The Issue Whether Royal Roofing and Restoration, Inc. (Respondent or Royal Roofing), failed to secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage for its employees; and, if so, whether the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (Petitioner or Department), correctly calculated the penalty to be assessed against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with enforcing the requirement of chapter 440, that Florida employers secure workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Respondent is a Florida for-profit corporation organized on July 28, 2015, and engaged in the business of roofing and storm damage restoration. The company was formed, and initially conducted business, in Tallahassee, Florida, but expanded to the Panama City area in 2016. Traci Fisher is Respondent’s President and Registered Agent, with a mailing address of 1004 Kenilworth, Tallahassee, Florida 32312. DOAH Case No. 17-0879 On May 4, 2016, Department Compliance Investigator Jesse Holman, conducted a routine workers’ compensation compliance inspection at 374 Brown Place in Crestview, Florida. Mr. Holman observed four men removing shingles from the roof of a residential structure at that address. Mr. Holman first interviewed a worker who identified himself as Dustin Hansel and reported that he and the other three workers on site were a new crew for Respondent, the permit for the job had not yet been pulled, and the workers were not aware of the rate of pay for the job. Mr. Hansel telephoned Respondent’s sales manager, Dillon Robinson, who then spoke directly with Mr. Holman via telephone. Mr. Robinson informed Mr. Holman that Respondent obtained workers’ compensation coverage through Payroll Management Inc. (PMI), an employee-leasing company. Mr. Holman identified the three remaining workers at the jobsite as Milton Trice, Winston Perrotta, and Kerrigan Ireland. Mr. Holman contacted PMI and secured a copy of Respondent’s then-active employee roster. None of the workers at the jobsite, including Mr. Hansel, were included on Respondent’s employee roster. Upon inquiry, Mr. Holman was informed that PMI had no pending employee applications for Respondent. Mr. Holman consulted the Department’s Coverage Compliance Automated System (CCAS) and found Respondent had no workers’ compensation insurance policy and no active exemptions. During Mr. Holman’s onsite investigation, the workers left the jobsite. Mr. Holman could not immediately reach Ms. Fisher, but did speak with her husband, Tim Fisher. Mr. Fisher informed Mr. Holman that the crew was on their way to the PMI Fort Walton office to be enrolled on Respondent’s employee roster. On May 5, 2016, based on his investigation, and after consultation with his supervisor, Mr. Holman issued Respondent Stop-Work Order (SWO) 16-148-1A, along with a Business Records Request (BRR) for records covering the audit period of July 27, 2015 through May 4, 2016. Later that day, Mr. Holman spoke to Ms. Fisher, who informed him the crew did not have permission to begin the work on that date, as she had not yet pulled the permit for the reroof. Ms. Fisher further explained that the crewmembers had been instructed to complete applications with PMI prior to departing Tallahassee for Crestview. Ms. Fisher confirmed the crewmembers were completing applications at PMI Fort Walton that same day. Mr. Holman met with Ms. Fisher the following day and personally served SWO 16-148-1A. Ms. Fisher delivered to Mr. Holman an updated employee roster from PMI which included Mr. Hansel, Mr. Perrotta, and Mr. Ireland; a letter documenting Mr. Trice was not employed by Respondent; and a $1000 check as downpayment on the penalty. Respondent initially submitted business records in response to the BRR on May 23 and 25, 2017. DOAH Case No. 17-1558 On June 8, 2016, Mr. Holman conducted a random workers’ compensation compliance inspection at 532 Rising Star Drive in Crestview. The single-family home at that address was undergoing renovations and Mr. Holman observed three men on the roof removing shingles. None of the men on the roof spoke English, but a fourth man, who identified himself as Jose Manuel Mejia, appeared and stated he worked for Respondent, and that all the workers onsite were paid through PMI at a rate of $10.00 per hour. Mr. Mejia admitted that one of the worker’s onsite, Emelio Lopez, was not enrolled with PMI and explained that Mr. Mejia brought him to the worksite that day because he knew Mr. Lopez to be a good worker. The remaining workers onsite were identified as Juan Mencho and Ramon Gonzalez, both from Atlanta, Georgia. Mr. Mejia produced some PMI paystubs for himself and Mr. Mencho. Mr. Mejia stated that he and his crews also received reimbursement checks directly from Respondent for gas, rentals, materials, and the like. Mr. Holman contacted PMI, who produced Respondent’s then-active employee roster. Mr. Mejia and Mr. Mencho were on the roster, but neither Mr. Gonzalez nor Mr. Lopez was included. Mr. Holman next contacted Ms. Fisher, who identified Mr. Mejia as a subcontractor, but was not familiar with any of the other men Mr. Holman encountered at the worksite. Mr. Holman consulted via telephone with his supervisor, who instructed him to issue an SWO to Respondent for failing to secure workers’ compensation coverage for its employees. Mr. Holman issued SWO 16-198-1A by posting the worksite on June 8, 2016. Department Facilitator Don Hurst, personally served Ms. Fisher with SWO 16-198-1A in Tallahassee that same day. SWO 16-148-1A Penalty Calculation1/ Department Penalty Auditor Eunika Jackson, was assigned to calculate the penalties associated with the SWOs issued to Respondent. On June 8, 2016, Ms. Jackson began calculating the penalty associated with SWO 16-148-1A. Ms. Jackson reviewed the documents submitted by Respondent in response to the BRR. The documents included Respondent’s Wells Fargo bank statements, check images, and PMI payroll register for the audit period.2/ Based on a review of the records, Ms. Jackson identified the following individuals as Respondent’s employees because they received direct payment from Respondent at times during the audit period: David Rosinsky, Dylan Robinson, Jarod Bell, Tommy Miller, and David Shields. Ms. Jackson determined periods of non-compliance for these employees based on the dates they received payments from Respondent and were not covered for workers’ compensation via PMI employment roster, separate policy, or corporate officer exemption. Ms. Jackson deemed payments to each of the individuals as gross payroll for purposes of calculating the penalty. Based upon Ms. Fisher’s deposition testimony, Ms. Jackson assigned National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) class code 5551, Roofing, to Mr. Miller; NCCI class code 5474, Painting, to Mr. Rosinsky; NCCI class code 8742, Sales, to Mr. Bell and Mr. Robinson; and NCCI class code 8810, clerical office employee, to Mr. Shields. Utilizing the statutory formula for penalty calculation, Ms. Jackson calculated a total penalty of $191.28 associated with these five “employees.” Ms. Jackson next calculated the penalty for Dustin Hansel, Kerrigan Ireland, Milton Trice, and Winston Perrotta, the workers identified at the jobsite as employees on May 4, 2016. The Department maintains that the business records submitted by Respondent were insufficient to determine Respondent’s payroll to these “employees,” thus, Ms. Jackson used the statutory formula to impute payroll to these workers. Ms. Jackson calculated a penalty of $14,970.12 against Respondent for failure to secure payment of workers’ compensation insurance for each of these four “employees” during the audit period. The total penalty associated with these four “employees” is $59,880.48. Ms. Jackson calculated a total penalty of $60,072.96 to be imposed against Respondent in connection with SWO 16-148- 1A. Business Records In compliance with the Department’s BRR, Respondent submitted additional business records on several occasions-- March 21, May 3 and 31, June 7, and August 15 and 24, 2017--in order to establish its complete payroll for the audit period. While the Department admits that the final documents submitted do establish Respondent’s complete payroll, the Department did not issue amended penalty assessment based on those records in either case. The Department maintains Respondent did not timely submit records, pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.028(4), which allows an employer 20 business days after service of the first amended order of penalty assessment to submit sufficient records to establish payroll. All business records submitted by Respondent were admitted in evidence and included as part of the record. The undersigned is not limited to the record before the Department at the time the amended penalty assessments were imposed, but must determine a recommendation in a de novo proceeding. The undersigned has relied upon the complete record in arriving at the decision in this case. Penalty Calculation for Ireland, Trice, and Perrotta For purposes of workers’ compensation insurance coverage, an “employee” is “any person who receives remuneration from an employer” for work or services performed under a contract. § 440.02(15)(a), Fla. Stat. Respondent did not issue a single check to Mr. Ireland, Mr. Trice, or Mr. Perrotta during the audit period. Mr. Ireland, Mr. Trice, and Mr. Perrotta are not included on any PMI leasing roster included in the record for the audit period. The uncontroverted evidence, including the credible and unrefuted testimony of each person with knowledge, established that Mr. Ireland, Mr. Trice, and Mr. Perrotta were newly hired for the job in Crestview on May 4, 2016, and began working that day prior to submitting applications at PMI, despite Ms. Fisher’s directions otherwise. Petitioner did not prove that either Mr. Ireland, Mr. Trice, or Mr. Perrotta was Respondent’s employee at any time during the audit period. Petitioner did not correctly calculate the penalty of $44,911.26 against Respondent for failure to secure workers’ compensation insurance for Mr. Ireland, Mr. Trice, and Mr. Perrotta during the audit period. Penalty Calculation for Hansel Ms. Fisher testified that Mr. Hansel has owned several businesses with which Respondent has conducted business over the years. Originally, Mr. Hansel owned a dumpster rental business, now owned by his father. Mr. Hansel also owned an independent landscaping company with which Respondent occasionally transacted business. When Respondent expanded business into the Panama City area, Ms. Fisher hired Mr. Hansel as a crew chief to supervise new crews in the area. The job on May 4, 2016, was his first roofing job. A review of Respondent’s records reveals Respondent issued the following checks to Mr. Hansel during the audit period: December 4, 2015, in the amount of $360, $300 of which was for “dumpster rental” and the remaining $60 for “sod”; May 4, 2016, in the amount of $200 for “sod repair”; May 6, 2016, in the amount of $925 as reimbursement for travel expenses; May 9, 2016, in the amount of $1,011.50 (with no memo); and May 21, 2016, in the amount of $100 for “7845 Preservation.” Mr. Hansel was included on Respondent’s PMI leasing roster beginning on May 13, 2016. Petitioner proved that Mr. Hansel was Respondent’s employee at times during the audit period. Petitioner did not prove that Respondent’s records were insufficient to determine payroll to Mr. Hansel during the audit period, which would have required an imputed penalty. Petitioner did not correctly calculate the penalty of $14,970.42 against Respondent for failure to secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage for Mr. Hansel during the audit period. Sod repair by Mr. Hansel is a service performed for Respondent during the audit period. Reimbursement of travel expenses is specifically included in the definition of payroll for purposes of calculating the penalty. