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 Respondent was required to obtain workers' compensation coverage for himself pursuant to Section 440.107, Florida Statutes (2002), during the penalty period designated in the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment; and, if so, whether Petitioner should impose a penalty against Respondent in the amount of $120,467.88.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure the payment of workers' compensation for the benefit of their employees. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. (2002). On February 9, 2004, while conducting a random site inspection, Department investigator, Eric Duncan, observed three men performing construction work in the form of carpentry and house-framing at 720 Southwest 10th Street, Cape Coral, Florida. One of the workers on the site was Respondent, Jeremy Butzler, a sole proprietor who had employed the other two workers. Mr. Duncan interviewed Mr. Butzler at the site and requested proof of workers' compensation coverage, which Mr. Butzler was unable to provide. Mr. Duncan then issued the first Stop Work and Penalty Assessment Order, directing Mr. Butzler to cease work and pay a civil penalty of $1000.00. Also on February 9, 2004, Mr. Duncan served Mr. Butzler with a "Request for Production of Business Records," seeking copies of business records to determine whether Mr. Butzler had secured workers' compensation coverage, whether he had a current valid workers' compensation exemption, and to determine any civil penalties that may be owed for failing to secure workers' compensation coverage. Mr. Butzler complied in a very limited way. Mr. Duncan testified that most of the documents provided by Mr. Butzler were records of electronic transfer of funds that did not identify their recipients. No company checkbook or ledger was produced. After the penalty was calculated, the Department issued the First Amended Stop Work and Penalty Assessment Order, which increased the assessed penalty to $132,027.64. This assessment was later reduced to $120,467.88 after the Department corrected the workers' compensation premium rate it employed to calculate the penalty. At the time the Stop Work Order was issued and pursuant to Subsection 440.107(5), Florida Statutes (2002), the Department had adopted Florida Administrative Code Rule 4L-6.015,1/ which stated, in relevant part: In order for the Division to determine that an employer is in compliance with the provisions of Chapter 440, F.S., every business entity conducting business within the state of Florida shall maintain for the immediately preceding three year period true and accurate records. Such business records shall include original documentation of the following, or copies, when originals are not in the possession of or under the control of the business entity: All workers’ compensation insurance policies of the business entity, and all endorsements, notices of cancellation, nonrenewal, or reinstatement of such policies. * * * Records indicating for every pay period a description of work performed and amount of pay or description of other remuneration paid or owed to each person by the business entity, such as time sheets, time cards, attendance records, earnings records, payroll summaries, payroll journals, ledgers or registers, daily logs or schedules, time and materials listings. All contracts entered into with a professional employer organization (PEO) or employee leasing company, temporary labor company, payroll or business record keeping company. If such services are not pursuant to a written contract, written documentation including the name, business address, telephone number, and FEIN or social security number of all principals if an FEIN is not held, of each such PEO, temporary labor company, payroll or business record keeping company; and For every contract with a PEO: a payroll ledger for each pay period during the contract period identifying each worker by name, address, home telephone number, and social security number or documentation showing that the worker was eligible for employment in the United States during the contract for his/her services, and a description of work performed during each pay period by each worker, and the amount paid each pay period to each worker. A business entity may maintain such records or contract for their maintenance by the PEO to which the records pertain. * * * All check ledgers and bank statements for checking, savings, credit union, or any other bank accounts established by the business entity or on its behalf; and All federal income tax forms prepared by or on behalf of the business and all State of Florida, Division of Unemployment Compensation UCT-6 forms and any other forms or reports prepared by the business or on its behalf for filing with the Florida Division of Unemployment Compensation. During the period in question, Respondent was a "sole proprietor," as that term was defined in Subsection 440.02(25), Florida Statutes (2002): "Sole proprietor" means a natural person who owns a form of business in which that person owns all the assets of the business and is solely liable for all the debts of the business. Subsection 440.02(15)(c)1., Florida Statutes (2002), in effect during the penalty assessment period, stated, in relevant part: "Employee" includes a sole proprietor . . . Partners or sole proprietors actively engaged in the construction industry are considered employees unless they elect to be excluded from the definition of employee by filing written notice of the election with the department as provided in s. 440.05 . . . A sole proprietor or partner who is actively engaged in the construction industry and who elects to be exempt from this chapter by filing a written notice of the election with the department as provided in s. 440.05 is not an employee. (Emphasis added). Section 440.05, Florida Statutes (2002), allowed an individual to apply for election to be exempt from workers' compensation benefits. Only the named individual on the application was exempt from carrying workers' compensation insurance coverage. The Department maintains a database of all workers' compensation exemptions in the State of Florida. Mr. Duncan's review of this database revealed that, although Respondent had a valid workers' compensation exemption from November 18, 1999, to November 15, 2001, there were no exemptions for Respondent for 2002, the year constituting the penalty period in this case. At the hearing, Respondent admitted that he did not obtain an exemption for the year 2002. Mr. Duncan's investigation also revealed that Respondent did not have workers compensation insurance coverage during the year 2002. During the investigation, Respondent informed Mr. Duncan that he had contracted with an employee leasing company, Southeast Personnel Services, Inc., that was responsible for paying the salaries of and providing workers' compensation insurance coverage for Respondent and his workers. Pursuant to Subsection 468.520(5), Florida Statutes (2002),2/ an employee leasing company is a business entity engaged in employee leasing. "Employee leasing" is an arrangement whereby a leasing company assigns its employees to a client and allocates the direction of, and control over, the leased employees between the leasing company and the client. § 68.520(4), Fla. Stat. (2002). When the employee leasing company accepts a client, the client becomes an employee of the leasing company. An employee leasing company is the employer of the leased employees and is responsible for providing workers' compensation pursuant to Chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2002). § 468.529(1), Fla. Stat. (2002). Additionally, an employee leasing company assumes responsibility for the payment of wages to the leased employees without regard to payments by the client and for the payment of payroll taxes and collection of taxes from the payroll of leased employees. § 468.525(4)(b) and (c), Fla. Stat. (2002). At the hearing, Respondent demonstrated that he had workers' compensation coverage as an employee of the employee leasing company. However, the Department did not utilize any payments made through the leasing company in its penalty calculation. The evidence demonstrated that Respondent received compensation directly from Holiday Builders, Inc., in the amount of $185,006.50, and Gatco Construction, in the amount of $10,590.00. These amounts, totaling $195,596.50, were utilized by the Department to calculate Respondent's penalty. Mr. Duncan explained that in order for workers' compensation coverage to apply through the employee leasing company, companies such as Gatco Construction would have to make payments to the leasing company, not directly to Respondent. The leasing company would then pay a salary to Respondent, as its employee, and Respondent would be covered by the employee leasing company's workers' compensation insurance. Payments made directly to Respondent would not be secured by the workers' compensation coverage obtained through the employee leasing company. Respondent claimed that the Division utilized the incorrect gross income amount in calculating the penalty. To support this claim, Respondent attempted to introduce what he claimed was his personal income tax return for the year 2002. Respondent claimed this return had been prepared and filed by his bookkeeper some time in February 2004, subsequent to the Department's investigation. However, the return produced at hearing was unsigned and indicated that it had been self- prepared by Respondent. Respondent could not recall the bookkeeper's name without prodding from his counsel. Respondent offered no proof that this return had ever been completed or filed with the Internal Revenue Service. The purported 2002 tax return was not admitted into evidence, and Respondent's testimony as to the information contained on the return is not reliable. The Department correctly calculated the penalty assessment based on the money paid to Respondent as a sole proprietor "employee" who failed to file for a workers' compensation exemption for the year 2002. The Department calculated the total penalty based on Respondent's gross payroll, the class code assigned to Respondent utilizing the SCOPES Manual (a standard classification tool published by the National Council on Compensation Insurance), and the statutory guidelines in Subsection 440.107(7), Florida Statutes (2002). Based on that calculation, the correct penalty assessment in this case is $120,467.88.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, enter a final order confirming the Amended Stop Work Order and imposing a penalty in the amount of $120,467.88. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of May, 2005, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of May, 2005.
