determine the penalty amount reflected in the Amended Penalty Assessment, the premium was calculated to have been $3,624.33, with a resulting penalty of $5,436.64. On April 24, 2012, Petitioner issued a 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment reducing Respondent's penalty from $39,843.18 to $5,436.64.
Recommendation Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers? Compensation, enter a final order assessing a penalty of $5,436.64 against Respondent, That?s Right Enterprises, LLC, for its failure to secure and maintain required workers? compensation insurance for its employees. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of August, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of August, 2012.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Axiom Construction Design Corporation (Axiom), 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 the various requirements of chapter 440, Florida Statutes. Section 440.107(3) mandates, in relevant part, that employers in Florida must secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage for their employees. At all times relevant, Axiom was a small Florida corporation engaged in the construction industry, principally installing drywall. Axiom’s principal office is located at 1067 Walt Williams Road, Lakeland, Florida. Mr. Pratt is Axiom’s owner, sole corporate officer, and registered agent. On July 23, 2014, Randall Durham conducted a job site workers’ compensation compliance investigation (Compliance Investigation). Mr. Durham spoke with Mr. Pratt at a job site at 109 Cattleman Road, the new Sarasota mall. Mr. Pratt and Al Lappohn were working the job site at the new mall. Mr. Pratt had a workers’ compensation policy in place with Southeast Personnel Leasing. Mr. Lappohn did not have an exemption from workers’ compensation coverage, and he was not covered by Axiom’s Southeast Personnel Leasing policy. On July 23, 2014, Mr. Pratt, as Axiom’s representative, was hand-served a Stop-Work Order1/ and a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation (Request). This Request encompassed all of Axiom’s payroll documents, account documents, disbursements, workers’ compensation coverage policies, and professional employer organization records from January 4, 2013, through July 23, 2014. Mr. Pratt provided the certificates of liabilities, payroll and tax records for 2013, and additional business records to the Department. These records were given to Mr. Knopke to calculate the penalty. In reviewing the records, Mr. Knopke determined that Mr. Pratt, Mr. Lappohn and Frank Cutts were employees of Axiom, and that Axiom did not provide workers’ compensation coverage for them. Mr. Cutts worked for Axiom at a Family Dollar Store build-out in Orlando in early 2014. Mr. Cutts swept up after the drywall was installed in the store, and was paid $125. Axiom conceded it owed the workers’ compensation penalty based on the work Mr. Lappohn and Mr. Cutts performed. The business records provided that during the audit period Mr. Pratt had dual employment, payment being paid outside of leasing. Dual employment is when a business has a leasing policy and there is extraneous payroll that is paid outside of the leasing policy. Payments received outside of a leasing policy are considered unsecured payroll for the purposes of calculating a penalty against an employer. Mr. Knopke included Mr. Pratt’s outside distributions in the penalty calculation. The “Scopes Manual” is published by the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc. (NCCI), the nation’s most authoritative data collecting and disseminating organization for workers’ compensation. The manual contains certain codes related to the construction industry and trades considered to be within that industry. The installation of drywall, wallboard, sheetrock, plasterboard or cement board is considered to be “construction” under the relevant codes in the manual. The manual, with its codes and classifications, is relied upon in the insurance industry and has been adopted by the Department in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.021. Mr. Knopke, using the manual, determined the appropriate classification code for Respondent’s employees was 5445. Mr. Knopke applied the correct rates and used the methodology found in section 440.107(7)(d)1., and Florida Administrative Code Rules 69L-6.027 and 69L-6.028 to calculate the penalty assessment. Based upon the testimony and exhibits, the 3rd Amended Penalty Assessment in the amount of $20,221.62 is accurate and correct.
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 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and assess a penalty in the amount of $20,221.62. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of June, 2015, 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 2nd day of June, 2015.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent was an employer in the State of Florida, required to secure the payment of workers' compensation insurance coverage pursuant to the appropriate provisions of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2007); whether the Respondent secured such coverage, if required; and whether the proposed penalty, if any, is warranted.