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L- 6.035(1)(f) (“Expense reimbursements, including reimbursements for travel” are included as remuneration to employees “to the extent that the employer’s business records and receipts do not confirm that the expense incurred as a valid business expense.”). Dumpster rental is neither work performed on behalf of, nor service provided to, Respondent during the audit period. The correct uninsured payroll amount attributable to Mr. Hansel is $2,296.50. Petitioner correctly applied NCCI class code 5551, Roofing, to work performed by Mr. Hansel based on the observation of Mr. Holman at the worksite on May 4, 2016. With respect to Mr. Hansel’s services for sod and sod repair, Petitioner did not correctly apply NCCI class code 5551. Petitioner did not introduce competent substantial evidence of the applicable NCCI class code and premium amount for landscaping services performed during the audit period.3/ Uninsured payroll attributable to Mr. Hansel for roofing services during the audit period is $2,036.50. The approved manual rate for workers’ compensation insurance for NCCI class code 5551 during the period of non- compliance--May 9 and 21, 2016--is $18.60. The premium amount Respondent would have paid to provide workers’ compensation insurance for Mr. Hansel is $378.79 (One percent of Mr. Hansel’s gross payroll during the non-compliance period--$20.36--multiplied by $18.60). The penalty for Respondent’s failure to secure worker’s compensation coverage insurance for Mr. Hansel during the period of non-compliance is calculated as two times the amount Respondent would have paid in premium for the non- compliance period. The correct penalty for Respondent’s failure to maintain workers’ compensation coverage for Mr. Hansel during the period of non-compliance is $757.58. Penalty Calculation for Salesmen Independent contractors not engaged in the construction industry are not employees for purposes of enforcing workers’ compensation insurance requirements. See § 440.02(15)(d)1., Fla. Stat. Sales is a non-construction industry occupation. The Department calculated a penalty associated with payroll attributable to the following persons identified by Ms. Fisher as independent salesmen: Dylan Robinson, Kevin Miller, Marc Medley, Mike Rucker, Colby Fisher, David Jones, Jarod Bell, Matt Flynn, and Todd Zulauf. Section 440.02(15)(d)1. provides that an individual may be an independent contractor, rather than an employee, as follows: In order to meet the definition of independent contractor, at least four of the following criteria must be met: The independent contractor maintains a separate business with his or her own work facility, truck, equipment, materials, or similar accommodations; The independent contractor holds or has applied for a federal employer identification number, unless the independent contractor is a sole proprietor who is not required to obtain a federal employer identification number under state or federal regulations; The independent contractor receives compensation for services rendered or work performed and such compensation is paid to a business rather than to an individual; The independent contractor holds one or more bank accounts in the name of the business entity for purposes of paying business expenses or other expenses related to services rendered or work performed for compensation; The independent contractor performs work or is able to perform work for any entity in addition to or besides the employer at his or her own election without the necessity of completing an employment application or process; or The independent contractor receives compensation for work or services rendered on a competitive-bid basis or completion of a task or a set of tasks as defined by a contractual agreement, unless such contractual agreement expressly states that an employment relationship exists. If four of the criteria listed in sub- subparagraph a. do not exist, an individual may still be presumed to be an independent contractor and not an employee based on full consideration of the nature of the individual situation with regard to satisfying any of the following conditions: The independent contractor performs or agrees to perform specific services or work for a specific amount of money and controls the means of performing the services or work. The independent contractor incurs the principal expenses related to the service or work that he or she performs or agrees to perform. The independent contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of the work or services that he or she performs or agrees to perform. The independent contractor receives compensation for work or services performed for a commission or on a per-job basis and not on any other basis. The independent contractor may realize a profit or suffer a loss in connection with performing work or services. The independent contractor has continuing or recurring business liabilities or obligations. The success or failure of the independent contractor’s business depends on the relationship of business receipts to expenditures. Ms. Fisher testified that each of the above-named salesmen sold roofing jobs for her at various times during the audit period on a commission-only basis. The contractors inspect homeowner roofs, draft schematics, use their own equipment (e.g., drones), incur all of their own expenses, and handle the insurance filing for the homeowner’s insurance to pay on the claim. Ms. Fisher further testified that each of the salesmen also sells for other roofing contractors in the Tallahassee area. She pays the salesmen on a per-job basis. Ms. Fisher does not compensate the salesmen for the time involved in inspecting a roof, preparing schematics, or making the sale. Nor does Ms. Fisher reimburse the salesmen for travel to sales jobsites. Ms. Fisher’s testimony was credible, persuasive, and uncontroverted. Respondent introduced in evidence four “Independent Contractor Checklists” allegedly completed by Mr. Robinson, Mr. Medley, Mr. Fisher, and Mr. Flynn. Each form checklist follows the format of section 440.02(15)(d)1., listing the criteria set forth in subparagraphs a. and b. The forms indicate that they each meet all the criteria listed in subparagraph b.: they perform, or agree to perform services for a specific amount of money and control the means of performing the service; they incur the principal expenses related to the service performed; they are responsible for satisfactory completion of the services performed; they receive compensation for the services performed on a per-job or commission basis; they may realize a profit or suffer a loss in connection with performing the services; they have continuing and recurring business liabilities or obligations; and the success or failure of their business depends on the relationship of business receipts to expenditures.4/ In its Proposed Recommended Order, Petitioner conceded the nine men identified by Respondent as independent sales contractors “would not be considered employees of Respondent” because the “salesmen would seem to meet the majority of [the] requirements [of section 440.02(15)(d)1.b.].” Respondent issued Dylan Robinson, Mark Medley, Colby Fisher, Matt Flynn, Kevin Miller, Mike Rucker, Jarod Bell, David Jones, and Todd Zulauf an IRS FORM 1099-MISC for income paid during the 2016 tax year. Respondent did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the above-named salesmen were Respondent’s employees during the audit period. For SWO 16-148-1A, Respondent did not correctly calculate the penalty because Respondent included a penalty associated with Petitioner’s failure to provide workers’ compensation insurance coverage for Dylan Robinson and Jarod Bell. Penalty in the amount of $20.70 associated with Dylan Robinson and Jarod Bell should not be included in the total penalty. The correct penalty amount for SWO 16-148-1A, based on records submitted by Respondent on or before March 20, 2016, is $929.16. Draft Revised Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment The additional records submitted by Respondent revealed payments made to persons during the audit period who were not included in the Department’s Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. The Department and Respondent disagreed at hearing whether the payments qualified as payroll. At hearing, Petitioner submitted a draft revised second amended penalty calculation for SWO 16-148-1A based on all records received from Respondent. The revised penalty is in the amount of $61,453.50. Ms. Jackson populated the spreadsheet with the name of every individual to whom a check was written on Respondent’s business bank account during the audit period, removing only those payments to individuals and entities which, to Petitioner’s knowledge, were not Respondent’s employees. Respondent’s calculations in the revised penalty suffer from some of the same errors as in the second amended penalty calculation--they include individuals Petitioner did not prove were Respondent’s employees, as well as payments which were not uninsured payroll. For the reasons explained herein, Petitioner did not prove that salesmen David Jones, Dylan Robinson, Jarod Bell, Kevin Miller, Mark Medley, Matt Flynn, Mike Rucker, Tim Fischer, and Colby Fisher were Respondent’s employees during the audit period. Respondent did not accurately calculate the penalty associated with those persons. Respondent made payments to David Shields during the audit period, which the Department argues should be included as payroll. The Department included payments to Mr. Shields in its draft revised second amended order of penalty assessment and assigned NCCI class code “8810” for clerical work. Mr. Shields is a licensed professional roofing contractor who acts as “qualifier” for Respondent’s business. A qualifier is a licensed professional who certifies plans for permit applications submitted by another business. Respondent pays Mr. Shields a flat fee per permit application qualified by him. The record evidence does not support a finding that Mr. Shields provides clerical services to Respondent. Mr. Shields provides some sort of professional services to Respondent, and is likely an independent contractor providing his own materials and supplies, maintaining his own business accounts, and liable for his own business success. Assuming Mr. Shields were Respondent’s employee, the Department introduced no evidence of an appropriate NCCI class code for Mr. Shields’ services. The Department did not prove that payments to Mr. Shields should be included as Respondent’s uninsured payroll during the audit period. Respondent paid Susan Swain a total of $258 during the audit period for clerical work. Ms. Fisher maintained Ms. Swain’s work was casual at first, and the payments reflect a time when she worked on-again, off-again, handling the paperwork for restoration insurance claims. Later, Ms. Swain came to work for Respondent full-time and was added to the PMI leasing roster. Section 440.02(15)(d)5. provides that a person “whose employment is both casual and not in the course of the trade, business, profession or occupation of the employer” is not an employee. The statute defines “casual” employment as work that is anticipated to be completed in 10 working days or less and at a total labor cost of less than $500. See § 440.02(5), Fla. Stat. In its Proposed Recommended Order, the Department argues Ms. Swain’s wages should be included as payroll because the “testimony regarding Ms. Swain does not suggest that she was employed for less than 10 days[.]” However, it was the Department’s burden to prove that Ms. Swain was a statutory employee. The Department did not prove that Ms. Swain’s wages should be included within Respondent’s uninsured payroll. The largest portion of the penalty assessed by the Department, as well as in the draft revised second amended penalty assessment, against Respondent is in connection with various roofers who were employed by Respondent at times during the audit period. Each of the roofers was included on Respondent’s PMI leasing roster, but received checks directly from Respondent in addition to PMI payroll checks. The Department included all the direct payments to those roofers as payroll for purposes of calculating a penalty in this case. As Ms. Fisher explained, the company bids a reroof on a per job basis--usually a per square foot price. Ms. Fisher adds each roofing contractor’s name to the PMI leasing roster to ensure that each roofer is covered by workers’ compensation insurance for the duration of the job. When the job is completed (which is a matter of just a few days), the contractor reports to Ms. Fisher what amount of the contract price was spent on materials, supplies, or other non-labor costs. Ms. Fisher cuts a check to the contractor for that amount and authorizes PMI to issue payroll checks for the “labor cost” (the difference between the contract price and the non-labor costs). Ms. Fisher refers to this process as “back-charging” the contractors for their materials, maintenance, tools, and other non-labor costs. The Department is correct that the direct payments are payroll to the roofing contractors. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.035(1)(b) and (h) (remuneration includes “payments, including cash payments, made to employees by or on behalf of the employer” and “payments or allowances made by or on behalf of the employer for tools or equipment used by employees in their work or operations for the employer.”). The Department would be correct to include these payments in the penalty calculation if they represented uninsured payroll. However, the evidence supports a finding that the direct payments to the roofing contractors were made for the same jobs on which Respondent secured workers’ compensation coverage through PMI. The roofing contractors were covered for workers’ compensation throughout the job, even though they may have received partial payment for the job outside of the PMI payroll checks.5/ The direct payments were not for separate reroofs on which the roofers were not otherwise insured. The Department did not correctly calculate penalties associated with the following roofing contractors: Donald Tontigh, Joseph Howard, Keith Mills, Aaron Kilpatrick, Gustavo Tobias, Jose Mejia, and Tommy Miller. Ms. Fisher also received cash payments from Respondent during the audit period. These payments were made in addition to her payroll through PMI. Ms. Fisher described these payments as “cash tickets,” which were paid outside of her PMI payroll to reimburse her for investments made in the company. For purposes of calculating the penalty in this case, these “cash tickets” are clearly payroll, as that term is to be calculated pursuant to rule 69L-6.035. Similar to the issue with the roofing contractors, the question is whether the payments represent uninsured payroll. Ms. Fisher did not hold a corporate officer exemption at any time relevant hereto. Ms. Fisher testified that she was covered through PMI payroll leasing. In contrast to the roofing contractors, Ms. Fisher’s direct payments do not directly coincide with any particular job or specific time frame during which Ms. Fisher was covered for workers’ compensation insurance through PMI. The evidence was insufficient to determine that the amounts were insured payroll. The Department properly calculated a penalty associated with payroll attributable to Ms. Fisher. Respondent made one payment of $75 to Donald Martin during the audit period. The Department calculated a penalty of $27.90 associated with this payment to Mr. Martin. Ms. Fisher explained that Mr. Martin was a down-on-his-luck guy who came by the office one day complaining that Mr. Hansel owed him some money. Ms. Fisher offered to put him on a roofing crew and wrote him the $75 check to help him out. Ms. Fisher’s testimony was both credible and unrefuted. Mr. Martin was never hired by Respondent, put on any roofing crew, or added to the PMI leasing roster. Mr. Martin was not Respondent’s employee because he did not receive remuneration for the “performance of any work or service while engaged in any employment under any appointment or contract for hire” with Respondent. § 440.02(15)(a), Fla. Stat. Cale Dierking works for Respondent full-time in a clerical position. During the audit period, Respondent paid Mr. Dierking directly by check for $1,306.14. This payment was made outside of Mr. Dierking’s PMI payroll checks. Ms. Fisher testified that she paid Mr. Dierking directly on one occasion when “PMI’s payroll got stuck in Memphis, I believe it was a snow-in situation where payroll checks didn’t come.” Rather than ask her employee to go without a timely paycheck, she advanced his payroll. Ms. Fisher’s testimony was both credible and unrefuted. The payment to Mr. Dierking is clearly payroll. However, Mr. Dierking was covered for workers’ compensation through PMI for the period during which the check was issued. Thus, there is no evidence that it was uninsured payroll. The Department did not correctly calculate a penalty associated with payments to Mr. Dierking. The correct penalty to be assessed against Respondent for failure to secure workers’ compensation coverage for its employees during the audit period in connection with SWO 16-148- 1A is $770.60. Penalty Calculation for SWO 16-198-1A Ms. Jackson calculated a total penalty against Respondent in connection with SWO 16-198-1A in the amount of $19,115.84, as reflected in the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. The Department correctly imputed penalty against Respondent in the amount of $91.68 each for uninsured payroll to Mr. Gonzalez and Mr. Lopez. The evidence supported a finding that these workers were Respondent’s statutory employees on June 8, 2016, and were not enrolled on the PMI leasing roster. The Department did not correctly calculate the penalty associated with salesmen Dylan Robinson, Jarod Bell, Kevin Miller, Mark Medley, Matt Flynn, and Todd Zulauf. The Department did not correctly calculate the penalty associated with roofing contractors Abraham Martinez- Antonio, Edwin Kinsey, Dustin Hansel, Efrian Molina-Agustin, Jose Mejia, Joseph Howard, Keith Mills, Samuel Pedro, and Tommy Miller. The Department did not correctly calculate the penalty against Respondent associated with Mr. Shields, Respondent’s qualifier. Based on a review of Respondent’s complete “untimely” records, the Department discovered direct payments made to additional employees not included on the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. Respondent made a direct payment to Ethan Burch in the amount of $602.50 during the audit period. Ethan Burch is one of Respondent’s full-time clerical employees. The evidence is insufficient to determine whether the payment of $602.50 was insured or uninsured payroll. As such, the Department did not prove it correctly calculated the penalty associated with Mr. Burch. Respondent also made a direct payment to Chelsea Hansel in the amount of $965 during the audit period. Ms. Hansel is another clerical employee. Ms. Hansel’s PMI enrollment was delayed due to some background investigation. Respondent paid Ms. Hansel for work she completed prior to enrollment. The direct payment to Ms. Hansel constitutes uninsured payroll. The Department correctly calculated the penalty associated with the payment to Chelsea Hansel. The correct penalty amount to be imposed against Respondent for failure to secure payment of workers’ compensation coverage for its employees (Gonzalez, Lopez, and Chelsea Hansel) during the audit period in connection with SWO 16-198-1A is $187.80.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, finding that Royal Roofing and Restoration, Inc., violated the workers’ compensation insurance law and, in DOAH Case No. 17-0879, assessing a penalty of $770.60; and in DOAH Case No. 17-1558, assessing a penalty of $187.80. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of January, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of January, 2018.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether MS Dockside Marina, LLC (Respondent), violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes,1/ by failing to secure the payment of workers’ compensation, as alleged in the Stop-Work Order and Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment; and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure workers' compensation coverage for the benefit of their employees. Respondent is a Florida limited liability company formed on May 13, 2010. The officers of Respondent are Angela and Eric Pfeufer. At all pertinent times, Respondent has been active, licensed to do business, and engaged in the business of a boat storage and boat repair marina located on the Carrabelle River at 292 Graham Drive, Carrabelle, Florida 32322. The Carrabelle River is one of the navigable waters of the United States. The boat repair services offered by Respondent include boat painting, sandblasting, structural repairs, driveline generator repairs, fiberglass repair, welding, pressure washing, and engine work. On August 5, 2015, Department investigator Donald Hurst visited Respondent’s marina in connection with a workers’ compensation compliance investigation of Respondent. On that date, Respondent had 10 employees, but did not have a workers’ compensation policy or employee leasing policy, and there were no active exemptions for Respondent’s officers. On the day of Investigator Hurst’s visit, Respondent’s employees were Angela Pfeufer, Eric Pfeufer, Shiloh Spivey, Austin Pfeufer, Luke Steinle, Travis Clayton, Richard Sand, Vernon Thompson, Gavin Pfeufer, and Jesse Carrot. Angela and Eric Pfeufer were Respondent’s managing members. The categories and pay rate of Respondent’s other employees were as follows: secretary Shiloh Spivey at $14 per hour; maintenance man and lift operator Austin Pfeufer at $15 per hour; boat lift operator Luke Steinle at $17.50 per hour; boat painter and fiberglass worker Richard Sand at $17 per hour; boat mechanic and boatyard worker Travis Clayton at $15 per hour; painter Gavin Pfeufer at $12 per hour; painter and fiberglass worker Jesse Carroll at $12 per hour; and maintenance man and boat-lift operator Vernon Thompson at $12 per hour. Because Respondent had no workers’ compensation insurance policy in place, on August 5, 2015, Investigator Hurst served the Stop-Work Order and a business records request on Respondent. When they were served, Investigator Hurst explained to Respondent’s officers the effect and purpose of the documents and how Respondent could come into compliance. Respondent came into compliance on August 6, 2015, by making a $1,000 down payment, signing a conditional release, reducing its workforce, and obtaining exemptions for its two managing members. Respondent also purchased a Zenith Insurance Company workers’ compensation insurance policy on August 15, 2015. Respondent timely responded to the Department’s business records request by providing the Department with financial documentation, payroll records, and business records. After receiving Respondent’s records, the Department assigned Department penalty auditor Lynne Murcia the task of reviewing the records and calculating the penalty to be assessed against Respondent. Based on the information provided to Investigator Hurst at the job site by Respondent’s managing member Angela Pfeufer, Investigator Hurst’s observations