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 Millenium Homes, Inc. (Petitioner) conducted operations in the State of Florida without obtaining workers’ compensation coverage which meets the requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2008), in violation of Subsection 440.107(2), Florida Statutes (2008)1, as alleged in the Stop-Work Order and Order and Penalty Assessment and the Fifth Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. If so, what penalty should be assessed by the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (Respondent), pursuant to Section 440.107, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency charged with the responsibility of enforcing the requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, that employers in Florida secure the payment of workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Workers’ compensation coverage is required if a business entity has one or more employees and is engaged in the construction industry in Florida. The payment of workers’ compensation coverage may be secured via three non-mutually exclusive methods: 1) the purchase of a workers’ compensation insurance policy; 2) arranging for the payment of wages and workers’ compensation coverage through an employee leasing company; and 3) applying for and receiving a certificate of exemption from workers’ compensation coverage if certain statutorily mandated criteria are met. On September 4, 2008, Maria Seidler, a compliance investigator employed by Respondent, was making random site visits at the Bella Vida development in North Fort Myers. Seidler observed eight workers unloading a truck, taking measurements, and performing various tasks on new homes under construction. All eight of the men were engaged in some type of activity on the job site. None were merely standing around, sitting in a truck, or otherwise idle. Seidler had all eight men stand in front of her, spoke to them in Spanish, and recorded their names on her field interview worksheet. All eight men advised Seidler, in Spanish, that they worked for Millenium Homes. None of the men advised Seidler that they did not work for Petitioner, nor that they were present in hopes of applying for a job. The individual apparently in charge at the job site, did not advise Seidler that not all of the men present were working for Petitioner. The evidence demonstrated that D.R. Horton was the general contractor for the project, and that D.R. Horton had contracted with Petitioner to frame out the housing units at the project. The eight men, who were present on the job site and who identified themselves as employees of Petitioner, confirmed that they were present on September 4, 2008, to perform framing. Framing is a construction activity as contemplated by Subsection 440.02(8), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.021. James Loubert, president and sole shareholder of Petitioner, was not on the job site at the time of Seidler’s arrival, and she initially spoke with him by telephone. Loubert arrived at the job site a short time later. Loubert advised Seidler that Petitioner had secured workers’ compensation coverage for its employees through an employee leasing arrangement with Employee Leasing Solutions (ELS). This coverage was later confirmed by Seidler. However, of the eight workers found on the job site, three workers, Alejandro Osorio, Josue Sanchez Bautista, and Luis Aguilar, were not named on the ELS list of Petitioner’s active, covered employees. Seidler was very definite and precise in her testimony that she observed Alejandro Osorio, Josue Sanchez Bautista, and Luis Aguilar wearing hard hats and engaging in work activities upon her arrival at the job site. Her testimony is found to be credible. When Loubert arrived at the job site, he informed Seidler that two of the workers, not listed on Petitioner’s active employee roster, were to have been sent home to pick up their Social Security cards, and that he had called in the third worker, Josue Sanchez Bautista, to ELS. Loubert did not inform Seidler that Osorio, Bautista, and Aguilar were not employees of Petitioner and were merely present at the job site in hopes of applying for a job. The Pre-hearing Stipulation signed by counsel for the parties and filed with the DOAH clerk on December 8, 2009, contained the following statements of admitted facts in section E: Respondent’s [sic] employees Josue Sanchez Bautista, Luis Aguilar, and Juan Perez had not been called into and accepted as employees by ELS as of September 4, 2008. Respondent [sic] was not in compliance with the coverage requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, as of September 4, 2008.2 At the hearing, both Javier Perez and Loubert testified that Osorio, Bautista, and Aguilar were not employees of Petitioner, but rather were waiting on site for Loubert to arrive, so that they could ask for jobs. However, they were all wearing hard hats. The testimony of Perez and Loubert is inconsistent with the observations of Seidler, as well as the statements made to Seidler by Loubert at the job site on September 8, 2008, and is, therefore, not credible. Petitioner had no workers’ compensation coverage other than that provided though ELS, and no active exemptions. James Loubert is the only officer of Petitioner, and did not have an exemption from coverage as of September 4, 2008. At the work-site, a Stop-Work Order 08-234-D7 was issued and personally served upon James Loubert based upon Petitioner’s failure to secure the payment of workers’ compensation for its employees Josue Sanchez Bautista, Luis Aguilar, and Alejandro Osorio. A business records request was also served on Loubert in order to obtain the records necessary to calculate and assess a penalty on Petitioner based upon its failure to comply with the coverage requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to Section 440.107(5), Florida Statutes, Petitioner’s business records were requested back to September 5, 2005, or three years prior to the issuance of the Stop-Work Order. Petitioner produced the register for its primary checking account to Respondent on September 4, 2008, in response to Respondent’s request for business records. Lynne Murcia is a compliance specialist for Respondent. She reviews business records produced by employers to determine the amount of payroll on which workers’ compensation premium was not paid, in order to calculate an appropriate penalty for violations of the coverage requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. Upon review of the business records initially produced by Petitioner, it was determined that the register from one of Petitioner’s two business checking accounts was missing. The records initially produced by Petitioner were, therefore, insufficient for the calculation of an appropriate penalty. It was requested that Petitioner produce the register for the second checking account, and those records were quickly produced. Thereafter, a 45-page summary of all transactions potentially meeting the definitions of payroll set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.035 (the Rule), was prepared and an Order of Penalty Assessment issued. In determining which payments should potentially be considered payroll, pursuant to the Rule, all payments made by Petitioner directly to its employees that did not pass through ELS were included. To the extent that those direct payments meet the definition of payroll, they were subject to workers’ compensation premium and would be properly included in an assessed penalty. Petitioner also made direct “per diem” payments to reimburse its employees for the cost of meals and lodging which they incurred during the times that they were required to travel away from home to perform their jobs. The per diem rates were calculated pursuant to Internal Revenue Service guidelines, and were deducted as a business expense on Petitioner’s income tax returns for the years 2005-2007. The Rule requires that expense reimbursements by an employer to employees be included as payroll subject to workers’ compensation premium to the extent that the business records of the employer do not confirm that the expenses were incurred as valid business expenses. All per diem payments made by Petitioner to its employees were included in the calculations, because Petitioner did not produce the receipts reflecting that its employees had actually incurred meal and lodging expenses in those amounts. However, following the December 15, 2009, hearing, Respondent examined the issue further and concluded that Petitioner’s per diem payments to its employees were properly documented as business expenses on Petitioner’s income tax returns. Respondent thereafter sought leave to file its Fifth Amended Order of Penalty Assessment deleting all per diem payments from the assessed penalty. Petitioner made numerous payments to third parties who provided construction, maintenance, or janitorial services at the homes of James Loubert, his father, Adrian Loubert, and his wife, April White, or who provided child care services for the Loubert family. For example, Petitioner paid $1,500.00 for tile work performed at James Loubert’s residence; $478.00 to Alex Ortiz, Antonio Elias, and Candy Ortiz for pressure-washing the homes of James Loubert and April White; $2,548.14 to Pedro Delgano for building cabinets for the homes of James Loubert and his father; $11,326.40 to Rick Wilson for painting the houses of James and Adrian Loubert; and beginning August 23, 2007, through December 20, 2007, $1,433.66 to Diane Berger for cleaning James Loubert’s home. Petitioner also paid $3,402.00 to Cinta Smollis for babysitting services provided to Loubert. These individuals do not appear on the penalty work sheet of the Fifth Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, since they do not meet the statutory definition of employees. Petitioner also paid large sums of money to Adrian Loubert for the purchase of a farm in Canada. In addition, James Loubert testified that some of the payments to his father represented expense reimbursements, suggesting that, at some point, Adrian Loubert had been an employee of Petitioner. Petitioner did not introduce any exhibits into evidence reflecting the nature or amount of the reimbursements allegedly being made to Adrian Loubert. James Loubert was actively involved in the carpentry work performed by Petitioner, on the project on which the stop- work order was issued as well as on prior projects. Nevertheless, he received only a minimal salary through Petitioner’s employee leasing company, ELS. In 2007, Loubert received a total salary of $11,000.00 through ELS. In 2008, he received a total salary through ELS of only $7,200.00. Any payments that James Loubert received directly from Petitioner, that meet the definition of payroll set forth in the Rule, were subject to workers’ compensation premium, and are therefore subject to penalty. During the three-year penalty period specified by the statute, Petitioner made many cash payments to, or for the benefit of, James Loubert. The business