Findings Of Fact The Department is an agency of the State of Florida charged with enforcing the various requirements of Chapter 440 Florida Statutes. This includes the requirement, in Section 440.107(3) Florida Statutes, that employers in the State of Florida, as defined by statute, secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage for all employees, as provided in Sections 440.10(1)(a), 440.38(1), and 440.107(2), Florida Statutes (2007). The Respondent is a closely held Florida corporation with a principal business address of record at 1815 West Detroit Boulevard, Pensacola, Florida 32534. The president of the Respondent Corporation is Richard Longoria. On October 29, 2008, an investigator for the Department, Michelle Newcomer, observed construction work being conducted at a site at 4111 Baisden Road in Pensacola, Florida. Ms. Newcomer stopped at that address and encountered Richard Longoria, the Respondent's president. In the course of their conversation, Mr. Longoria told Investigator Newcomer that he was sanding and caulking window frames in preparation for painting them. He also was engaged in painting shutters at that address. The so-called "Scopes Manual" is a manual published by the National Counsel on Compensation Insurance, Inc. (NCCI). In that manual are certain codes, related to the construction industry and trades considered to be within that industry. Painting is considered to be "construction" under the relevant codes in this manual. The manual, with its codes and classifications is relied upon in the insurance industry and has been adopted by the State of Florida, and the Department, in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.021. The preparation of surfaces for painting is contemplated as being included in the construction trade or industry in that manual, under the painting classification code. Mr. Longoria performs a significant amount of painting, but also does general construction, wallpapering, general maintenance and carpentry work. He has three different occupational licenses: maintenance, carpentry and painting/wallpapering. The trades or types of work Mr. Longoria had disclosed in the course of obtaining his construction industry exemption, which was effective April 13, 2006, through April 12, 2008, included paperhanging, wallpapering and carpentry. During his conversation with Investigator Newcomer, Mr. Longoria disclosed that he did not have workers' compensation coverage because he had an exemption from such coverage. He provided her with a workers' compensation Exemption card for the construction industry. Ms. Newcomer observed that the workers' compensation exemption held by Mr. Longoria, as an officer of the Respondent, had actually expired some months previously, on April 12, 2008. Ms. Newcomer consulted the Department's automated database, called the Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS). That system is routinely used and lists workers' compensation insurance policy information for each corporation, which insurance companies are required to provide to the Department, as well as the workers' compensation exemptions for corporate officers, if any. The database confirmed that Mr. Longoria's most recent exemption had expired on April 12, 2008. He thus did not have a current workers' compensation exemption on October 29, 2008, when he encountered Investigator Newcomer. That database also revealed that there was no record of a workers' compensation insurance policy in effect for the Respondent, and this was confirmed by Mr. Longoria's testimony during his deposition (in evidence). Corporate officers who qualify for a workers' compensation coverage exemption are not automatically exempt, but must submit a Notice of Election to Be Exempt. They submit a form, along with a $50 fee, to apply for an exemption. Upon receipt of a Notice of Election to Be Exempt, the Department makes a determination as to whether the applicant for the exemption meets the relevant eligibility requirements. The exemption request is then processed by the Department and a Notice of Granting the Exemption, or denial, or a Notice of Incompletion, and the necessity for more information, is sent to the applicant. A workers' compensation exemption has a duration of two years from its effective date. Its effective date is the date that is entered into the CCAS system. The only Notice of Election to Be Exempt the Department received from Mr. Longoria, as of the October 29, 2008, inspection date, was the application received on April 10, 2006. It became effective on April 13, 2006, and thus was effective until April 13, 2008. Before October 29, 2008, Mr. Longoria had three construction industry exemptions which were renewed. One exemption was as a sole proprietor and was effective from July 4, 1993, through July 4, 1995. He had another exemption extending from April 13, 2004, through April 13, 2006, and then an exemption from April 13, 2006, through April 12, 2008. Mr. Longoria stated to Ms. Newcomer, in their conversation on October 29, 2008, that he had not received notice of his April 13, 2006 exemption's expiration prior to the expiration date of April 13, 2008. Ms. Newcomer thereupon consulted the CCAS system to determine when the notification of expiration of the exemption had been sent to Mr. Longoria or the Respondent. That database revealed that a letter notifying him of the expiration of his