at the job site on August 5, 2015, and the managing members’ exemptions, Penalty Auditor Murcia assigned classification codes 8810 and 6836 in calculating a penalty. Classification codes are four-digit codes assigned to various occupations by the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) to assist in the calculation of workers’ compensation insurance premiums. Classification codes are listed in the Scopes® Manual. Classification code 8810 applies to clerical office employees. Classification code 6836 applies to “waterfront operations including the operation of boat docks, storage facilities, repair shops . . . repair of boats and engines . . . and all dockside employees.” The Department determined the gross payroll for Respondent’s employees in accordance with the procedures required by section 440.107(7)(d)1., and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.027(1), and the gross payroll was used in calculating the penalty. Penalty auditor Murcia then applied the corresponding approved manual rates for classification codes 8810 and 6836 for the related periods of non-compliance and utilized the methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)1. and rule 69L- 6.027 to determine the final penalty. Once the penalty was calculated, on September 11, 2015, the Department served the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on Respondent, assessing a penalty of $34,718.00. After that, Respondent provided the Department with proof that it had obtained a Zenith Insurance Company workers’ compensation insurance policy with a paid premium totaling $1,678.00. In accordance with section 440.107(7)(d)1., the Department reduced Respondent’s penalty by applying a $1,678.00 credit for a paid premium against the previously calculated penalty, resulting in the issuance of the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment totaling $33,040.00, served on Respondent by electronic mail on January 8, 2016.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order, consistent with this Recommended Order, upholding the Stop-Work Order and imposing the penalty set forth in the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment against MS Dockside Marina, LLC. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of November, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of November, 2016.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether the Respondent, George Washington Beatty, III, failed to abide by the coverage requirements of the Workers' Compensation Law, chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by not obtaining workers' compensation insurance for himself and/or his employees, and, if so, whether the Petitioner properly assessed a penalty against the Respondent pursuant to section 440.107, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement of the Workers' Compensation Law that employers secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage for their employees and corporate officers. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. George Washington Beatty, III, is a sole proprietor who works as a painter and general construction handyman in the vicinity of Panama City. The types of work performed by Mr. Beatty are properly considered construction industry work. Mr. Beatty’s business is not incorporated. He has no regular employees other than himself. His Form 1099-MISC tax forms indicate that he was actively engaged in performing construction work during the two-year audit period from September 9, 2012, through September 8, 2014. Carl Woodall is a Department compliance investigator based in Panama City. On September 8, 2014, Mr. Woodall drove up to 1803 New Hampshire Avenue in Lynn Haven, a vacant house where he saw a “for sale” sign and indications of work being performed on the house: the garage door was open and contained a great deal of painting materials such as drop cloths and paint buckets. A work van and a pickup truck were parked in the driveway. Mr. Woodall testified that as he walked up to the front door, he could see someone inside on a ladder, painting the ceiling. As Mr. Woodall started to go in the front door, he was met by Mr. Beatty on his way out the door. Mr. Woodall introduced himself and gave Mr. Beatty his business card. Mr. Woodall asked him the name of his business and Mr. Beatty stated that he did not know what Mr. Woodall was talking about. Mr. Beatty then told Mr. Woodall that he worked for Brush Stroke Painting but that he was not working this job for Brush Stroke. Mr. Beatty told Mr. Woodall that he was helping out a friend. Mr. Woodall asked whether Mr. Beatty had workers’ compensation insurance coverage, and Mr. Beatty again stated that he did not know what Mr. Woodall was talking about. He was just there helping out his friend, the owner of the house. Mr. Woodall asked Mr. Beatty to give him the owner’s name and phone number. Mr. Beatty went out to his van to retrieve the information. While Mr. Beatty was out of the house, Mr. Woodall took the opportunity to speak with the three other men working in the house. The first man, whom Mr. Woodall approached, was immediately hostile. He said that he was not working for anyone, that he was just helping someone out. He walked out of the house and never returned while Mr. Woodall was there. Mr. Woodall walked into the kitchen and spoke to a man who was on a ladder, painting. The man identified himself as Dennis Deal and stated that he was working for Mr. Beatty for eight dollars an hour in cash. He told Mr. Woodall that he helped out sometimes when Mr. Beatty needed help. Before Mr. Woodall could speak to the third person, Mr. Beatty came back into the house with the owner’s contact information. Mr. Beatty continued to deny that he was paying anyone to work in the house. With Mr. Beatty present, Mr. Woodall spoke with the third man, Michael Leneave, who stated that Mr. Beatty was paying him ten dollars an hour in cash. Mr. Woodall then took Mr. Beatty over to Mr. Deal, who reiterated that Mr. Beatty was paying him eight dollars an hour. Mr. Beatty responded that he could not believe the men were saying that because he had never told them a price. Mr. Woodall asked Mr. Beatty to identify the man who left the house, and Mr. Beatty told him it was Tommy Mahone. Mr. Beatty stated that Mr. Mahone had a bad temper and probably left to get a beer. After speaking with Mr. Beatty and the other men, Mr. Woodall phoned Brian Daffin (Mr. Daffin), the owner of the house. Mr. Woodall knew Mr. Daffin as the owner of an insurance company in Panama City. Mr. Daffin told Mr. Woodall that Mr. Beatty was painting his house, but was evasive as to other matters. Mr. Woodall stated that as the owner of an insurance company, Mr. Daffin was surely familiar with workers’ compensation insurance requirements and that he needed a straight answer as to whether Mr. Daffin had hired Mr. Beatty to paint the house. Mr. Daffin stated that he did not want to get Mr. Beatty in trouble, but finally conceded that he had hired Mr. Beatty to paint the house. Of the other three men, Mr. Daffin was familiar only with Mr. Mahone. He told Mr. Woodall that he had hired Mr. Beatty alone and did not know the details of Mr. Beatty’s arrangements with the other three men. At the hearing, Mr. Beatty testified that he was asked by Mr. Daffin to help him paint his house as a favor. Mr. Beatty had met Mr. Daffin through James Daffin, Mr. Daffin’s father and Mr. Beatty’s friend. No one was ever paid for anything. Mr. Beatty stated that he took the lead in speaking to Mr. Woodall because he was the only one of the four men in the house who was sober. He told Mr. Woodall that he was in charge because Mr. Daffin had asked him to oversee the work. None of the three men alleged to have been working for Mr. Beatty testified at the hearing. Mr. Daffin did not testify. Mr. Beatty’s testimony is thus the only direct evidence of the working arrangement, if any, which obtained between Mr. Beatty and the three other men present at the house on September 8, 2014. The only evidence to the contrary was Mr. Woodall’s hearsay testimony regarding his conversations with the three men and with Mr. Daffin. Mr. Woodall checked the Department's Coverage and Compliance Automated System ("CCAS") database to determine whether Mr. Beatty had secured the payment of workers' compensation insurance coverage or had obtained an exemption from the requirements of chapter 440. CCAS is a database that Department investigators routinely consult during their investigations to check for compliance, exemptions, and other workers' compensation related items. CCAS revealed that Mr. Beatty had no exemption or workers' compensation insurance coverage for himself or any employees. There was no evidence that Mr. Beatty used an employee leasing service. Based on his jobsite interviews with the alleged employees and Mr. Beatty, his telephone conversation with Mr. Daffin, and his CCAS computer search, Mr. Woodall concluded that as of September 8, 2014, Mr. Beatty had three employees working in the construction industry and that he had failed to procure workers’ compensation coverage for himself and these employees in violation of chapter 440. Mr. Woodall consequently issued a Stop-Work Order that he personally served on Mr. Beatty on September 8, 2014. Also on September 8, 2014, Mr. Woodall served Mr. Beatty with a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation, asking for payroll and accounting records to enable the Department to determine Mr. Beatty’s payroll and an appropriate penalty for the period from September 9, 2012, through September 8, 2014. Mr. Beatty provided the Department with no documents in response to the Request for Production. On September 24, 2014, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment that assessed a total penalty of $141,790.96. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served on Mr. Beatty via hand-delivery on October 16, 2014. Anita Proano, penalty audit supervisor for the Department, later performed her own calculation of the penalty as a check on the work of the penalty calculator. Ms. Proano testified as to the process of penalty calculation. Penalties for workers' compensation insurance violations are based on doubling the amount of evaded insurance premiums over the two- year period preceding the Stop-Work Order, which in this case was the period from September 9, 2012, through September 8, 2014. § 440.107(7)(d), Fla. Stat. Because Mr. Beatty initially provided no payroll records for himself or the three men alleged to have worked for him on September 8, 2014, the penalty calculator lacked sufficient business records to determine an actual gross payroll on that date. Section 440.107(7)(e) provides that where an employer fails to provide business records sufficient to enable the Department to determine the employer’s actual payroll for the penalty period, the Department will impute the weekly payroll at the statewide average weekly wage as defined in section 440.12(2), multiplied by two.1/ In the penalty assessment calculation, the Department consulted the classification codes and definitions set forth in the SCOPES of Basic Manual Classifications (“Scopes Manual”) published by the National Council on Compensation Insurance (“NCCI”). The Scopes Manual has been adopted by reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.021. Classification codes are four-digit codes assigned to occupations by the NCCI to assist in the calculation of workers' compensation insurance premiums. Rule 69L-6.028(3)(d) provides that "[t]he imputed weekly payroll for each employee . . . shall be assigned to the highest rated workers' compensation classification code for an employee based upon records or the investigator's physical observation of that employee's