records produced by Petitioner indicate that these cash payments were made to payees such as Blockbuster Video, Toys-R-Us, and PetsMart, as well as for vacation expenses. In addition, James Loubert took large amounts of cash from Petitioner to facilitate his hobby of racing cars. Throughout the penalty period, Petitioner also made numerous payments to Loubert’s wife, April White, and to his daughter, Alexa Seagate. Petitioner also made numerous payments to Gary White, his father-in-law and one of Petitioner’s employees. James Loubert testified that the payments made to, or on behalf of, family members, the payments made to third- party payees, and the cash payments which he took from Petitioner reflected shareholder distributions. However, the memo lines on those payment entries do not indicate that those payments were intended to be shareholder distributions. Petitioner’s business records reflect that the memo line on a check would indicate that it was a shareholder distribution, if that was what it was intended to be. This was the practice on other transactions. In addition, James Loubert testified that the memos for his Quick Books entries reflect “exactly what” each payment was for. Presumably those memo entries are the same as the memo entries on the corresponding checks. The payments made by Petitioner to third parties from which it appears that Petitioner did not receive services or a benefit, including but not limited to the payments made to family members of James Loubert, and the cash payments made by Petitioner to finance James Loubert’s auto racing hobby, do not constitute legitimate business expenses. Petitioner frequently made loans or wage advances to its employees. Although Loubert testified that those loans were repaid to him, he later acknowledged that a $2,000.00 loan to employee Rachel Broulet was never paid back, and that a $975.00 loan to Nicholas Susa was never repaid. Petitioner did not produce business records or documentary evidence at the hearing that indicates that any of the loans which it made to employees were repaid. The State of Florida has adopted a classification code developed by the National Council of Compensation Insurance (NCCI), which assigns individual four digit codes to various classes of labor. This classification code is utilized to segregate different categories of labor by risk and to determine appropriate workers’ compensation premiums for those classes of labor in Florida. Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.021. As noted above, Petitioner was performing framing work at the time of the September 4, 2008, inspection. Because Petitioner’s employees were observed at work constructing residential homes, classification code 5645, detached one or two family dwellings, was correctly applied to Petitioner’s employees directly engaged in construction activities. This includes Javier Perez, as he was working along with and directly supervising the other seven carpenters who were working on site when the inspection took place. Classification code 8742, outside sales, has been applied to James Loubert, as he was not observed working on September 4, 2008. However, Loubert did testify at his deposition that he usually performed construction work along side Petitioner’s other employees, but Respondent did not apply the construction code to him in the Fifth Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. Classification code 8810 was correctly applied to those employees of Petitioner who performed clerical work in the office. The appropriate manual rates for each year of the penalty period of September 5, 2005, through September 4, 2008, was applied for each classification code assigned to Petitioner’s employees. In preparing the Fifth Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, the amount of unsecured payroll attributable to each employee of Petitioner listed on the penalty worksheet was correctly calculated. From the evidence, Luis Aguilar and Alejandro Osorio were to be paid $10.00 per hour. There was no evidence that Aguilar and Osorio had worked prior to the issuance of the Stop-Work Order, and therefore, earnings of $80.00 assigned, reflecting eight hours at $10.00 per hour for September 4, 2008, was correct. Petitioner failed to provide any business records or other information concerning the rate of pay for Josue Sanchez Bautista, the third non-compliant worker. Bautista’s wages for September 4, 2008, can be imputed utilizing the statewide average wage pursuant to Subsection 440.107(7)(e), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order finding that Millenium Homes, Inc., failed to secure the payment of workers’ compensation insurance coverage for its employees, in violation of Section 440.38(1), Florida Statutes, and that a penalty in the amount of $66,099.37 should be imposed for the failure to provide the required workers’ compensation insurance coverage. DONE AND ORDERED this 28th day of May, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of May, 2010.
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 Whether Fantastic Construction of Daytona, Inc. (“Respondent”), failed to secure the payment of workers’ compensation 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 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. Respondent is a corporation engaged in the construction industry with headquarters in Daytona Beach, Florida. On November 19, 2015, the Department’s compliance investigator, Scott Mohan, observed five individuals framing a single-family house at 173 Botefuhr Avenue in Daytona, Florida. Mr. Mohan interviewed the individuals he observed working at the jobsite and found they were working for Respondent on lease from Convergence Leasing (“Convergence”). Mr. Mohan contacted Convergence and found that all of the workers on the jobsite were employees of Convergence, except Scott Barenfanger. Mr. Mohan also confirmed that the workers’ compensation policy for Convergence employees was in effect. Mr. Mohan reviewed information in the Coverage and Compliance Automated System, or CCAS, for Respondent. CCAS indicated Respondent’s workers were covered for workers’ compensation by Convergence and that Respondent’s contract with Convergence was active. Mr. Mohan also confirmed, through CCAS, that Foster Coleman, Respondent’s president, had previously obtained an exemption from the workers’ compensation requirement, but that his exemption expired on July 18, 2015. Mr. Mohan then contacted Mr. Coleman via telephone and informed him that one of the workers on the jobsite was not on the active employee roster for Convergence, thus Respondent was not in compliance with the requirement to obtain workers’ compensation insurance for its employees. Mr. Coleman reported to the jobsite in response to Mr. Mohan’s phone call. Mr. Coleman admitted that Mr. Barenfanger was not on the Convergence employee leasing roster. Mr. Coleman subsequently obtained an application from Convergence for Mr. Barenfanger and delivered it to his residence. Mr. Mohan served Mr. Coleman at the jobsite with a Stop-Work Order and a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation (“BRR”). In response to the BRR, Respondent provided to the Department business bank statements, check stubs, copies of checks, certificates of liability insurance for various suppliers and subcontractors, and an employee leasing roster for most of the audit period from November 20, 2013, to November 19, 2015.1/ Respondent did not produce any check stubs for November and December 2013. Mr. Coleman testified, credibly, that his bookkeeper during that time period did not keep accurate records. Mr. Coleman did produce his business bank statements and other records for that time period. Based on the review of initial records received, the Department calculated a penalty of $17,119.80 and issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in that amount on February 18, 2016. On March 17, 2016, Respondent supplied the Department with additional records. Altogether, Respondent submitted over 400 pages of records to the Department. The majority of the records are copies of check stubs for checks issued on Respondent’s business bank account. The check stubs are in numerical order from 1349 to 1879, and none are missing. The check stubs were hand written by Mr. Coleman, who is 78 years old. Some of his writing on the check stubs is difficult to discern. On April 4, 2016, following review of additional records received, the Department issued a Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in the amount of $9,629.36. The Department assigned penalty auditor Sarah Beal to calculate the penalty assessed against Respondent. Identification of Employees Ms. Beal reviewed the business records produced by Respondent and identified Respondent’s uninsured employees first by filtering out payments made to compliant individuals and businesses, and payments made for non-labor costs. However, the evidence demonstrated that the Department included on its penalty calculation worksheet (“worksheet”) payments made to individuals who were not Respondent’s employees. Neal Noonan is an automobile mechanic. Mr. Noonan was neither an employee of, nor a subcontractor for, Respondent for any work performed by Respondent during the audit period. Mr. Noonan performed repairs on Mr. Coleman’s personal vehicles during the audit period. Checks issued to Mr. Noonan during the audit period were for work performed on Mr. Coleman’s personal vehicles. The Department’s worksheet included a “David Locte” with a period of noncompliance from June 19, 2014, through December 31, 2014. The basis for including Mr. Locte as an employee was a check stub written on December 10, 2014, to a business name that is almost indiscernible, but closely resembles “Liete & Locke” in the amount of $100. The memo reflects that the check was written for “architect plans.” Mr. Coleman recognized the worksheet entry of David Locte as pertaining to David Leete, an architect in Daytona. Mr. Leete has provided architectural services to Respondent off and on for roughly five years. Mr. Leete signs and seals plans for, among others, a draftsman named Dan Langley. Mr. Langley provides drawings and plans for Respondent’s projects. When Respondent submits plans to a local governing body which requires architectural drawings to accompany permit applications, Mr. Leete reviews and signs the plans. Mr. Leete was neither an employee of, nor a subcontractor for, Respondent during the audit period. The single payment made to Mr. Leete by Respondent during the audit period was for professional architectural services rendered. Mr. Langley was neither an employee of, nor a subcontractor for, Respondent during the audit period. Payments made to Mr. Langley during the audit period were for professional drafting services rendered. Among the names on the Department’s worksheet is R.W. Kicklighter. Mr. Kicklighter is an energy consultant whose office is located in the same building with Mr. Leete. Mr. Kicklighter prepares energy calculations, based on construction plans, to