exemption had been sent on January 29, 2008. The CCAS entry shows that the expiration notice had been mailed out to Mr. Longoria to his address of record, 1815 West Detroit Boulevard, Pensacola, Florida 32354. That is the same address which had been shown on Mr. Longoria's exemption certificate, effective on April 13, 2006. Mr. Longoria's wife was stricken with cancer. She is a veteran and sought treatment and therapy for her cancer at a Veteran's Administration facility in Tennessee. Consequently, Mr. and Mrs. Longoria moved to Tennessee in May 2006, soon after the effective date of his exemption. Mr. Longoria filed a mail-forwarding form with the United States Postal Service in Pensacola so that his mail would be forwarded to his residence and address in Tennessee. Mail was forwarded for approximately one year, but no mail originally sent to his Pensacola address was forwarded to his address in Tennessee after sometime in August 2007. Mr. Longoria did not notice this fact until April 2008. None of the later mail addressed to the Pensacola address was forwarded to Tennessee, even after he renewed his forwarding application with the postal service in April of 2008. In fact, he testified that "99 percent of whatever mail was sent to the Florida address between 2007 and April 2008 was never forwarded to [Mr. Longoria] in Tennessee." Mr. Longoria, however, did not file a change of address notification with the Department prior to submitting his new Notice of Election to be Exempt, which he filed on October 31, 2008. The Respondent did not change his mailing address with the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations until April 9, 2008. On October 29, 2008, after the discussion between Mr. Longoria and Investigator Newcomer, concerning the matter of workers' compensation coverage, Ms. Newcomer issued a Stop Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment, and served it on Mr. Longoria and the Respondent. These were issued because of the Respondent's failure to secure payment of workers' compensation in purported violation of Sections 440.10(1), 440.38(1) and 440.107(2), Florida Statutes. Upon issuance of the Stop Work Order, Mr. Longoria promptly complied. Investigator Newcomer also requested production of certain business records in order to perform the relevant penalty assessment calculations. Mr. Longoria promptly provided the necessary business records to the Department. The parties stipulated that work was being performed by the Respondent between the dates of April 12, 2008, and October 29, 2008. This was the period of time when the exemption was in an expired state. Based upon the Respondent's records, Investigator Newcomer calculated an amended penalty, for the period of noncompliance with the workers' compensation law (the period of expiration of the exemption) using the penalty calculation worksheet adopted in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.027. The total penalty based upon that formula resulted in an assessment of less than $1,000. The penalty assessed was therefore $1,000, pursuant to Section 440.107(7)(d), Florida Statutes, which provides that the penalty to be assessed will be based on the formula provided in the referenced provision of Section 440.107, Florida Statutes, and the above-cited rule, or a minimum of $1,000, whichever is greater. The parties stipulated that the penalty assessed is accurate, if it is ultimately determined that the penalty was properly and lawfully assessed. After being served with the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on October 31, 2008, Mr. Longoria promptly paid the penalty in full, in the form of a cashier's check. He submitted a new Notice of Election to Be Exempt for himself, as a corporate officer of the Respondent, which exemption became effective on that same date. The Respondent was subsequently issued an Order of Release from the Stop Work Order and an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, which allowed the Respondent to resume working. The expiration of the exemption, for the number of months referenced above, occurred because the Respondent, through Mr. Longoria, inadvertently failed to renew the exemption. Mr. Longoria had not been reminded of his expiration because he had not received the Notice of Impending Expiration from the Department. There is no dispute that Mr. Longoria and the Respondent corporation qualified for the exemption and were thus not required to secure the payment of workers' compensation, if the exemption had been effective at times pertinent hereto. This is because of the corporate business entity under which the Respondent and Mr. Longoria operated, with Mr. Longoria as the sole employee and sole corporate officer and owner.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties it is, therefore, Recommended that a Final Order be entered by the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, finding that the Respondent failed to properly secure workers' compensation insurance coverage for its employee in violation of Sections 440.10(1)(a) and 440.38(1), Florida Statutes, and that a penalty in the amount of $1,000 be assessed, as mandated by Section 440.107(7), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of May, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of May, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Tracey Beal, Agency Clerk Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 Benjamin Diamond, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307 Honorable Alex Sink Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Justin H. Faulkner, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Samuel W. Bearman, Esquire Law Office of Samuel W. Bearman, L.C. 820 North 12th Avenue Pensacola, Florida 32501