activities." Ms. Proano testified that the penalty calculator correctly applied NCCI Class Code 5474, titled “Painting NOC & Shop Operations, Drivers,” which is defined in part as “the general painting classification. It contemplates exterior and interior painting of residential or commercial structures that are constructed of wood, concrete, stone or a combination thereof regardless of height.” The corresponding rule provision is rule 69L-6.021(2)(jj). The penalty calculator used the approved manual rates corresponding to Class Code 5474 for the periods of non-compliance to calculate the penalty. Subsequent to issuance of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, Mr. Beatty submitted to the Department, IRS Wage and Income Transcripts for the tax years of 2011, 2012, and 2013, but not for tax year 2014. These Transcripts consisted of Form 1099-MISC forms completed by the business entities for which Mr. Beatty had performed work during the referenced tax years. The Department used the Transcripts to calculate the penalty for the 2012 and 2013 portions of the penalty period and imputed Mr. Beatty’s gross payroll for the 2014 portion pursuant to the procedures required by section 440.107(7)(e) and rule 69L-6.028. On August 25, 2015, the Department issued a Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in the amount of $58,363.88, based on the mixture of actual payroll information and imputation referenced above. At the final hearing convened on November 3, 2015, Mr. Beatty stated that he now had the Wage and Income Transcript for tax year 2014 and would provide it to the Department. At the close of hearing, the undersigned suggested, and the Department agreed, that the proceeding should be stayed to give the Department an opportunity to review the new records and recalculate the proposed penalty assessment. On December 21, 2015, the Department issued a Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in the amount of $9,356.52. Ms. Proano herself calculated this penalty. The Third Amended Order assessed a total penalty of $9,199.98 for work performed by Mr. Beatty during the penalty period, based on the Wage and Income Transcripts that Mr. Beatty submitted. The Third Amended Order assessed a total penalty of $156.54 for work performed by Messrs. Mahone, Deal, and Leneave on September 8, 2014. This penalty was imputed and limited to the single day on which Mr. Woodall observed the men working at the house in Lynn Haven. Mr. Beatty’s records indicated no payments to any employee, during the penalty period or otherwise. The evidence produced at the hearing established that Ms. Proano utilized the correct class codes, average weekly wages, and manual rates in her calculation of the Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. The Department has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Beatty was in violation of the workers' compensation coverage requirements of chapter 440. The Department has also demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the penalty was correctly calculated through the use of the approved manual rates, business records provided by Mr. Beatty, and the penalty calculation worksheet adopted by the Department in rule 69L-6.027. However, the Department did not demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that Tommy Mahone, Dennis Deal, and Michael Leneave were employees of Mr. Beatty on September 8, 2014. There is direct evidence that Mr. Woodall saw the men working in the house, but the only evidence as to whether or how they were being paid are the hearsay statements of the three men as relayed by Mr. Woodall. The men were not available for cross-examination; their purported statements to Mr. Woodall could not be tested in an adversarial fashion. Mr. Beatty’s testimony that the men were not working for him and that he was merely supervising their work as a favor to Mr. Daffin is the only sworn, admissible evidence before this tribunal on that point. Mr. Beatty was adamant in maintaining that he did not hire the men, and his testimony raises sufficient ambiguity in the mind of the factfinder to preclude a finding that Messrs. Mahone, Deal, and Leneave were his employees. Mr. Beatty could point to no exemption or insurance policy that would operate to lessen or extinguish the assessed penalty as to his own work. The Department has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent was engaged in the construction industry in Florida during the period of September 9, 2012, through September 8, 2014, and that Respondent failed to carry workers’ compensation insurance for himself as required by Florida’s Workers’ Compensation Law from September 9, 2012, through September 8, 2014. The penalty proposed by the Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment should be reduced to $9,199.98, the amount sought to be imposed on Mr. Beatty himself.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, assessing a penalty of $9,199.98 against George Washington Beatty, III. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of July, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of July, 2016.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2016),1/ by failing to secure the payment of workers’ compensation coverage, as alleged in the Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment; and, if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Parties. The Department is responsible for enforcing the requirements of chapter 440, which mandate employers in Florida secure the payment of workers’ compensation insurance to cover their employees in case of workplace injuries. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. ASAP Flooring is owned and operated by Mr. Reinartsen; it has been an active corporation since 2006. ASAP Flooring provides flooring, painting and drywall services for construction projects. Ms. Brigantty is a Department compliance investigator. Her job is to ensure compliance by employers in her district with the workers’ compensation insurance regulations. Her job duties include conducting investigations triggered either through a report to the Department of non-compliance or through random inspections of workplaces and jobsites. As part of her investigative duties she conducts employer and employee interviews, collects financial documentation, and researches various data banks for corporate and workers’ compensation status. Department’s Investigation and Assessment. On October 24, 2016, Ms. Brigantty was driving around Pinellas County as part of her work duties. She stopped to conduct a random check at a residential construction site located at 3583 Douglas Place, Palm Harbor, Florida 34683 (“Jobsite”). At the Jobsite, Ms. Brigantty observed two men -- later identified as Eric Reinartsen and Wallace Humbert -- preparing and installing floors. After identifying herself as a compliance officer and interviewing them, she discovered Mr. Reinartsen was the owner of ASAP Flooring, and Mr. Humbert was an ASAP Flooring employee. Mr. Reinartsen admitted ASAP Flooring did not have workers’ compensation. At the time, he believed ASAP Flooring was exempt from the workers’ compensation insurance requirements due to his role as a corporate officer and because it only had one employee. During the initial interview, Ms. Brigantty learned Mr. Humbert had worked for ASAP Flooring for four or five months and was paid a flat fee per job. After meeting with Mr. Reinartsen, Ms. Brigantty checked the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations website to confirm Respondent’s status as an active corporation, and that Mr. Reinartsen was its only officer. Mr. Brigantty then used the Department’s database, Coverage and Compliance Automated System (“CCAS”), which contained information on employers and their workers’ compensation status and any exemptions. According to CCAS, at the time of Ms. Brigantty’s inspection, ASAP Flooring had no workers’ compensation insurance. CCAS also reflected Respondent had an exemption from the workers’ compensation insurance requirements for Mr. Reinartsen because he was its sole corporate officer, but there was no exemption for Mr. Humbert or for any other employees. On October 24, 2016, after confirming ASAP Flooring had at least one employee, but had not secured workers’ compensation insurance, the Department issued a SWO and had it personally served on Mr. Reinartsen at the Jobsite.3/ At this time, the Department also served Mr. Reinartsen with a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculations. In response, Respondent provided bank statements, check images, check stubs, tax information and e-mails to the Department. These documents showed that during the previous two-year period (“look-back period”), October 24, 2014, to October 24, 2016, Respondent had a number of employees, but did not have workers’ compensation coverage for them. At the hearing, Respondent did not dispute ASAP Flooring was required to have workers’ compensation insurance, the status of the people identified as employees, or the fact that it did not have adequate workers’ compensation coverage.4/ Penalty Calculation. To calculate the penalty assessed against Respondent, the Department’s Auditor utilized the information she gleaned from documents submitted by Respondent and through Mr. Reinartsen’s deposition testimony taken in these proceedings. She then applied the formulas and rules set forth in the Florida Administrative Code to the information and utilized a Penalty Calculation Worksheet (the “worksheet”) to compute the final penalty assessment amount. The worksheet for the Third OPA is attached as Appendix “A” to this Recommended Order (“Appx. A”). Through her review of ASAP Flooring’s business records and Mr. Reinartsen’s deposition testimony, the Auditor confirmed (1) the individuals who were direct employees or construction subcontractors during those periods of non-compliance (Appx. A, column “Employer’s Payroll”); (2) the periods of non-compliance (Appx. A, column “b”); (3) the gross payroll for those individuals during these periods of non-compliance (Appx. A, column “c”); and (4) the services provided by those individuals. The Auditor used the services to determine the classification codes created by the National Council on Compensation Insurance (“NCCI”), and listed in the NCCI’s Scopes Manual, which has been adopted by the Department through Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.021(1). These classification codes are four-digit codes assigned to various occupations by the NCCI to assist in the calculation of workers’ compensation insurance premiums. To derive the gross pay figures in the worksheet (Appx. A, column “c”) the Auditor explained she utilized payment information in the ASAP Flooring’s business records. Although Respondent initially asserted some of these payments were actually for both labor and materials, these distinctions were not detailed in the business records created at the time of service or payment. Regardless, pursuant to rule 69L-6.035(i) and (j), the Auditor excluded the cost of materials from the payroll calculations. Specifically, she applied an “80:20” ration rule for those payments Respondent claimed were partly labor and partly materials: considering 80 percent of the total payment as “labor” for penalty calculation purposes; and excluding 20 percent for penalty calculation purposes as “materials.” Using the gross payroll (Appx. A, column “c”) and the appropriate NCCI manual rate (Appx. A, column “e”), the Auditor calculated the premium rate (Appx. A, column “f”) for each individual or entity (Appx. A, column “Employer’s Payroll”). She then multiplied the premium rate by two to reach a penalty amount (Appx. A, column “g”). This calculation method to determine a final penalty is authorized by