determine the capacity of heating and air-conditioning systems needed to serve the planned construction. Mr. Kicklighter was neither an employee of, nor a subcontractor for, Respondent during the audit period. Payments made to Mr. Kicklighter during the audit period were for professional services rendered. Respondent made a payment of $125 on September 15, 2014, to an entity known as Set Material. Set Material is a company that rents dumpsters for collection of concrete at demolition and reconstruction sites. Removal and disposal of the concrete from the jobsite is included within the rental price of the dumpster. The Department included on the worksheet an entry for “Let Malereal.” The evidence revealed the correct name is Set Material and no evidence was introduced regarding the existence of a person or entity known as Let Malereal. Set Material was neither an employee of, nor a subcontractor for, Respondent during the audit period. The single payment made to Set Material during the audit period was for dumpster rental. The Department’s worksheet contains an entry for “CTC” for the penalty period of January 1, 2014, through May 1, 2014. Respondent made a payment to “CTC” on April 11, 2014, in connection with a job referred to as “964 clubhouse.” The records show Respondent made payments to Gulfeagle Supply, Vern’s Insulation, John Wood, Bruce Bennett, and Ron Whaley in connection with the same job. At final hearing, Mr. Coleman had no recollection what CTC referred to. Mr. Coleman’s testimony was the only evidence introduced regarding identification of CTC. CTC could have been a vendor of equipment or supplies for the job, just as easily as an employee. The evidence is insufficient to support a finding that CTC was an employee of, or a subcontractor for, Respondent during the audit period. The check stub for check 1685 does not indicate to whom the $60 payment was made. The stub reads “yo for Doug.” The Department listed “Doug” as an employee on its worksheet and included the $60 as wages to “Doug” for purposes of calculating workers’ compensation premiums owed. At hearing, Mr. Coleman was unable to recall ever having employed anyone named Doug, and had no recollection regarding the January 7, 2015, payment. The evidence was insufficient to establish that “Doug” was either Respondent’s employee or subcontractor during the audit period. Ken’s Heating and Air was not an employee of, nor a subcontractor to, Respondent for any work undertaken by Respondent during the audit period. Ken’s Heating and Air conducted repairs on, and maintenance of, Mr. Coleman’s personal residence during the audit period. Checks issued to Ken’s Heating and Air during the audit period were payments for work performed at Mr. Coleman’s personal residence. Barry Smith is an electrical contractor. Mr. Smith was neither an employee of, nor subcontractor to, Respondent for any work performed by Respondent during the audit period. Mr. Smith did make repairs to the electrical system at Mr. Coleman’s personal residence during the audit period. Checks issued to Mr. Smith during the audit period were payments for work performed at Mr. Coleman’s personal residence. The remaining names listed on the Department’s penalty calculation worksheet were accurately included as Respondent’s employees.2/ Calculation of Payroll Mr. Coleman’s exemption certificate expired on July 18, 2015, approximately four months shy of the end of the audit period. Payments made by Respondent to Mr. Coleman during the time period for which he did not have a valid exemption (the penalty period) were deemed by the Department as wages paid to Mr. Coleman by Respondent. Respondent’s business records show seven checks written either to Mr. Coleman or to cash during that time period in the total amount of $3,116.52. The Department included that amount on the worksheet as wages paid to Mr. Coleman. Check 1873 was written to cash, but the check stub notes that the payment of $1,035.69 was made to Compliance Matters, Respondent’s payroll company. Check 1875 was written to cash, but the check stub notes that the payment of $500 was made to Daytona Landscaping. The evidence does not support a finding that checks 1873 and 1875 represented wages paid to Mr. Coleman. The correct amount attributable as wages paid to Mr. Coleman during the penalty period is $1,796.52. Respondent’s employees Tyler Eubler, Brian Karchalla, Keith Walsh, and John Strobel, were periodically paid by Respondent during the audit period in addition to their paychecks from Convergence. Mr. Coleman testified that the payments were advances on their wages. He explained that when working on a job out of town, the crew would arrive after Convergence had closed for the day, and Mr. Coleman would pay them cash and allow them to reimburse him from their paychecks the following day. Unfortunately for Respondent, the evidence did not support a finding that these employees reimbursed Mr. Coleman for the advances made. The Department correctly determined the payroll amount attributable to these employees. The Department attributed $945 in payroll to “James Sharer.” The Department offered no evidence regarding how they arrived at the name of James Sharer as Respondent’s employee or the basis for the payroll amount. James Shores worked off-and-on for Respondent. Mr. Coleman recognized the worksheet entry of “James Sharer” as a misspelling of Mr. Shores’ name. Respondent’s records show payments totaling $535 to Mr. Shores during the audit period. The correct amount of payroll attributable to Mr. Shores from Respondent during the audit period is $535. The Department included wages totaling $10,098.84 to Mr. Barenfanger during the period of noncompliance from November 20, 2013, to December 31, 2013. The Department imputed the average weekly wage to Mr. Barenfanger for that period because, in the Department’s estimation, Respondent did not produce records sufficient to establish payroll for those two months in 2013. See § 440.107(7)(e), Fla. Stat. The voluminous records produced by Respondent evidenced not a single payment made to Mr. Barenfanger between January 2014, and November 19, 2015. Even if Mr. Coleman had not testified that he did not know or employ Mr. Barenfanger before November 19, 2015, it would be ludicrous to find that he worked weekly for Respondent during the last two months of 2013. Mr. Coleman testified, credibly, that Mr. Barenfanger worked the jobsite for Respondent on November 18 and 19, 2015, but not prior to those dates. The evidence does not support a finding that the worksheet entry for Mr. Barenfanger in the amount of $10,098.84 accurately represents wages attributable to Mr. Barenfanger during the period of noncompliance. The Department’s worksheet includes an employee by the name of Ren W. Raly for the period of noncompliance from January 1, 2014, through May 1, 2014, and a Ronnie Whaley for the period of noncompliance from June 19, 2014 through December 31, 2014. Mr. Coleman testified that he never had an employee by the name of Raly and he assumed the first entry was a misspelling of Ronnie Whaley’s name. Mr. Coleman testified that Ronnie Whaley was a concrete finisher and brick layer who did work for Respondent. Mr. Coleman testified that he submitted to the Department a copy of Mr. Whaley’s “workers’ comp exempt,” but that they must not have accepted it. The records submitted to the Department by Respondent do not contain any exemption certificate for Ronnie Whaley. However, in the records submitted to the Department from Respondent is a certificate of liability insurance dated February 25, 2014, showing workers’ compensation and liability coverage issued to Direct HR Services, Inc., from Alliance Insurance Solutions, LLC. The certificate plainly states that coverage is provided for “all leased employees, but not subcontractors, of Ronald Whaley Masonry.” The certificate shows coverage in effect from February 1, 2013, through February 1, 2015. Petitioner did not challenge the reliability of the certificate or otherwise object to its admissibility.3/ In fact, the document was moved into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit P1. Petitioner offered no testimony regarding whether the certificate was insufficient proof of coverage for Mr. Whaley during the periods of noncompliance listed on the worksheet. The evidence does not support a finding that Mr. Whaley was an uninsured individual during the periods of noncompliance. Thus, the wages attributed to Mr. Whaley by the Department were incorrect. Ms. Beal assigned the class code 5645—Carpentry to the individuals correctly identified as Respondent’s uninsured employees because this code matched the description of the job being performed by the workers on the jobsite the day of the inspection. Ms. Beal correctly utilized the corresponding approved manual rates for the carpentry classification code and the related periods of noncompliance to determine the gross payroll to the individuals correctly included as Respondent’s uninsured employees. Calculation of Penalty For the employees correctly included as uninsured employees, Ms. Beal applied the correct approved manual rates and correctly utilized the methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)1. and Florida Administrative Code Rules 69L-6.027 and 69L-6.028 to determine the penalty to be imposed. For the individuals correctly included as uninsured employees, and for whom the correct payroll was calculated, the correct penalty amount is $2,590.06. The correct penalty for payments made to Mr. Coleman during the penalty period is $571.81. The correct penalty for payments made to James Shores is $170.24. The correct total penalty to be assessed against Respondent is $3,332.11. The Department demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent was engaged in the construction industry in Florida during the audit period and that Respondent failed to carry workers’ compensation insurance for its employees at times during the audit period as required by Florida’s workers’ compensation law. The Department demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent employed the employees named on the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, with the exception of Ken’s Heating and Air, CTC, Don Langly, Ren W. Raly, R.W. Kicklighter, Dave Locte, Let Malereal, Ronnie Whaley, and “Doug.” The Department did not demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that it correctly calculated the gross payroll attributable to Mr. Coleman and Mr. Shores. The Department demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Beal correctly utilized the methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)1. to determine the appropriate penalty for each of Respondent’s uninsured employees. The Department did not demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the correct penalty is $9,629.36. The evidence demonstrated that the correct penalty to be assessed against Respondent for failure to provide workers’ compensation insurance for its employees during the audit period is $3,332.11.
