Findings Of Fact 10. The factual allegations contained in the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment issued on February 17, 2009, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on May 19, 2009, and the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on June 5, 2009, which are fully incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted as the Department’s Findings of Fact in this case.
Findings Of Fact 8. The factual allegations contained in the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment issued on February 16, 2010 and the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on May 6, 2010, which are attached as “Exhibit A” and “Exhibit B,” respectively, and fully incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted as the Department’s Findings of Fact in this case.
Conclusions THIS PROCEEDING came on for final agency action and Alex Sink, Chief Financial Officer of the State of Florida, or her designee, having considered the record in this case, including the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment and the Amended Order. of Penalty Assessment served’ in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 10-060-D3, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby finds that: 1. On February 16, 2010, the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (hereinafter “Department”) issued a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 10-060-D3 to INITECH RESTORATION, INC. The Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein INITECH RESTORATION, INC.. was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, and must conform to Rule 28-106.2015, Florida Administrative Code. 2. On March 29, 2010, the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment was served by certified mail on INITECH RESTORATION, INC. A copy of the Stop-Work Order . and Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit A” and incorporated herein by reference. 3. On April 2, 2010, INITECH RESTORATION, INC. filed a petition requesting an administrative hearing with the Department. The petition was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings on May 10, 2010, and the matter was assigned DOAH Case No. 10- 2484. 4. On May 6, 2010, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to INITECH RESTORATION, INC. in Case No. 10-060-D3. The Amended Order ‘of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $50,756.24 against INITECH RESTORATION, INC. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein INITECH RESTORATION, INC. was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, and must conform to Rule 28- 106.2015, Florida Administrative Code. 5. On May 10, 2010, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served through the Division of Administrative Hearings in Case No. 10-2484. A copy of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit B” and incorporated herein by reference. 6. On June 4, 2010, an Order Canceling Hearing and Placing Case in Abeyance was entered by the Administrative Law Judge, sua sponte. The Order directed the parties to advise of the status of the case by August 9, 2010. 7. On August 5, 2010, the Department filed its Response to the Order, however INITECH RESTORATION, INC. failed to comply with the Order. After receiving no response to the Order, the Administrative Law Judge entered an Order Closing File which relinquished jurisdiction of the matter to the Department for final disposition. A copy of the Order Closing File is attached hereto as “Exhibit C” and incorporated herein by reference.
Findings Of Fact 12. The factual allegations contained in the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment issued on February 22, 2011, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on March 24, 2011, and the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, issued on March 8, 2012, attached as “Exhibit A,” “Exhibit B,” and Exhibit “D” respectively, and fully incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted as the Department’s Findings of Fact in this case.
Conclusions THIS PROCEEDING came on for final agency action and Jeff Atwater, Chief Financial Officer of the State of Florida, or his designee, having considered the record in this case, including the request for administrative hearing received from AMSTARR, INC., the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby finds that: 1. On February 22, 2011, the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (hereinafter “Department”) issued a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 11-060-1A to AMSTARR, INC. The Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein AMSTARR, INC. was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Stop- Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, and must conform to Rule 28- 106.2015, Florida Administrative Code. 2. On February 22, 2011, the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment was served by personal service on AMSTARR, INC. A copy of the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit A” and incorporated herein by reference. 3. On March 24, 2011, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to AMSTARR, INC. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $80,945.25 against AMSTARR, INC. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein AMSTARR, INC. was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, and must conform to Rule 28-106.2015, Florida Administrative Code. 4, On October 27, 2011, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served by personal service via a process server on AMSTARR, INC. A copy of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit B” and incorporated herein by reference. 5. On November 28, 2011, AMSTARR, INC. timely filed a request for administrative hearing with the Department. The petition for administrative review was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings on January 6, 2012, and the matter was assigned DOAH Case No. 12-0080. A copy of the petition is attached hereto as “Exhibit C” and incorporated herein by reference. 6. On March 8, 2012, the Department issued a 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to AMSTARR, INC. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $2,256.78 against AMSTARR, INC. The 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein AMSTARR, INC. was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, and must conform to Rule 28-106.2015, Florida Administrative Code. 7. On March 13, 2011, the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served by electronic mail on AMSTARR, INC. A copy of the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit D” and incorporated herein by reference. 8. On March 26, 2012, AMSTARR, INC., entered into a Settlement Agreement with the Department. The Settlement Agreement stated that AMSTARR, INC. must accept service of the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. The Settlement Agreement also stated that AMSTARR, INC. must pay the penalty in full, or pay a down-payment of $1,000.00 and enter into a Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment within thirty days of the execution of the Settlement Agreement. Additionally, AMSTARR, INC. agreed that upon execution of the Settlement Agreement his Petition shall be deemed dismissed with prejudice. A copy of the Executed Settlement Agreement is attached hereto as “Exhibit E” and incorporated herein by reference. 9. On March 26, 2012, the Department filed a Notice of Settlement with the Division of Administrative Hearings. A copy of the Notice of Settlement is attached hereto as “Exhibit F” and incorporated herein by reference. 10. On April 2, 2012, the Administrative Law Judge issued an Order Closing File and Relinquishing Jurisdiction. A copy of the Order Closing File and Relinquishing Jurisdiction is attached hereto as “Exhibit G” and incorporated herein by reference. ll. As of the date of this Final Order, AMSTARR, INC. has failed to comply with the conditions of the Settlement Agreement. AMSTARR, INC. has neither paid the penalty amount in full, nor has AMSTARR, INC. entered into a Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment.
Findings Of Fact On April 29, 1999, the Department filed an Administrative Complaint against Petitioner for allegedly violating several statutes regulating his conduct as an insurance agent in the State of Florida. Pursuant to his request for an evidentiary hearing regarding those allegations, that matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 10, 1999, and assigned DOAH Case No. 99-2593. On July 12, 1999, Petitioner filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings the subject Petition to Determine Invalidity of Administrative Rules, and on July 15 he filed his Amended Petition to Determine Invalidity of Administrative Rules. Petitioner challenges Rules 4-211.031(21)(e), 4- 211.031(24) through (27), 4-231.150, and 4-231.160, Florida Administrative Code. The Administrative Complaint charges Petitioner, inter alia, with violating Section 626.611(14), Florida Statutes. That Section provides for the mandatory revocation of licensure and appointment privileges based upon the commission of a crime involving moral turpitude. The statute does not define the term "moral turpitude" or direct the Department to do so. The Department has done so, however, in Rule 4-211.031(21)(e). Petitioner alleges that the Rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority in that it enlarges and modifies the statute, it exceeds the Department's rulemaking authority, it is vague and fails to establish adequate standards for the Department's decisions, and it vests unbridled discretion in the Department. In conjunction therewith, Rules 4-211.031(24) through (27), Florida Administrative Code, divide crimes into Classes "A" through "D" and contain lists of specific crimes. Those which the Department considers crimes involving moral turpitude based upon the definition contained in Rule 4-211.031(21)(e) are marked with an asterisk. Petitioner alleges these Rules are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority because the Rule upon which they are based is invalid, because they are arbitrary and capricious as demonstrated by their internal inconsistencies and irreconcilable conflict with court decisions in the State of Florida, and because they enlarge and modify the statute they presumably implement. Petitioner asserts he is substantially affected by Rules 4-211.031(21)(e) and 4-211.031(24) through (27) in that the Administrative Complaint filed against him in DOAH Case No. 99-2593 charges him with entering a plea to aggravated battery, a crime designated by those Rules as involving moral turpitude. Rule 4-211.031(25) includes aggravated battery in its list of crimes involving moral turpitude. Petitioner also contends that two Rules covering the penalty phase of the Department's disciplinary process