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 to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent failed to abide by the coverage requirements of the Florida Workers' Compensation Law embodied in Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by not obtaining a workers' compensation insurance policy and whether the Petitioner properly assessed a penalty against the Respondent pursuant to Section 440.107, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Investigator Pangrass conducted a random inspection of a construction site at 9 Pecan Drive Pass, Ocala, Florida, on December 18, 2002. On that occasion he observed several people working, hanging drywall. Investigator Pangrass spoke to one of the workers, Daniel Maloney, and asked him, to identify his employer. Daniel Maloney identified the Respondent as his employer. When Maloney identified him the Respondent was only 10 feet away and the noise level at the site was such that the Respondent could hear himself being identified as the employer. The Respondent did not then deny that he was Daniel Maloney's employer. Daniel Maloney stated he had worked for the Respondent full-time for two months and was paid by the hour. The Respondent told Mr. Pangrass he was unable to complete the work at the job without additional labor. Mr. Maloney assisted the Respondent by "hanging the ceiling." The Respondent offered a hearsay statement of Mr. Maloney, wherein he stated, "I am the employee." The Respondent confirmed that he had a prior employment relationship with Daniel Maloney and that Daniel Maloney wanted to work with the Respondent. Another worker observed by Mr. Pangrass, Desmond Neil, told Investigator Pangrass that he worked for the Respondent part-time and was paid by the hour. The Respondent had used the services of Desmond Neil on prior occasions and stated "we do a job for Holiday the day before." The Respondent told Mr. Pangrass that he was trying to get workers' compensation for Desmond Neil. The Respondent made a statement against his own interest and said he "re-hired" Desmond Neil because Neil could not get a workers' compensation exemption. The Respondent's use of the word "re-hired" is significant because in a prior compliance matter the Respondent had employed Desmond Neil and agreed to terminate Desmond Neil's employment. The Respondent in testimony, changed his version of the facts and said that he re-hired Desmond Neil, but that Neil worked for Charles Brandon. Investigator Pangrass interviewed the Respondent. During this interview the Respondent stated he had labor expenses connected with his business. He testified he was paid by Holiday Builders and then in turn paid Desmond Neil and Daniel Maloney. Charles Brandon did not employ or was not the sole employer of Desmond Neil or Daniel Maloney on December 18, 2002. Investigator Pangrass contacted Mr. Brandon, who stated he knew the Respondent was going to hire helpers. Mr. Brandon was not at the job-site to direct Desmond Neil or Daniel Maloney and could only be reached by phone. The Petitioner's evidence that the Respondent was the employer of Desmond Neil and Daniel Maloney on December 18, 2002, instead of Mr. Brandon or some other person or entity, is the most persuasive and is accepted. The Respondent offered conflicting evidence regarding who provided money to Desmond Neil and Daniel Maloney. The Respondent offered a hearsay statement of Daniel Maloney that Holiday Builders was Daniel Maloney's employer. The Respondent said that when Holiday Builders pays him (the Respondent) he then pays his employees. The Respondent changed his testimony, however, and then said Charles Brandon gave him checks to give to the employees. (Implying that they were Brandon's employees in this version of his story.) The Respondent submitted a signed statement to the Petitioner indicating that he had no employees between 1999 and 2002, in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 10-B. The Respondent recognized the signature on that statement as being his own, but professed not to remember who wrote it or what it said. The Respondent, however, did admit to having at least one employee in 2001, directly contradicting his own statement. The Respondent also testified that the only times he used Desmond Neil's services were the two times Investigator Pangrass stopped by the Respondent's job sites. It is a trifle too coincidental that the only two times the investigator visited the job sites were the only times when the Respondent purportedly used the services of Desmond Neil. This is especially the case since Desmond Neil's testimony and even that of the Respondent himself tend to contradict that statement. Finally, the Respondent admitted that he did not have a workers' compensation policy for any employees. In summary, the evidence adduced by the Petitioner is deemed more consistent and credible and is accepted. It was thus demonstrated that the Respondent had one or more employees at the times pertinent hereto.