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 Fantastic Construction of Daytona, Inc., violated the workers’ compensation insurance law and assessing a penalty of $3,332.11. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of August, 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 18th day of August, 2016.
The Issue The issues are as follows: (a) whether Respondent failed to secure the payment of workers’ compensation for its employees; and if so, (b) whether Petitioner assessed an appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency that is responsible for enforcing the requirements Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, requiring employers to secure the payment of workers’ compensation for their employees. At all times relevant here, Respondent has been an active Florida corporation. Respondent’s business involves the installation of acoustic ceiling tiles. Respondent’s work in this regard constitutes construction. On March 16, 2010, Carl Woodall, Petitioner’s workers’ compensation compliance investigator, conducted a random compliance check at a construction site. The site was located at 707 Jenks Avenue in Panama City, Florida. Upon his arrival in the construction site, Mr. Woodall observed two individuals, Robin and Todd Calhoun, installing acoustic ceiling tiles in a commercial office building. The individuals informed Mr. Woodall that they were working for Jackie Shores. The individuals provided Mr. Woodall with contact information for Mr. Shores. Mr. Woodall initially contacted Mr. Shores by phone. Later, Mr. Woodall and Mr. Shores spoke in person at the construction site. Mr. Shores informed Mr. Woodall that he was employed by Respondent as a job supervisor. Mr. Shores also identified Robin and Todd Calhoun as Respondent’s employees. Mr. Shores informed Mr. Woodall that Respondent used Southeast Employee Leasing for workers’ compensation coverage, but that Robin and Todd Calhoun had not been signed up for coverage. Mr. Woodall then contacted George Kaspers from Southeast Employee Leasing to verify whether Respondent had secured workers’ compensation for Robin and Todd Calhoun. Mr. Kaspers confirmed that the Calhouns were not covered and that they did not have pending employee applications. On March 16, 2010, Mr. Kaspers faxed Mr. Woodall a list of Respondent’s employees that were covered by workers’ compensation insurance. The list did not name the Calhouns. Mr. Woodall next searched Petitioner’s Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) for proof of a workers’ compensation policy or officer exemptions. CCAS is a database that lists workers’ compensation insurance policy information and all workers’ compensation exemptions. The database did not list a current policy for Respondent or any valid exemptions. Mr. Woodall also reviewed the website maintained by the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations. The review showed that Respondent had been an active corporation since May 7, 2002. Based on his investigation, Mr. Woodall determined that Respondent had not secured workers’ compensation coverage for all of its employees as required by Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. On March 16, 2010, Petitioner issued, and served on Respondent, a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment, together with a Request for the Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation. The business records request applied to the period of March 17, 2007, through March 16, 2010. The request sought production of payroll records, workers’ compensation policy documents, employee leasing documents, temporary labor service documents, and workers’ compensation exemption documents. Mr. Woodall did not initially request subcontractor payroll and workers’ compensation documentation from Respondent because he did not see any subcontractors on site. He did not want to burden Respondent with a request for more documents that were necessary to determine a proper penalty. However, after Respondent failed to produce the requested records within the required time-period, the case was assigned to Monica Moye, Respondent’s penalty calculator, to prepare a penalty based on Respondent’s imputed payroll. On April 8, 2010, Mr. Woodall personally served an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on Respondent. The Order assessed a total penalty in the amount of $77,492.93 against Respondent for failure to secure workers’ compensation coverage for its employees. On April 5, 2010, and April 7, 2010, Respondent provided bank records with check images to Petitioner for the period of March 1, 2007, through March 31, 2010. Ms. Moye used these records to calculate a 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. The second order was based on payments to employees and subcontractors that were not covered by workers’ compensation insurance or an exemption there from. The second order assessed a penalty in the amount of $13,018.63. After service of the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, Ms. Moye received additional information from Respondent regarding a subcontractor that was covered by its own workers’ compensation policy. After confirming the subcontractor's coverage, Ms. Moye removed all payments to that subcontractor from Respondent's penalty. Mr. Woodall subsequently issued a 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to Respondent, assessing a penalty in the amount of $7,105.35. Later, Ms. Moye received information from Respondent, indicating that two additional subcontractors had workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. This information resulted in the issuance of a 4th Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, assessing a penalty in the amount of $6,675.91. Classification codes are four digit codes assigned to occupation by the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc. (NCCI) to assist in the calculation of workers’ compensation insurance premiums. The codes are listed in the Scopes® Manual, which Petitioner has adopted by rule. After discovery was completed in this case, Petitioner determined that some of Respondent’s employees had been assigned an improper construction classification code of 5348 on the 4th Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. Code 5348 encompasses ceramic tile, indoor stone, and marble installation. The proper code for Respondent’s employees was 5020, which encompasses the installation of suspended acoustical ceilings. Based on information provided by Respondent during discovery, Petitioner also determined that one of Respondent’s clerical employees should be assigned classification code 8810 rather than construction code 5348. Additionally, Petitioner discovered that payments to two entities were payments for material rather than labor. Based on information learned during discovery, Petitioner prepared a 5th Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, assessing a total penalty in the amount of $8,621.46. To calculate the penalty of the 5th Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, Petitioner totaled the gross payroll paid to Respondent’s employees and subcontractors that were not covered by workers’ compensation for each period of non-compliance. Respondent conceded that all of the individuals and entities listed on the penalty worksheet performed services for Respondent during the time periods listed. Respondent also conceded that the gross payroll amounts were correctly calculated, that none of the individuals listed had secured an exemption, and that none of the payments to employees or subcontractors included in the penalty calculation were covered by a workers’ compensation policy. Approved manual rates are established by NCCI and adopted by Petitioner. The approved manual rates are calculated upon the risk assigned to the type of employment reflected by each classification code. Using the penalty calculation worksheet, Petitioner divided the gross payroll amount for each employee and subcontractor in each period of non-compliance by 100 and multiplied that figure by the approved manual rate for the classification code assigned to that employee or subcontractor. The product was the amount of workers’ compensation premium Respondent should have paid for each employee and subcontractor if Respondent had been compliant. The premium amounts were then multiplied by 1.5 to arrive at the penalty for each employee and subcontractor. The penalties for each employee and subcontractor for each period of non-compliance were then added together to come up with a total penalty of $8,621.48.