are invalid. Rule 4-231.150, Florida Administrative Code, provides for mandatory suspension in the event a licensee is found guilty in an administrative proceeding of violating Sections 626.611(14) and/or 626.621(8), Florida Statutes, two statutes Petitioner is alleged to have violated. Rule 4-231.160, Florida Administrative Code, sets forth specific aggravating and mitigating factors to be considered by the Department in assessing the penalty for violating statutes governing the conduct of insurance agents. As to Rule 4-231.150, Florida Administrative Code, Petitioner alleges that it is invalid because it requires mandatory suspension as the penalty for violating Section 626.621(8), Florida Statutes, but the statute provides that suspension is discretionary. Petitioner argues, therefore, that the Rule modifies or limits the statute and is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. As to Rule 4-231.160, Florida Administrative Code, Subsection (1) sets forth 12 factors to be considered in assessing a penalty where Rule 4-231.150 is not involved, and Subsection (2) sets forth 8 factors to be considered in assessing a penalty where Rule 4-231.150 is involved. Both Subsections do, however, provide that any other relevant factors may be considered. Petitioner argues that Rule 4-231.160 is invalid because Subsection (2), which applies when criminal conduct is involved, does not contain the factors in Subsection (1), which contains far-broader factors, and is, therefore, much more limited and unfair. Petitioner further argues that the penalty schemes contained in Rules 4-231.150 and 4-231.160, calling for a mandatory suspension and offering an arbitrary and limited number of aggravating and mitigating circumstances are neither implied nor described by the pertinent statutes. The Rules, therefore, according to Petitioner, are invalid in that they substantially modify or limit the statutes at issue and are also arbitrary and capricious in their application of how disciplinary decisions should be made and what factors are to be considered. Petitioner further argues that Rule 4-231.160 is impermissibly vague, fails to establish adequate standards for agency decisions, and vests unbridled discretion in the Department by allowing for "other relevant factors" to be considered. The Department's Motion for Summary Final Order argues that Petitioner lacks standing to challenge the Rules and that the Rules are not invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent complied with the requirements of the Workers' Compensation Law and, if not, what is the appropriate penalty?
Findings Of Fact The Division is charged with the regulation of workers' compensation insurance in the State of Florida. Respondent, River City Roofing Sheet Metal, Inc. (River City Roofing), is a Florida corporation located in Jacksonville, Florida, and is engaged in the construction industry. Michael Robinson is an insurance analyst/compliance investigator employed by the Division. His duties include making site visits at locations where work is being conducted and determining whether the employers in the state are in compliance with the requirements of the workers' compensation law and related rules. On August 17, 2010, Mr. Robinson visited a residential job site at 4206 Katanga Drive, Jacksonville, Florida, and observed five individuals reroofing the property at the site. Mr. Robinson called up to the workers and asked them to come down from the roof so that he could speak to them. One of the workers identified himself as David Hannans, and informed Mr. Robinson that he and the others were employees of River City Roofing. Mr. Robinson proceeded to get the names of the other workers. However, during this time, one of the men wandered away and left the worksite without speaking to Mr. Robinson. Mr. Robinson inquired about the name of the worker who left the worksite, and was informed his name was "Shorty." During his conversation with Mr. Hannans, Mr. Robinson also learned that the worksite supervisor, Gary Pittman, had been at the worksite but left to go to the store. Mr. Robinson confirmed with Mr. Hannans that the men at the worksite, including Mr. Hannans, were employees of River City Roofing. Mr. Robinson inquired about the owner of the business and learned the owner is Robert Olszanowski. Mr. Robinson then called Mr. Olszanowski. According to Mr. Robinson, Mr. Olszanowski verified that three of the men at the worksite were his employees, but claimed not to know the other two men. Mr. Robinson advised Mr. Olszanowski to contact Mr. Pittman to find out who the other two men were. During a follow-up telephone call with Mr. Olszanowski, Mr. Robinson was told that one of the individuals was a friend of Mr. Hannans and the other was a man from the neighborhood. According to Mr. Robinson, Mr. Olszanowski informed him that he was unaware of the other two men. Mr. Robinson then inquired about what type of workers' compensation coverage had been procured and learned that Mr. Olszanowski held an exemption and used Phoenix Resources, Inc., a staffing company, to cover his employees. Mr. Robinson contacted Phoenix Resources and was informed that River City Roofing was a client and as of August 17, 2010, had four individuals on the payroll: Gary Pittman, Miguel Hernandez Lopez, Ancelmo Perez Fernandez, and Simon Aguilar Sanchez. Mr. Robinson requested written confirmation of this and received an e-mail communication from