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation directing that the Respondent stop work and cease his operations until such time as he secures workers' compensation coverage for employees and directing that the Respondent pay a penalty in the amount of $1,100.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of December, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of December, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: John M. Iriye, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Workers' Compensation 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 Berisford Champagnie 15508 Southwest 34th Avenue Ocala, Florida 34473 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issue is whether the Stop-Work Order and the Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment entered by Petitioner on July 25, 2013, and August 13, 2013, respectively, should be upheld.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency tasked with the responsibility of enforcing the requirement of section 440.107(3), Florida Statutes, that employers in Florida secure the payment of workers' compensation for their employees. Respondent, Mad Dog Marketing Group, Inc., is a corporation organized under chapter 607, Florida Statutes, and was registered with the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations, throughout the period of July 26, 2010, to July 25, 2013. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was engaged in the operation of a hardware store business with three locations in Florida. On July 25, 2013, based upon an anonymous referral, Tracey Gilbert, the Department's compliance investigator, commenced a workers' compensation compliance investigation of Respondent by visiting the job site, an appliance parts store at 730 West Brandon Boulevard, Brandon, Florida, and interviewing Sharon Belcher. According to Ms. Gilbert, Ms. Belcher informed her that she had 11 employees at the time of the site visit and that she did not have workers' compensation coverage for them. Ms. Belcher showed Ms. Gilbert an application for workers' compensation insurance and said she had not taken action with it since the company wanted a $10,000 premium. She also showed Ms. Gilbert some OSHA and workplace posters, but not the typical "broken arm poster" that describes workers' compensation coverage for a place of business. Ms. Belcher then gave Ms. Gilbert a list of Respondent's 11 current employees. On her laptop computer, Ms. Gilbert consulted the Department's Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) database to determine whether Respondent had secured workers' compensation coverage or an exemption from the requirements for coverage for its employees. CCAS is the database Ms. Gilbert routinely consults during the course of her investigations. She determined from CCAS that Respondent neither had workers' compensation coverage for her employees nor had received an exemption from such coverage from the Department. Ms. Belcher's recollection of her meeting with Ms. Gilbert differs from Ms. Gilbert's. Ms. Belcher recalled that she had applied for insurance with ADP on July 11, 2013, received the "broken arm poster," and believed she was covered at the time Ms. Belcher conducted her investigation. She offered an exhibit showing photographs of posters (but not the "broken arm poster") on the office bulletin board. She also offered an exhibit she testified was the UPS label from the tube containing the "broken arm poster." No photograph of the "broken arm poster" was produced as an exhibit. Ms. Gilbert did not contact ADP to verify whether Respondent had coverage on the date of her site visit to the Brandon store. Ms. Gilbert issued a Stop-Work Order to Respondent and a concurrent Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation at 11:20 a.m. on July 25, 2013. Ms. Belcher first submitted an application for workers' compensation coverage on July 11, 2013, but coverage was not bound on that date. Ms. Belcher submitted the paperwork to bind her insurance coverage on the afternoon of July 25, 2013, according to Mark Cristillo, an employee of ADP Insurance. Mr. Cristillo testified that he had made several attempts during the month of July 2013 to obtain the signed documents from Ms. Belcher, including an attempt as late as July 23, 2013, at 11:45 a.m. Ms. Belcher told Mr. Cristillo at that time that she had not reviewed the quote package. At 11:20 a.m., the time Ms. Gilbert's issued the Stop-Work Order on July 25, 2013, Ms. Belcher had not bound her insurance coverage. When she submitted the payment with the signed documents to ADP later that afternoon, the coverage was bound effective 12:01 a.m. on July 25, 2013. The records produced by Ms. Belcher were given to Chad Mason, one of the Department's penalty auditors, to calculate the penalty. He reviewed the records and determined the amount of gross payroll paid to Respondent's employees during the three- year penalty period preceding the investigation during which Respondent was not in compliance with the workers' compensation coverage requirements. Using Respondent's bi-weekly payroll chart, Respondent's Florida Department of Revenue UCT-6 reports, and