section 440.107(7)(d)1., and rule 69L-6.027. Ultimately, based on the amounts indicated in the worksheet, the Department issued a Third Amended OPA calculating the penalty as $15,577.84. The Department applied a 25 percent reduction, yielding a remaining penalty of $11,683.38. According to the evidence, in November 2016, Respondent paid $1,000 to the Department as a “down payment” toward any ultimate assessment. Applying this $1,000 as a credit to the penalty in the Third OPA results in Respondent owing $10,683.38. Respondent’s Defenses. At the final hearing, Mr. Reinartsen did not dispute any of the figures in the worksheet or the penalty amount. Rather, he raised three arguments unrelated to ASAP Flooring’s failure to secure workers’ compensation insurance for its employees. First, Respondent asserted Ms. Brigantty was not properly outfitted to enter a construction site and therefore, he argued, she was violating rules set forth by the Occupational Safety and Health Agency (“OSHA”). Ms. Brigantty admitted she was not wearing a hard hat, and did not think she was wearing steel-toed boots with hard soles when she entered the Jobsite. Second, Respondent argued Ms. Brigantty did not issue a SWO to another contractor at a neighboring construction site who was putting in pavers, identified only as “Luis.” Mr. Reinartsen could not provide the name of the other contractor’s company, a last name, or any other identifying information; nor did Respondent provide evidence that “Luis” was in a similar situation: non-compliant with and non-exempt from chapter 440. Ms. Brigantty did not remember going to the neighboring site or speaking to anyone else during her stop at the Jobsite. Finally, Respondent argued the penalty is substantial and payment in full (as opposed to a payment plan spread out over a number of years) would put him and his small family-owned company out of business. Ultimate Findings. The Department demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, Respondent violated chapter 440 as charged in the SWO by failing to secure workers’ compensation coverage for its employees. The Department demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, the penalty for this violation is $11,683.38.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, enter a final order determining that Respondent, ASAP Flooring, violated the requirement in chapter 440 to secure workers’ compensation coverage and imposing a total penalty of $11,683.38, less the $1,000 down payment, the balance to be paid in $100 a month increments. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of February, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HETAL DESAI 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 12th day of February, 2018.
The Issue Whether Respondents violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by failing to secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage, as alleged in the Stop-Work Orders, and, if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with enforcing the requirement of chapter 440, Florida Statutes, that employers in Florida secure workers' compensation coverage for their employees. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Respondents are gas station/convenience stores located in South Florida. Northlake was created by Nazma Akter on May 6, 2014. MB was created by Ms. Akter on March 23, 2010. Congress Valero was created by Muhammad Saadat on July 21, 2011. Hena was created by Ms. Akter and Abu Ahsan on December 14, 2011. Hayma was created by Ms. Akter on December 14, 2011. Blue Heron was created by Ms. Akter on August 4, 2009. At all times relevant hereto, Respondents were duly-licensed to conduct business in the state of Florida. On February 2, 2015, the Department's Compliance Investigator Robert Feehrer, began a workers' compensation compliance investigation of Gardenia, LLC. Investigator Feehrer called the number listed for Gardenia, LLC, and was provided with a corporate office address. On February 10, 2015, upon arrival at Gardenia, LLC's, corporate office located at 165 US Highway 1, North Palm Beach, Florida, 33408, Investigator Feehrer spoke with Operations Manager Mohammad Hossain. Mr. Hossain stated that Gardenia, LLC, was a paper corporation and existed only for the purpose of paying unemployment taxes on the "six stores." Mr. Hossain went on to provide Investigator Feehrer with a list of Respondents and names of the employees that worked at each store. As an employee of Gardenia, LLC, and Respondents, Mr. Hossain's statements are party opponent admissions and bind Respondents. Lee v. Dep't of Health & Rehab. Servs., 698 So. 2d 1194, 1200 (Fla. 1997). With Mr. Hossain's statements and the list of Respondents' employees, Investigator Feehrer then consulted the Division of Corporations website, www.sunbiz.org, and confirmed that Respondents were current, active Florida companies. Investigator Feehrer then consulted the Department's Coverage and Compliance Automated System ("CCAS") for proof of workers' compensation coverage and exemptions associated with Respondents. Investigator Feehrer's CCAS search revealed that Respondents had no workers' compensation policies and no exemptions. On February 24, 2015, Investigator Feehrer conducted site visits at each of the six stores. Ms. Akter and Mr. Hossain accompanied Investigator Feehrer during these site visits. At all times material hereto, Ms. Akter was a corporate officer or managing member of each of the six Respondents. Muhammed Saadat and Abu Ahsan were corporate officers or managing members of Congress Valero, Hena, and Blue Heron. Kazi Ahamed was a corporate officer or managing member of Congress Valero and Hayma. Kazi Haider and Mohammed Haque were managing members of Hayma. All received compensation from the companies with which they were involved. Although Investigator Feehrer only personally observed one employee working at each location during his site visits, the payroll records revealed that at least four employees (including corporate officers or managing members without exemptions) received compensation for work at each location during the relevant period. Investigator Feehrer required additional information to determine compliance, and with Respondents' permission, contacted Respondents' accountant. Investigator Feehrer met with the accountant at least two times to obtain relevant information prior to March 30, 2015. Upon Ms. Akter's authorization, the accountant provided tax returns and payroll information for Respondents' employees. Information from Ms. Akter and Mr. Hossain also confirmed the specific employees at each of the six stores during the period of March 30, 2013, through March 30, 2015. On March 30, 2015, based on his findings, Investigator Feehrer served six Stop-Work Orders and Orders of Penalty Assessment. The Stop-Work Orders were personally served on Ms. Akter. Mr. Hossain was present as well and confirmed the lists of employees for each of the six stores were accurate. In April 2015, the Department assigned Penalty Auditor Christopher Richardson to calculate the six penalties assessed against Respondents. Respondent provided tax returns for the audit period and payroll transaction details were provided, as well as general ledgers/breakdowns, noting the employees for each Respondent company. Based on Investigator Feehrer's observations of the six stores on February 24, 2015, Auditor Richardson used the classification code 8061 listed in the Scopes® Manual, which has been adopted by the Department through Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.021(1). Classification code 8061 applies to employees of gasoline stations with convenience stores. Classification codes are four-digit codes assigned to various occupations by the National Council on Compensation Insurance to assist in the calculation of workers' compensation insurance premiums. In the penalty assessment, Auditor Richardson applied the corresponding approved manual rate for classification code 8061 for the related periods of non-compliance. The corresponding approved manual rate was correctly utilized using the methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)1. and rule 69L-6.027 to determine the final penalties. The Department correctly determined Respondents' gross payroll pursuant to the procedures required by section 440.107(7)(d) and rule 69L-6.027. On January 14, 2016, the Department served the six Amended Orders of Penalty Assessment on Respondents, assessing penalties of $1,367.06 for Northlake, $9,687.00 for MB, $12,651.42 for Congress Valero, $18,508.88 for Hena, $7,257.48 for Hayma, and $4,031.60 for Blue Heron. The Department has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Respondents were engaged in the gasoline station, self-service/convenience store industry in Florida during the periods of noncompliance; that Respondents failed to secure the payment of workers' compensation for their employees, as required by Florida's Workers' Compensation Law; and that the Department correctly utilized the methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)1. to determine the appropriate penalties.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a consolidated final order upholding the Stop-Work Orders and the Amended Orders of Penalty Assessment in the amounts of $1,367.06 for Northlake Mobile Enterprises, Inc.; $9,687.00 for MB Food and Beverage, Inc.; $12,651.42 for Congress Valero, Inc.; $18,508.88 for Hena Enterprises, Inc.; $7,257.48 for Hayma Enterprises, Inc.; and $4,031.60 for Blue Heron BP, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of June, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of June, 2016.
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 are whether Petitioner has proved that Respondent failed to secure workers' compensation insurance, as required by section 440.10, Florida Statutes, and, if so, the amount of the penalty, pursuant to section 440.107.
Findings Of Fact On September 18, 2013, the owner and Jesus Rodriguez, representing Respondent, signed a permit application for reroofing of a single-family residence located at 4311 Southwest 15th Street, Miami. An official of the Miami-Dade County Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources approved the plans on September 27, 2013. The record does not disclose when work commenced. However, at about 9:00 a.m. on September 25, 2013, an investigator of the Division of Workers' Compensation was randomly canvassing the area, noticed roofing work at the subject address, and conducted an inspection. The investigator observed three persons on the roof engaged in roofing work. When the investigator asked the three workers for whom they worked, one of them replied, "Oval Construction," and added that it was owned by Pedro Alfaro and Jesus R. Rodriguez (Mr. J. Rodriguez). When asked for a phone number for the owners, the worker gave the investigator a cell number for Mr. Alfaro. Prior to calling Mr. Alfaro, while still at the work site, the investigator researched Oval Construction and learned that it was an active corporation with two corporate officers: Mr. Alfaro and Mr. J. Rodriguez. The investigator learned that the corporation showed no workers' compensation exemptions for the officers or any workers' compensation coverage. While still at the worksite, the investigator then called Mr. Alfaro and asked him if Oval Construction had workers' compensation insurance. Mr. Alfaro said that Mr. J. Rodriguez handled such matters, so the investigator told Mr. Alfaro to have Mr. J. Rodriguez call the investigator immediately. Mr. J. Rodriguez did so and informed the investigator that the three workers worked for him, but not under Oval Construction; they worked for Respondent, and Respondent had workers' compensation insurance. Mr. J. Rodriguez