Phoenix Resources which provided written confirmation. David Hannans and "Shorty" were not listed. Mr. Robinson inquired as to whether Phoenix Resources carried workers' compensation coverage on the listed individuals, and learned that those listed employees were covered under a policy procured from Business Personnel Solutions. Mr. Robinson contacted Business personnel Solutions and verified that there was a policy that covered those employees of Phoenix Resources. Mr. Robinson again contacted Phoenix Resources and inquired as to whether it had received any new applications from River City Roofing, and learned that it had not received any new applications. Mr. Robinson then consulted the Department of State, Division of Corporations website, to find information concerning the corporate status of River City Roofing. He verified from the website that River City Roofing is an active corporation and that Robert Olszanowski is the Chief Executive Officer. Mr. Robinson then consulted the Division's Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) database, which is routinely used by the Department and contains both the workers' compensation policy information for each employer that has a Florida policy, as well as all information concerning workers' compensation exemptions that have been applied for and issued to individuals by the Department. Mr. Robinson learned that Respondent previously had a policy that expired on August 25, 2008, and confirmed that Mr. Olszanowski held an exemption. Based upon his investigative findings, Mr. Robinson concluded that Mr. Hannans and "Shorty" were employees of River City Roofing who were not covered by a workers' compensation policy or a valid exemption in violation of chapter 440, Florida Statutes. On August 18, 2010, Mr. Robinson issued Stop-Work Order No. 10-253-D1 to Respondent and issued a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation. Both were personally served by Mr. Robinson on Mr. Olszanowski. The Request for Production of Business Records requested records for the time period August 26, 2008 through August 18, 2010. Respondent did not produce business records as requested. Cathe Ferguson is a Penalty Calculator for the Division. She reviews business records such as payroll, bank statements, and copies of checks, and calculates the amount of penalty for non-compliance with workers' compensation laws. As required by Chapter 440, Ms. Ferguson imputed Respondent's payroll as a result of Respondent's failure to provide business records. Mr. Robinson then issued and served by certified mail an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to Respondent in the amount of $116,240.82. Subsequent to this and subsequent to Respondent's request for an administrative hearing, Ms. Ferguson determined there was an internal error and amended the penalty amount downward. On February 7, 2011, Mr. Robinson issued a second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in the amount of $71,028.94. In calculating the penalty for failure to comply with chapter 440, Ms. Ferguson first sought to determine the amount of premium that Respondent would have paid had Respondent obtained the proper workers' compensation insurance in place for the period of August 26, 2008 through August 17, 2010. In determining the premium that Respondent avoided by not obtaining workers' compensation insurance coverage for all of its employees, Ms. Ferguson utilized a penalty worksheet. Ms. Ferguson identified the individual employees of Respondent not covered by a workers' compensation policy or an exemption and listed them on the penalty worksheet. For each individual listed on the penalty worksheet, Ms. Ferguson assigned a class code reflecting the work done by each employee as observed by Mr. Robinson (i.e., the class code for roofing). The amount of the penalty was imputed using the Average Weekly Wage as determined by the Agency for Workforce Innovation, across the entire period of non-compliance. Ms. Ferguson imputed the penalty because Respondent did not produce business records from which the Division could have calculated the gross payroll from the employees in question. Ms. Ferguson then took 1/100th of the payroll and multiplied that figure by the approved manual rate applicable to the applicable class code, as adopted by the Office of Insurance Regulation. Ms. Ferguson then took the previously obtained product and multiplied it by 1.5 to determine the penalty for the period of August 26, 2008 through August 17, 2010, the time period requested in the business records request. Based upon her calculations, Ms. Ferguson determined the appropriate penalty to be assessed against Respondent to be $71,028.94. Respondent disputed portions of the penalty worksheet attached to the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, which gave rise to this proceeding. Specifically, Respondent wrote the word "Dispute" next to David Hannans and "Shorty's" names for all time periods on the penalty worksheet except for the time period July 1, 2010 through August 17, 2010, next to which Respondent wrote "not disputed". Thus, in its request for hearing, Respondent did not dispute that Hannans and "Shorty" were employees of Respondent; rather, Respondent disputed that they were employees during most of the periods of time listed on the penalty worksheet.