the classification codes for each employee, Mr. Mason calculated a Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment of $42,251.43, based upon what Respondent would have paid in workers' compensation premiums had it been in compliance with Florida's Workers' Compensation Law. The order was issued on October 24, 2013. Mr. Mason determined that the appropriate codes for Respondent's employees were 8010 and 8810, which are hardware store employees and general clerical employees, respectively. These codes were derived from the Scopes Manual, which lists all of the various jobs that may be performed in the context of workers' compensation. The manual is produced by NCCI, the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc., the nation's most authoritative data collecting and disseminating organization for workers' compensation. The parties stipulated prior to hearing that all of the individuals listed on the penalty worksheet of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment were "employees" in the state of Florida of Respondent during the periods of non-compliance listed on the penalty worksheets. However, Respondent claimed that some of the employees were out-of-state and not subject to Florida law. Ms. Belcher testified that, as of July 25, 2013, three of its employees, Fred Hasselman, Douglas Strickland, and Josh Hyers, were employees of the Tennessee store and not subject to a Florida penalty. Mr. Hyers was a Florida employee prior to July 1, according to Ms. Belcher. However, all three of the employees were listed on the Florida Department of Revenue's UCT-6 form for the time period of the non-compliance. The UCT-6 form lists those employees who are subject to Florida's Unemployment Compensation Law. Mr. Mason reasonably relied upon the UCT-6 filings for the relevant time period to calculate Respondent's gross payroll in Florida. No evidence was produced to show them listed as Tennessee employees on that state's comparable tax form or any official document from outside Florida. The logical assumption is that they are Florida employees under the law. Accepting all the employees disclosed by Respondent as Florida employees led Mr. Mason to make his calculations of the penalty assessment using the appropriate codes from the Scopes Manual for hardware store and general clerical workers, 8010 and 8810. All the named employees on the Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment were paid by Respondent in the amounts indicated on the penalty worksheet that accompanies that assessment during the penalty period of July 26, 2010, through July 25, 2013. Even though small discrepancies came up at the hearing regarding the classifications of some of Respondent's employees, the parties had stipulated to the accuracy of the classifications of those employees so those numbers will be accepted for purposes of this decision. Based upon the testimony at the hearing and the pre-hearing stipulations of the parties, the penalty assessment in the amount of $42,251.43 is accurate. Mr. Mason correctly applied the methodology for determining the amount of coverage required, determining that the appropriate premium for the three- year period would have been $28,167.50. When multiplied by the factor used to calculate the penalty, 1.5 times the premium, the total amount due is $42,251.43. The Department has proven by clear and convincing evidence that at the time the Stop-Work Order was issued and served on Respondent on the morning of July 25, 2013, Respondent had not secured workers' compensation coverage for its employees as required by chapter 440. On two occasions, August 2 and August 21, 2013, Ms. Gilbert returned to Respondent's Brandon location after the Stop-Work Order had been issued. The first was to serve the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment and the second was to serve the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. On both occasions, the business was open in violation of the Stop-Work Order. A business under a Stop-Work Order may elect to enter into a payment plan after a ten percent down payment to keep the business open while a challenge to DOAH is under way. Respondent had not entered into such a plan. Therefore, the Department seeks $1,000 penalty for each of the days Ms. Gilbert visited the Brandon store and saw it open for business. This total additional penalty of $2,000 could have been greater had the Department further investigated whether the business remained open on other days after the Stop-Work Order had been imposed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order upholding the Stop-Work Order and Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and assess a penalty in the amount of $42,251.43. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Department fine Respondent an additional $1,000 per day for the two days Respondent did not comply with the Stop-Work Order, resulting in a total penalty of $44,251.43. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of December, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of December, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Trevor S. Suter, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Kristian Eiler Dunn, Esquire Dickens and Dunn, P.L. 517 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390