stated that he did not have the insurance information at the moment, but would call back with the information. In the meantime, the investigator researched Respondent and learned that it was an active corporation with two officers: Mr. J. Rodriguez and Mr. Alberto Rodriguez (Mr. A. Rodriguez), who were not related. (Mr. J. Rodriguez is deceased.) Both officers had current workers' compensation exemptions, and the database indicated that Respondent leased its employees from South East Personnel Leasing Company. The investigator contacted South East Personnel Leasing and learned that the leasing contract had terminated on July 24, 2013, and Respondent had no current workers' compensation coverage through South East Personnel Leasing. At this point, the investigator called Mr. J. Rodriguez, who repeated that the workers were employed by Respondent, not Oval Construction. Subsequently, the investigator tried unsuccessfully several times to speak to Mr. J. Rodriguez. A few days after the inspection, Mr. A. Rodriguez called the investigator and arranged for a meeting between the investigator and Mr. J. Rodriguez for October 1, 2013. On October 1, 2013, the investigator and Mr. J. Rodriguez met, and the investigator served on him, in the name of Respondent, a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation for the three-year period ending on September 25, 2013. Respondent never produced any business records to Petitioner. On October 2, 2013, Mr. J. Rodriguez caused the transfer of the building permit for the roofing work from Respondent to Blue Panther Roofing. On October 1, 2013, Mr. J. Rodriguez signed a Hold Harmless agreement holding Miami-Dade County harmless and assuming responsibility for any work already performed under the building permit issued to Respondent. Mr. A. Rodriguez testified that he knew nothing about the subject job. But Mr. J. Rodriguez was the qualifying general contractor of Respondent, was an officer of Respondent, and owned 20% of Respondent. In fact, Mr. J. Rodriguez was the only licensed or certified contractor employed by Respondent and was the sole person who could obtain building permits for work to be performed by Respondent. Mr. A. Rodriguez's lack of knowledge of the subject job is therefore not dispositive because Mr. J. Rodriguez had the authority to, and did, apply for the building permit in the name of Respondent, and he had the authority to, and did, obligate Respondent to do the subject reroofing work. During the above-described three-year period, according to Petitioner Exhibit 6, page 20, Respondent had workers' compensation insurance from October 4, 2010, through January 1, 2013. Additionally, according to Petitioner Exhibit 6, page 23, Respondent had workers' compensation insurance through South East Personnel Leasing from October 18, 2012, through February 20, 2013, and March 7, 2013, through July 24, 2013. This is borne out by the testimony of the investigator. (Tr., pp. 99-101.) Respondent thus did not have workers' compensation coverage for a total of 85 days during the three years at issue, during which time Respondent actively performed construction work in Florida. The three periods of noncoverage during the three years at issue are September 26 through October 3, 2010, for a total of 8 days; February 21, 2013, through March 6, 2013, for a total of 14 days; and July 25, 2013, through September 25, 2013, for a total of 63 days. A conflict in the evidence prevented Petitioner from proving by clear and convincing evidence a fourth period of noncoverage: October 4 through 17, 2012. Additionally, Mr. J. Rodriguez was listed as secretary of Respondent and exempt from workers' compensation insurance from March 1, 2013, through March 1, 2015, so he would be counted as an employee during the noncoverage periods of September 26, through October 3, 2010, and February 21, 2013, through February 28, 2013. Mr. A. Rodriguez was listed as president of Respondent and exempt from workers' compensation insurance from October 22, 2012, through October 22, 2014, so he would be counted as an employee during the noncoverage period of September 26, 2010, through October 3, 2010. Mr. A. Rodriguez's wife, Yubanis Ibarra, was also a corporate officer and was not exempt during one week of one noncoverage period: September 26 to October 3, 2010. On October 30, 2013, Petitioner issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessing a penalty of $15,594.34 pursuant to section 440.107(7)(d). The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is supported by a Penalty Calculation Worksheet, which based the penalty on the three employees found on the job on the day of the inspection as employees during all periods of noncoverage and the three above-identified corporate officers during their respective periods of nonexemption that occurred while they served as officers. Subject to two exceptions, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment correctly calculates the gross payroll based on the statewide average weekly wage multiplied by 1.5, applies the correct manual rates to the gross payroll, determines the correct evaded premium, and determines the correct penalty based on the premium multiplied by 1.5. The first exception is that Petitioner failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence a lack of coverage for the above-described 13 days in October 2012. This failure of proof noted in the preceding paragraph concerns four employees who generated total penalties of $2510.88, so the corrected total penalty would be $13,084.46. The second exception concerns the proof of the duration of employment of the three employees working on the roof at the time of the inspection on September 25, 2013. Petitioner has proved by clear and convincing evidence their employment only during the noncoverage period of July 24, 2013, through September 25, 2013, as discussed in the Conclusions of Law. For the two other noncoverage periods--three, if the period noted in paragraph 15 already had not been rejected--the penalty of $3220.05 has not been established, leaving a net penalty of $9864.41.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of not securing workers' compensation and imposing a penalty of $9864.41. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of November, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of November, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: Leon Melnicoff, Qualified Representative Thomas Nemecek, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 (eServed) Mariem Josefina Paez, Esquire The Law Offices of Mariem J. Paez, PLLC 300 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 304 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 (eServed) Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Respondent, Gulf Coast Site Prep, Inc., failed to comply with the coverage requirements of the Workers’ Compensation Law, chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by not obtaining workers’ compensation insurance for its employees, and, if so, what penalty should be assessed against Respondent pursuant to section 440.107, Florida Statutes (2014).1/
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement of the Workers’ Compensation Law that employers secure the payment of workers’ compensation coverage for their employees and corporate officers. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. Respondent, Gulf Coast Site Prep., Inc., is a Florida for-profit corporation organized on March 3, 2008. Respondent’s registered business address is 952 TR Miller Road, Defuniak Springs, Florida. Ashley Adams is Respondent’s President and Registered Agent. On March 27, 2015, the Department’s investigator-in- training, Jill Scogland, and lead investigator, Sharon Kelson, conducted a random workers’ compensation compliance check at Lot 34 in the Driftwood Estates residential subdivision in Santa Rosa Beach, Florida. Ms. Scogland observed two men on site. David Wayne Gibson was operating a front-end loader spreading dirt on site. Colby Smith was shoveling dirt on site. While Ms. Scogland was inspecting the site, a third man, Ashley Adams, arrived driving a dump truck with a load of dirt. Mr. Adams identified himself as the owner of Gulf Coast, and stated that he had an exemption from the requirement for workers’ compensation insurance and that he thought Mr. Gibson did as well. Mr. Adams advised Ms. Scogland that he hired both Mr. Gibson and Mr. Smith to work at the site.2/ At hearing, Respondent challenged the evidence supporting a finding that Respondent hired Mr. Gibson.3/ Specifically, Respondent argues that Ms. Scogland’s testimony that Mr. Adams told her he hired Mr. Gibson is unreliable because Ms. Scogland did not include that information in her field notes. Respondent claims that Ms. Scogland’s status as investigator-in-training on the date of the inspection is indicative of her unreliability. To the contrary, Ms. Scogland’s testimony regarding both the persons and events on the date of the inspection was clear and unequivocal. While Ms. Scogland admitted her field notes were not as detailed on the date in question as they are for more recent inspections, she was confident that her investigation of the facts was thorough. The fact that Ms. Scogland did not write down what Mr. Adams said does not render her testimony unreliable. The undersigned finds Ms. Scogland’s testimony to be clear and convincing. Ms. Scogland reviewed the Department of State, Division of Corporations’ online information and identified Mr. Gibson as President and Registered Agent of David Wayne Gibson Tractor Service, Inc. According to Ms. Scogland, the online records indicated the corporation had been administratively dissolved in September 2013. Ms. Scogland next accessed the Department’s Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) and determined that Mr. Gibson had obtained a workers’ compensation coverage exemption for himself, but the exemption had expired on February 15, 2015. The information contained in CCAS is information on new policies, cancellations, etc., reported to the Department by insurance agencies as required by administrative rule. Next, Ms. Scogland accessed the Division of Corporations’ website, verified Gulf Coast as an active corporation, and identified Mr. Adams as the sole officer of Gulf Coast. Ms. Scogland then accessed CCAS and determined that, although Gulf Coast did not have workers’ compensation coverage, Mr. Adams had an active exemption effective from February 12, 2014 through February 12, 2016. Mr. Adams had a prior exemption that expired on April 14, 2013, but had no valid exemption in place between April 14, 2013 and February 12, 2014. After contacting her supervisor, Michelle Lloyd, Ms. Scogland served Mr. Adams, on behalf of Gulf Coast, with a site-specific Stop-Work Order for failure to ensure workers’ compensation coverage for its employees. Ms. Scogland also served Mr. Adams with a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation. The request was for Gulf Coast’s payroll, account, and disbursement records, as well as records identifying its subcontractors, payments thereto, and workers’ compensation coverage thereof, from March 28, 2013 through March 27, 2015 (the penalty period).4/ Mr. Adams did not provide any records to the Department in response to the records request. The Department’s penalty auditor, Eunika Jackson, was assigned to calculate the penalty to be assessed against Gulf Coast for failure to secure workers’ compensation insurance during the penalty period. The penalty to be assessed against an employer for failure to secure workers’ compensation coverage is two times the amount the employer would have paid in workers’ compensation insurance premiums when applying approved manual rates to the