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, affirming, approving, and adopting the 5th Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of December, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Jackie Shores M & M Coop Construction Co., Inc. 1401 Minnesota Avenue Lynn Haven, Florida 32444 Holly R. Werkema, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Julie Jones, CP, FRP Agency Clerk Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 Benjamin Diamond, General Counsel Department of Financial Services’ The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Honorable Alex Sink Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issues are whether, under section 440.107, Florida Statutes, Petitioner may calculate a penalty assessment for a failure to secure the payment of workers' compensation for one day as though the failure persisted over two years and whether Petitioner may calculate a penalty assessment based on double the statewide average weekly wage (AWW) when the lone uncovered employee earned $10 per hour.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was incorporated in 2008 by Ineido Soler, Sr., and his son, Ineido Soler, Jr. Since the corporation began operations, the wife of Mr. Soler, Jr., Idalmis Pedrero, has served as the office manager of this family-owned company. At all material times, Respondent has contracted with a personnel leasing company to handle employee matters, such as securing the payment of workers' compensation. Ms. Pedrero's responsibilities include informing the employee leasing company of new hires, so the company can obtain workers' compensation coverage, which typically starts the day following notification. On the afternoon of November 22, 2015, Mr. Soler, Jr., telephoned his wife and told her that he and his father had hired, at the rate of $10 per hour, a new employee, Geony Borrego Lee, who would start work the following morning. Customarily, Ms. Pedrero would immediately inform the employee leasing company. However, Ms. Pedrero was working at home because, six days earlier, she had delivered a baby by caesarian section, and she was still recuperating and tending to her newborn. A fatigued Ms. Pedrero did not notify the employee leasing company that day of the new hire. Late the next morning, Ms. Pedrero was awakened by a call from her husband, who asked her if she had faxed the necessary information to the employee leasing company. Ms. Pedrero admitted that she had not done so, but would do so right away. She faxed the information immediately, so that the employee leasing company could add Mr. Lee to the workers' compensation policy, effective the next day, November 24. Uncovered for November 23, Mr. Lee joined three other employees of Respondent and performed roofing work at a worksite. Late in the afternoon of November 23, one of Petitioner's investigators conducted a random inspection of Respondent's worksite and determined that Respondent had secured the payment of workers' compensation for the three other employees, but not for Mr. Lee. The investigator issued an SWO on the day of the inspection, November 23. The SWO contains three parts. First, the SWO orders Respondent to cease work anywhere in the state of Florida. Second, the SWO includes an Order of Penalty Assessment, which does not contain a specific penalty, but instead sets forth the formula by which Petitioner determines the amount of the penalty to assess. Tracking the statute discussed below, the formula included in the SWO is two times the premium that the employer would have paid when applying approved manual rates to the employer's payroll "during periods for which it has failed to secure the payment of compensation within the preceding 2-year period." Third, the SWO includes a Notice of Rights, which advises Respondent that it may request a chapter 120 hearing. On November 24, Petitioner released the SWO after Respondent had secured the payment of workers' compensation for Mr. Lee. On November 25, the investigator hand delivered to Respondent a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation (Request). The Request covers November 24, 2013, through November 23, 2015, and demands records in eight categories: identification of employer, occupational licenses, payroll documents, account documents, disbursements, contracts for work, identification of subcontractors, and documentation of subcontractors' workers' compensation coverage. The Request identifies "payroll documents" as: all documents that reflect the payroll of the employer . . . including . . . time sheets, time cards, attendance records, earning records, check stubs and payroll summaries for both individual employees and aggregate records; [and] federal income tax documents and other documents reflecting the . . . remuneration paid or payable to each employee . . . . The Request adds: The employer may present for consideration in lieu of the requested records, proof of compliance with F.S. 440 by a workers' compensation policy or coverage through employee leasing for all periods of this request where such coverage existed. If the proof of compliance is verified by the Department the requested records for that time period will not be required. The Request warns: If the employer fails to provide the required business records sufficient to enable the . . . Division of Workers' Compensation to determine the employer's payroll for the period requested for the calculation of the penalty provided in section 440.107(7)(d), F.S., the imputed weekly payroll for each employee shall be the statewide average weekly wage as defined in section 440.12(2), F.S., multiplied by 2. The Department shall impute the employer's payroll at any time after ten, but before the expiration of twenty eight business days after receipt by the employer of [the Request]. (FAC 69L-6.028) . . . . On December 11, 2015, Respondent provided the following documents to Petitioner: itemized invoices, including for workers' compensation premiums, from the employee leasing company to Respondent and checks confirming payment, but the invoices and checks are from December 2011; an employee leasing agreement signed by Respondent on August 1, 2014, and signed by the employee leasing company on August 5, 2014; an employee leasing application for Mr. Lee dated November 23, 2015, showing his date of birth as November 20, 1996, his hourly pay as $10, and his hire date as November 23, 2015; and an employee census dated December 1, 2015, showing, for each employee, a date of hire and, if applicable, date of termination. Partially compliant with the Request, this production omitted any documentation of workers' compensation coverage prior to August 1, 2014, and any documentation of payroll except for Mr. Lee's rate of pay. On December 14, 2015, Respondent filed with Petitioner its request for a chapter 120 hearing. On December 30, 2016, Petitioner issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment (Amended Assessment), which proposes to assess a penalty of $63,434.48. On the same date, Petitioner transmitted the file to DOAH. Petitioner issued a Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on February 16, 2016, which is mentioned in, but not attached to, the Prehearing Stipulation that was filed on April 26, 2016, but the second amended assessment reportedly leaves the assessed penalty unchanged from the Amended Assessment. In determining the penalty assessment, Petitioner assigned class code 5551 from the National Council on Compensation Insurance because Mr. Lee was performing roofing work; determined that the entire two-year period covered in the Request was applicable; identified the AWW as $841.57 based on information provided by the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity for all employers subject to the Florida Reemployment Assistance Program Law, sections 443.01 et seq., Florida Statutes, for the four calendar quarters ending June 30, 2014; applied the appropriate manual rates for class code 5551 to $841.57, doubled, and divided the result by 100--all of which yielded a result of $31,717.24, which, doubled, results in a total penalty assessment of $63,434.48. There is no dispute that the classification code for Mr. Lee is code 5551, the AWW is $841.57, and the manual rates are 18.03 as of July 1, 2013, 18.62 as of January 1, 2014, and 17.48 as of January 1, 2015. Because Petitioner determined that Respondent had failed to provide sufficient evidence of its payroll, Petitioner calculated the penalty assessment by using the AWW of $841.57, doubled, instead of Mr. Lee's actual rate of $10 per hour. Petitioner's calculations are mathematically correct. For the 5.27 weeks of 2013, the penalty assessment is $3198.58 based on multiplying the AWW, doubled, by the manual rate of 18.03 divided by 100 multiplied by 2 and multiplied by 5.27. For the 52 weeks of 2014, the penalty assessment is $32,593.67 based on multiplying the AWW, doubled, by the manual rate of 18.62 divided by 100 multiplied by 2 and multiplied by 52. For the 46.44 weeks of 2015, the penalty assessment is $27,326.48 based on multiplying the AWW, doubled, by the manual rate of 17.48 divided by 100 multiplied by 2 and multiplied by 46.44. Adding these sums yields a total penalty assessment of $63,118.73, which approximates Petitioner's penalty assessment calculation of $63,434.48. (Mistranscription of difficult-to- read manual rates or a different rule for handling partial weeks may account for the small difference.) Respondent challenges two factors in the imputation formula: the two-year period of noncompliance for Mr. Lee instead of one day's noncompliance and the AWW, doubled, instead of Mr. Lee's $10 per hour rate of pay. Underscoring the differences between the two-year period of noncompliance and double the AWW and the actual period of noncompliance and Mr. Lee's real pay rate, at the start of the two-year period, Mr. Lee was three days past his 16th birthday and residing in Cuba, and Mr. Lee continues to earn $10 per hour as of the date of the hearing. The impact of Petitioner's use of the two-year period of noncompliance and double the AWW is significant. If the calculation were based on a single day, rather than two years, the assessed penalty would be less than the statutory minimum of $1000, which is described below, even if double the AWW were used. One day is 0.14 weeks, so the penalty assessment would be $82.38 based on multiplying the AWW, doubled, by the manual rate of 17.48 divided by 100 multiplied by 2 and multiplied by 0.14. If the calculation were based on the entire two years, rather than a single day, the assessed penalty would be about one-quarter of the proposed assessed penalty, if Mr. Lee's actual weekly rate of pay were used instead of double the AWW. Substituting $400 for twice the AWW in the calculations set forth in paragraph 15 above, the penalty would be $760.14 for 2013, $7746.92 for 2014, and $6494.17 for 2015 for a total of $15,001.23. Explaining why Petitioner treated one day of noncompliance as two years of noncompliance, one of Petitioner's witnesses referred to Mr. Lee as a "placeholder" because the real focus of the imputation formula is the employer. The same witness characterized the imputation formula as a "legal fiction," implying that the formula obviously and, in this case, dramatically departs from the much-smaller penalty that would result from calculating exactly how much premium that Respondent avoided by not covering the modestly paid Mr. Lee on his first day of work. Regardless of how Petitioner characterizes the imputation formula, the statutory mandate, as discussed below, is to determine the "periods" during which Respondent failed to secure workers' compensation insurance within the two-year period covered by the Request. The focus is necessarily on the employee found by the investigator to be uncovered and any other uncovered employees. Petitioner must calculate a penalty based on how long the employee found by the investigator on his inspection has been uncovered, determining how many other employees, if any, in the preceding two years have been uncovered, and calculating a penalty based on how long they were uncovered. There is evidence of one or two gaps in coverage during the relevant two years, but Petitioner has failed to prove such gaps by clear and convincing evidence. One of Petitioner's witnesses testified to a gap of one month "probably" from late January to late February 2015. This witness relied on Petitioner Exhibit 2, but it is completely illegible. Ms. Pedrero testified that Respondent had workers' compensation coverage since 2011, except for a gap, which she thought had occurred prior to August 2014, which is the start date of the current policy. This conflicting evidence does not establish by clear and convincing evidence any gap, and, even if a gap had been proved, no evidence establishes the number of uncovered employees, if any, during such a gap, nor would such a gap justify enlarging the period of noncompliance for Mr. Lee. Ms. Pedrero testified that her mother-in-law, Teresa Marquez cleaned the office and warehouse on an occasional basis, last having worked sometime in 2015. Respondent never secured workers' compensation coverage for Ms. Marquez, but she did no roofing work and appears to have been a casual worker, so her periods of employment during the two-year period covered by the Request would not constitute additional periods for which Respondent failed to secure workers' compensation insurance. Based on the foregoing, Petitioner has proved by clear and convincing evidence only a single day of noncompliance, November 23, concerning one employee, Mr. Lee, within the relevant two-year period for the purpose of calculating the penalty assessment. Likewise, Petitioner has proved by clear and convincing evidence a rate of pay of only $10 per hour for the purpose of calculating the penalty assessment. At no time has Respondent provided payroll records of all its employees for November 23, 2015. Respondent Exhibit E covers payroll for Respondent's employees for a two-week period commencing shortly after November 23, 2015. But the evidence establishes that Mr. Lee's rate of pay was $80 for the day, which, as discussed below, rebuts the statutory presumption of double the AWW.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order determining that Respondent has failed to secure the payment of workers' compensation for one employee for one day within the two-year period covered by the Request and imposing an administrative penalty of $1000. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of July, 2016, 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 19th day of July, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Jonathan Anthony Martin, Esquire Trevor S. Suter, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 (eServed) Daniel R. Vega, Esquire Robert Paul Washington, Esquire Taylor Espino Vega & Touron, P.A. 2555 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 220 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 The issue in this case is whether Respondent had a sufficient amount of workers’ compensation coverage during the time period in question; and, if not, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Division is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement in chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2015),1/ that employers in Florida secure workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. While an exemption can be obtained for up to three corporate officers, any employer in the construction industry with at least one employee must have workers’ compensation coverage. § 440.02(15), Fla. Stat. Kent Howe works for the Division as a compliance investigator based in Orlando, Florida. As part of his job responsibilities, Mr. Howe visits construction sites in order to verify that employers in the construction industry have obtained workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. Mr. Kehr was the owner and sole corporate officer of JNK. Mr. Howe visited a construction site in Port Orange, Florida, on the morning of December 10, 2015, and saw Mr. Kehr and two other men building the interior walls/frames of a house. Mr. Howe talked to the two men (James Hicks and James Garthwait) working with Mr. Kehr, and they reported that Mr. Kehr was paying them approximately $8.00 an hour. Mr. Kehr told Mr. Howe that Messrs. Hicks and Garthwait had been working for him for approximately two hours that morning. Mr. Kehr also stated that he had not obtained workers’ compensation coverage for Messrs. Hicks and Garthwait. Following those conversations, Mr. Howe returned to his car and accessed the Division’s Coverage and Compliance Automated System (“CCAS”) and learned that JNK had no workers’ compensation coverage. Mr. Howe also determined from CCAS that Mr. Kehr had obtained an exemption from workers’ compensation coverage that had been in effect from November 18, 2014, through November of 2016.2/ After relaying that information to his supervisor, Mr. Howe received authorization to serve Mr. Kehr with a Stop- Work Order, and he did so on December 10, 2015. That Stop-Work Order required JNK to “cease all business operations for all worksites in the State” based on the Division’s determination that JNK had failed to obtain workers’ compensation coverage. In addition, the Stop-Work Order stated that JNK would be penalized an amount “[e]qual to 2 times the amount [JNK] would have paid in premium when applying approved manual rates to the employer’s payroll during periods for which it [had] failed to secure the payment of compensation within the preceding 2-year period.” Along with the Stop-Work Order, Mr. Howe also served a “Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation” (“the BRR”) on Mr. Kehr. In order to ascertain JNK’s payroll disbursements during the relevant time period and the resulting penalty for JNK’s failure to obtain workers’ compensation coverage, the BRR requested that JNK remit several different types of business records covering the period from November 10, 2014, through December 10, 2015. Mr. Howe explained during the final hearing that the Division usually reviews business records pertaining to the two years preceding the Stop Work Order.3/ Because JNK came into existence on November 10, 2014, the Division’s review was limited to examining the period between November 10, 2014, and December 10, 2015. The business records sought by the Division included items such as time sheets, payroll summaries, check journals, certificates of exemption, and evidence that any JNK subcontractors had obtained workers’ compensation coverage. Section 440.107(7)(e) provides that if an employer fails to provide business records sufficient to enable the Department to ascertain the employer’s actual payroll for the time period in question, then the Division will estimate the employer’s actual payroll for that time period by imputing the employer’s payroll based on the statewide average weekly wage. The Division then multiplies that amount by two. JNK did not provide business records typically sought by the Division. Instead, JNK responded to the BRR by producing a written statement from Mr. Kehr indicating that he founded JNK in November of 2014, but did no work until July of 2015. That initial job involved fixing a set of stairs for $200. Afterwards, Mr. Kehr performed three separate small jobs between July and November of 2015, earning approximately $550. Because the Division could not ascertain JNK’s actual payroll from the documentation provided by JNK, the Division imputed JNK’s payroll for the time period in question and issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on January 19, 2016, seeking to impose a penalty of $61,424.04. Phillip Sley calculated the aforementioned penalty amount by filling out a worksheet that has been adopted by the Division through Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.027. The first step in completing the worksheet required Mr. Sley to assign a classification code to the type of work that Mr. Howe witnessed Messrs. Kehr, Hicks and Garthwait performing at the Port Orange worksite on December 10, 2015. Classification codes come from the Scopes® Manual, which has been adopted by the Department through rule 69L-6.021. Each code within the Scopes® Manual pertains to an occupation or type of work, and each code has an approved manual rate used by insurance companies to assist in the calculation of workers’ compensation insurance premiums. The imputed weekly payroll for each employee and corporate officer “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.” See Fla. Admin. Code. R. 69L-6.028(3)(d). In the instant case, Mr. Sley determined “5645” was the appropriate classification code. According to the Scopes Manual, [w]hen all of the carpentry work in connection with the construction of residential dwellings not exceeding three stories in height is performed by employees of the same carpentry contractor or general contractor responsible for the entire dwelling construction project, the work is assigned to Code 5645. This includes the construction of the sill, rough framework, rough floor, wood or light-gauge steel studs, wood or lighted-gauge steel joists, rafters, roof deck, all types of roofing materials, sidewall sheathing, siding, doors, wallboard installation, lathing, windows, stairs, finished flooring, cabinet installation, fencing, detached structures, and all interior wood trim. Mr. Sley’s next step in calculating the penalty amount was to determine the period of non-compliance. With regard to Mr. Kehr, the Department asserted that JNK failed to have workers’ compensation coverage between the date of JNK’s inception (November 10, 2014) and the date that Mr. Kehr received an exemption from the workers’ compensation coverage requirement (November 18, 2014). Despite having no evidence that Messrs. Hicks and Garthwait worked for JNK on any day other than December 10, 2015, the Division’s penalty calculation was based on an assumption that Messrs. Hicks and Garthwait worked for JNK from November 10, 2014, through December 10, 2015. Mr. Sley’s next step was to calculate JNK’s gross payroll for the time period in question. Because JNK did not provide the Division with business records that would have enabled the Division to calculate JNK’s actual payroll, Mr. Sley based JNK’s payroll on the statewide average weekly wage determined by the Department of Economic Opportunity for the time period in question.4/ Mr. Sley then multiplied that amount by two.5/ After converting the payroll numbers into a percentage, Mr. Sley multiplied the payroll amounts by the approved manual rate. As noted above, every classification code is associated with a particular manual rate determined by the Office of Insurance Regulation, and a manual rate corresponds to the risk associated with a particular occupation or type of work. Manual rates associated with potentially dangerous activities will have higher manual rates than activities with little or no potential danger. Mr. Sley’s next step was to calculate a premium for obtaining workers compensation coverage for Messrs. Kehr, Hicks, and Garthwait. Mr. Sley then multiplied that premium by two in order to calculate the individual penalties resulting from JNK not having workers’ compensation coverage for Messrs. Kehr, Hicks, and Garthwait. The sum of those amounts was $61,424.04. The evidence produced at the final hearing established that Mr. Sley utilized the correct class code, average weekly wage, and manual rates in his calculation of the penalty set forth in the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. The Division has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that JNK was in violation of the workers’ compensation coverage requirements of chapter 440. In particular, the Division proved by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Kehr had no workers’ compensation coverage for himself and no exemption from November 10, 2014, through November 17, 2014. However, the Division did not demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that Messrs. Hicks and Garthwait were employees of JNK on any day other than December 10, 2015. Mr. Kehr testified during the final hearing that Messrs. Hicks and Garthwait were working for him on December 10, 2015. He also testified that he was paying them at a rate of $8.00 an hour. However, Mr. Kehr persuasively testified that Messrs. Hicks and Garthwait had not worked for him at any other time between November 10, 2014, and December 10, 2015. The undersigned finds Mr. Kehr’s testimony on this point to be credible. Messrs. Hicks and Garthwait did not testify during the final hearing in this matter. There is no evidence that Messrs. Hicks and Garthwait worked for JNK at any time other than December 10, 2015. Because there is no evidence indicating that Messrs. Hicks and Garthwait were employees of JNK at any time other than December 10, 2015, during the time period in question, the undersigned finds that the Department failed to carry its burden of proving that $61,424.04 is the appropriate penalty. Based on the above findings, the undersigned finds that the correct penalty resulting from Mr. Kehr’s lack of coverage is $627.48. The worksheet completed by Mr. Sley indicates that is the amount of the $61,424.04 penalty associated with Mr. Kehr’s lack of coverage. As for the penalties associated with the lack of coverage for Messrs. Hicks and Garthwait on December 10, 2015, the undersigned multiplied the average weekly wage utilized by the Division ($841.57) by two. That results in a weekly gross payroll amount of $1,683.14. Dividing $1,683.14 by five results in a daily gross payroll amount of $336.63. Dividing $336.63 by 100 and then multiplying the result by 15.91 (the approved manual rate utilized by the Division for the period from January 1, 2015, through December 10, 2015) yields a daily premium of $53.62. Multiplying $53.62 by two results in a penalty of $107.23. Multiplying $107.23 by two yields $214.46, JNK’s penalty for not having workers’ compensation coverage for Messrs. Hicks and Garthwait on December 10, 2015. JNK’s total penalty is $841.94. Because section 440.107(7)(d)1. mandates a minimum penalty of $1,000, the undersigned finds that $1,000 is the correct penalty for the instant case.
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 imposing impose a $1,000 penalty on Donald Kehr, d/b/a JNK Framing Inc., a Dissolved Florida Corporation. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of August, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S G. W. CHISENHALL 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 10th day of August, 2016.
The Issue Whether Mike Futch, d/b/a Futch Construction Company, (Respondent) violated Sections 440.10 and 440.38, Florida Statutes, and if so, what penalty should be imposed. References to sections are to the Florida Statutes (2004).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for enforcing provisions of Florida law, specifically Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, which requires that employers secure workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. At all times material to this case, Respondent was engaged in the construction business within the meaning of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. Its individual principal, Mike Futch (Mr. Futch), was responsible for the day-to-day operations of the business. At all times material to this case, Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 440.02(16)(a), Florida Statutes. At all times material to this case, Respondent was legally obligated to provide workers' compensation insurance in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, for all persons employed by Respondent to provide construction services within Florida. Chapter 440 requires that the premium rates for such coverage be set pursuant to Florida law. It is undisputed that Respondent had not furnished the required coverage, and that there was no valid exemption from this requirement. Accordingly, on May 12, 2004, the Stop Work Order was properly entered. Thereafter, Petitioner reviewed Respondent's payroll records, which revealed that Respondent employed individuals whose identities are not in dispute, under circumstances which obliged Respondent to provide workers' compensation coverage for their benefit. Based upon Respondent’s payroll records, Petitioner correctly calculated the penalty amount imposed by law under all the circumstances of the case, and issued the Amended Order imposing a penalty assessment in the amount of $198,311.82. Respondent did not persuasively dispute the factual or legal merits of Petitioner's case. Rather, Respondent suggested that this forum has some type of general equity powers to lessen the penalty on the grounds that Respondent made a good faith effort to provide coverage for its workers. The record does demonstrate that Mr. Futch in good faith engaged a Georgia insurance agent and instructed him to obtain workers' compensation coverage which would satisfy the requirements of Florida law with respect to Respondent's Florida operations. The Georgia agent's failure to obtain coverage that satisfies Florida's requirements is a regrettable circumstance, but it raises no issue over which this forum has authority.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, enter a final order that affirms the Amended Order in the amount of $198,311.82. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of January, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of January, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Joe Thompson, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 Patrick C. Cork, Esquire Cork & Cork 700 North Patterson Street Valdosta, Georgia 31601 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Pete Dunbar, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