employer’s payroll during the penalty period. § 440.107(7)(d), Fla. Stat. Ms. Jackson consulted the Scopes Manual, which is published by the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI), and identified class code 6217--Excavation and Drivers-- as the appropriate construction class code for the work being performed at the worksite. Respondent contests the assignment of class code 6217 to Mr. Adams, who was driving a dump truck and delivering a load of dirt to the site. Respondent admits that Mr. Gibson’s operation of the front-end loader was properly classified as Excavation and Drivers. NCCI Scopes Manual provides the following with regard to classification code 6217: Includes burrowing, filling or backfilling. * * * Code 6217 is applied to specialist contractors engaged in general excavation including ditch digging, burrowing, filling or backfilling provided such operations are not otherwise classified in the manual. The operations involve the removal of earth, small boulders and rocks by power shovels, trench diggers or bulldozers and piling it at the jobsite for backfill. The material may also be removed by dump trucks for fill in some other area. Code 6217 includes excavation in connection with building foundations, swimming pools, landscape gardening and waterproofing operations. * * * This classification also is applied to specialist contractors engaged in grading land and landfilling, provided these operations are not otherwise classified in this manual. This classification includes ditch digging, burrowing, filling or backfilling, and operations such as scraping, cutting, piling or pushing the earth to rearrange the terrain. These operations utilize equipment such as bulldozers, motor graders and carryalls. [emphasis supplied]. Mr. Adams’ operation of the dump truck falls squarely within the definition of Excavation and Drivers. The material in the dump truck was fill for the site under excavation, a purpose which is directly addressed in the manual under code 6217. Under Respondent’s interpretation, fill removed from the site by a dump truck would be an excavation activity, but would no longer be excavation when the dump truck arrived at another site (or at another location on the same site) with the fill. That interpretation is illogical. No evidence was introduced to support a finding that typical operation of a dump truck in preconstruction was classified by a different code in the Scopes Manual. It is found that Ms. Jackson properly applied the Scopes Manual in assigning code 6217 to the work being performed by Mr. Adams on the site. Having no payroll records from Gulf Coast, Ms. Jackson had to impute the statewide average weekly wage as Respondent’s payroll for Mr. Adams and his subcontractor, Mr. Gibson. The average weekly wages were calculated based on the Workers’ Compensation and Employers Liability approved rate manual also published by NCCI and adopted by the Department by administrative rule. Ms. Jackson calculated a penalty of two times the workers’ compensation insurance premiums that would have applied to the purchase of insurance for Mr. Adams and Mr. Gibson during periods of non-compliance during the penalty. The period of non-compliance for Mr. Adams was April 15, 2013 to February 11, 2014, during which time his exemption had lapsed. The period of non-compliance for Mr. Gibson was February 16, 2015 to March 27, 2015, during which his exemption had expired. § 440.107(7)(e), Fla. Stat. Utilizing the penalty calculation worksheet adopted by Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.027, Ms. Scogland calculated a penalty of $12,181.42. On May 20, 2015, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment against Gulf Coast in the amount of $12,181.42. The Department correctly calculated the penalty based on the statutory formulas and adopted rules governing workers’ compensation insurance.
Recommendation Having considered 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 upholding the Stop-Work Order and Amended Penalty Assessment against Respondent, Gulf Coast Site Prep., Inc., for its failure to secure and maintain required workers’ compensation insurance for its employees. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of January, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK 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 14th day of January, 2016.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 69L-6, by failing to maintain workers' compensation coverage for its employees, and if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement that employers in the State of Florida secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage for their employees. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Respondent, Door Depot of Palm Beach, Inc., is a Florida for-profit corporation engaged in the sale and installation of doors, which is encompassed within the construction industry.2/ Ms. Morris is Respondent's owner and sole corporate officer. Failure to Secure Workers' Compensation Coverage As a result of a public referral, Petitioner initiated an investigation to determine whether Respondent had the required workers' compensation coverage for its employees. Michelle Jimerson, a Compliance Investigator employed by Petitioner, researched Petitioner's Coverage and Compliance Automated System ("CCAS") internal database regarding workers' compensation coverage and compliance, and determined that Respondent did not have current workers' compensation coverage and had not previously secured coverage. Ms. Jimerson's research further revealed that Ms. Morris, as Respondent's sole corporate officer, had a current workers' compensation exemption covering herself, and that she had maintained such exemptions since August 2002. On May 11, 2011, Ms. Jimerson conducted an on-site visit to Respondent's place of business. At that time, Petitioner issued a Request for Business Records to Respondent, seeking copies of payroll documents; bank statements; business tax receipts; check stubs and check ledgers; names of subcontractors; records of payments or disbursements to subcontractors; contracts; and proof of workers' compensation coverage for, or exemptions held by, the subcontractors. Respondent produced the requested records. From a review of the records, Ms. Jimerson determined that Respondent had contracted with three subcontractors, Breeze Image, Inc.,3/ Mike Jacobs, and Ross Whitehouse, to provide construction industry services (specifically, door repair and installation work), between April 22, 2011, and May 10, 2011. Ms. Jimerson's review of Petitioner's CCAS database revealed that none of these subcontractors was exempt from the workers' compensation coverage requirement during the period in which they contracted with Respondent to provide construction industry services, that none had secured workers' compensation coverage for themselves, and that Respondent had not secured workers' compensation coverage for them during this period. Because Respondent came into compliance with chapter 440 during Petitioner's investigation and before initiation of this enforcement action, Petitioner did not issue a Stop-Work Order.4/ Nancy Morris testified on Respondent's behalf. She admitted that Respondent had not secured workers' compensation coverage for these subcontractors. She credibly testified that she had asked if they were exempt from the workers' compensation coverage requirement, that they had told her they were, and that she had believed them. Penalty Assessment On May 24, 2011, Petitioner issued to Respondent a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation, seeking copies of payroll documents; bank statements; business tax receipts; check stubs and check ledgers; names of subcontractors; records of payments or disbursements to subcontractors; contracts; and proof of workers' compensation coverage for, or exemptions held by, the subcontractors. Respondent produced the requested documents. Using these documents, Petitioner's Penalty Calculator, Teo Morel, calculated the penalty assessment for Respondent. Section 440.107(7)(d)1., establishes a formula for determining the penalty to be assessed against an employer who fails to secure workers' compensation as required by chapter 440. Specifically, the penalty is one and a half (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 within the preceding three-year period, or $1000, whichever is greater. Petitioner has adopted a penalty worksheet for calculating the penalty prescribed by section 440.107(7)(d)1. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.027. Ms. Morel used the worksheet in calculating the penalty to be assessed against Respondent. Specifically, Ms. Morel identified the subcontractors for which Respondent had not secured workers' compensation and identified the applicable construction industry classification NCCI Manual code for each (here, classification code 5102). For each subcontractor, she identified the periods of noncompliance for the preceding three-year period as required by section 440.107(7)(d)1., determined the subcontractor's gross payroll amount and divided that amount by 100, then multiplied this amount by the NCCI Manual rate applicable to the 5102 classification code. This calculation yielded the workers' compensation premium Respondent should have paid for each subcontractor, had Respondent complied with chapter 440. The premium amount was then multiplied by 1.5 to determine the total penalty amount to be assessed. Pursuant to the information Respondent provided, and performing the statutorily prescribed calculation, Petitioner initially calculated the total penalty to be assessed as $20,266.59. Respondent subsequently provided additional business records consisting of raw job worksite notes. These documents showed that the subcontractors were paid a total contract amount for each job. However, the notes did not indicate the cost of materials per contract, and Respondent was unable to provide records containing this information. Because the cost of materials for each contract was indeterminable, pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.035(1)(i), Petitioner assumed that the materials cost constituted 20 percent of each contract, deducted this amount from each subcontractor's gross payroll, and recalculated the premium amount. As a result, the total penalty assessment was reduced by 20 percent, to $16,213.30. Respondent disputes the amount of the amended penalty assessment on the basis that materials costs for each contract constituted more than 20 percent of each contract's amount. However, Ms. Morris was unable to provide any evidence substantiating the cost of materials for each contract. Ms. Morris credibly testified that if Respondent is required to pay the assessed penalty of $16,213.30, it likely will be forced to go out of business. Ms. Morris fully cooperated with Petitioner throughout its compliance investigation leading to this enforcement action against Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order determining that Respondent violated the requirement in chapter 440, Florida Statutes, to secure workers' compensation coverage; imposing a total penalty assessment of $16,213.30; and providing that Petitioner will execute with Respondent a Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty, pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.025, under which Respondent shall make a down payment to Petitioner of ten percent of the total assessed penalty amount, which is $1,621.33, and shall repay the remaining penalty in 60 consecutive monthly installments. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of January, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S Cathy M. Sellers Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of January, 2012.