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Division of Workers' Compensation enter a Final Order upholding the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, assigning a penalty of $71,028.94, and the Stop-Work Order issued to Respondent on August 8, 2010. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of March, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of March, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Jamila Georgette Gooden, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Robert L. Olszanowski River City Roofing Sheet Metal, Inc. 10650 Haverford Road, Suite 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32218 Honorable Jeff Atwater Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 P. J. Jameson, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by failing to secure the payment of workers' compensation, as alleged in the Stop-Work Order and 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and, if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement that employers in the State of Florida secure the payment of workers' compensation for their employees and corporate officers. Respondent, Shriji Krupa, Inc., is a Florida corporation engaged in business operations as a gas station (self-service and convenience-retail) in the State of Florida. Mr. Hemant Parikh, one of Respondent's corporate officers, testified that, on November 20, 2012, Respondent was inspected by Petitioner's Compliance Investigator, Mike Fuller. Mr. Fuller advised Mr. Parikh that Respondent needed to close the store. According to Mr. Hemant Parikh, at the time of inspection, Respondent had two corporate officers and four additional employees. Mr. Parikh explained that, at the time of inspection, Respondent had two store locations with three employees working at each locale. Mr. Shrikant Parikh, another corporate officer, testified that, at the time of inspection, Respondent was operating under the mistaken belief that its corporate officers were exempt from workers' compensation coverage. Pursuant to the record evidence, on November 28, 2012, Mr. Fuller served a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment on Respondent. Pursuant to the Stop-Work Order, Respondent was ordered to cease all business operations for all worksites in the state based on the following: Failure to secure the payment of workers' compensation in violation of sections 440.10(1), 440.38(1), and 440.107(2) F.S., by: failing to obtain coverage that meets the requirements of Chapter 440, F.S., and the Insurance Code. After receiving the Stop-Work Order, on that same date, Respondent obtained workers' compensation coverage with an effective date of November 29, 2012. Respondent has maintained appropriate coverage to date. Following the Stop-Work Order, Respondent submitted various records for Petitioner's review.2/ Petitioner's sole witness was Ms. Lynne Murcia. Ms. Murcia works in Petitioner's Bureau of Compliance wherein she calculates penalties for those employers found in violation of the workers' compensation laws. Ms. Murcia performs approximately 200 penalty calculations per year. Ms. Murcia first became involved with Respondent in January 2013, when she received an assignment to perform a penalty calculation. Ms. Murcia reviewed all records previously submitted by Respondent. From the records received, Ms. Murcia was able to determine that Respondent employed four or more employees on a regular basis. Ms. Murcia explained that "employees" include corporate officers that have not elected to be exempt from workers' compensation. After conducting a search within the Florida Division of Corporations, Ms. Murcia was able to determine that no exemptions existed for Respondent's corporate officers. Ms. Murcia further conducted a proof of coverage search via Petitioner's Coverage and Compliance Automated System ("CCAS"), which is a database that contains all insurance coverage and exemptions for each employer throughout the State of Florida. The search revealed that Respondent possessed appropriate coverage from November 29, 2012, to the present; however, no prior coverage was indicated. Ms. Murcia conducted a penalty assessment for the non- compliance period of November 29, 2009, through November 28, 2012. From the records submitted by Respondent, Ms. Murcia correctly identified Respondent's employees and gross wages paid during the penalty period. All of the individuals listed on the Penalty Worksheet of the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, dated August 27, 2014, were "employees" (as that term is defined in section 440.02(15)(a), Florida Statutes) of Respondent during the period of noncompliance listed on the penalty worksheet. From a description of the Respondent's business operations, Ms. Murcia determined Respondent's classification code. She explained that classification codes are established by the National Council of Compensation Insurance ("NCCI"). A classification code is a four-digit code number that is assigned to a specific group of tasks, duties, and responsibilities for a specific grouping of business. Ms. Murcia further testified that the classification codes are associated with a manual rate which is the actual dollar amount of risk associated with a particular code.3/ The manual rates are also established by NCCI. Class Code 8061, used on the penalty worksheet attached to the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and as defined by the NCCI Scopes Manual, is the correct occupational classification for Respondent. From the assigned classification code number, 8061, Ms. Murcia calculated the appropriate manual rate for the penalty period. The manual rates used on the penalty worksheet attached to the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment are the correct manual rates. The total penalty of $21,205.19 is the correct penalty for the employees listed on the penalty worksheet attached to the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, enter a final order determining that Respondent Shriji Krupa, Inc., violated the requirement in chapter 440, Florida Statutes, to secure workers' compensation coverage, and imposing a total penalty assessment of $21,205.19. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S TODD P. RESAVAGE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of October, 2014.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent materially understated payroll in violation of Section 440.107, Florida Statutes (2003), and, if so, what penalty, if any, should be imposed against Respondent; and whether Respondent's workers are not employees defined in Section 440.02, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner 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). Respondent is a corporation domiciled in Florida and engaged in the business of stucco and plastering. On March 2, 2004, Petitioner's compliance officer conducted a random site inspection of a single-family residence under construction at 12061 Cypress Links Drive, Fort Myers, Florida. Two work crews were present on the construction site. One crew was finishing drywall seams inside the house. The other crew was applying stucco to the outside of the house. The compliance officer is the only employee for Petitioner who investigated and developed the substantive information that forms the basis of Petitioner's proposed agency action. Other employees calculated the actual amounts of the proposed penalties. On March 3, 2004, the compliance officer conducted a conference in his office with Ms. Sandra Gomez and Mr. Francesco Zuniga; and Mr. Juan Rivera and Ms. Licia Rivera. Mr. and Mrs. Rivera are the principal officers for Respondent. The compliance officer determined that the crew working inside the house worked for Mr. Zuniga and that the crew working outside the house worked for Ms. Gomez. The compliance officer further determined that Ms. Gomez and Mr. Zuniga were subcontractors for Respondent and that neither Ms. Gomez nor Mr. Zuniga had workers compensation insurance. The compliance officer issued stop work orders against Ms. Gomez and Mr. Zuniga that are not within the purview of this proceeding. The compliance officer determined that Respondent maintained workers' compensation insurance through the Hartford Insurance Company (Hartford) and took no action against Respondent except to issue an order for Respondent to produce its business records for the preceding three years (the business records) for audit by Petitioner. The compliance officer reported to Hartford that Respondent had uninsured subcontractors working for Respondent. The compliance officer also requested and received from Hartford a copy of the last premium audit report for Respondent (the audit report). On March 10, 2004, Respondent produced the business records previously requested by the compliance officer. The production of records fully satisfied the request issued by the compliance officer. The compliance officer determined there was a discrepancy between the audit report's description of employee duties and related information in the business records. The compliance officer determined that Respondent had materially understated or concealed payroll and had materially misrepresented or concealed employee duties by representing that Respondent was in the drywall business and not in the stucco business. On March 10, 2004, Petitioner issued Stop Work and Penalty Assessment Order Number 04-94-D6 (the Initial Order). The Initial Order alleged that Respondent violated Subsection 440.107(2), Florida Statutes (2003), by materially understating or concealing payroll and proposed a penalty equal to the greater of 1.5 times the premiums Respondent would have paid over the preceding three years or $1,000. Petitioner subsequently amended the Initial Order to charge Respondent with materially misrepresenting or concealing employee duties. Petitioner issued the Initial Order without conducting any further review of Respondent or its principals. The compliance officer told Mr. Rivera that it would not be helpful for Respondent to retain counsel and that counsel would only further delay release of the stop work order. The compliance officer did not provide Respondent with any information concerning methods of avoiding the penalty except for Respondent to provide proof of an exemption or proof of insurance for Respondent's subcontractors. The compliance officer did not advise Respondent that proving independent contractor status for some or all of Respondent's subcontractors before the effective date of statutory amendments on October 1, 2003, would reduce the proposed penalty against Respondent. The compliance officer did not interview the Hartford employee who prepared the audit report. The audit report was limited to the period from December 17, 2002, through December 17, 2003. The audit report stated that Hartford had not provided a copy to Respondent and had not audited Respondent's general ledger. The compliance officer did not identify or interview the Hartford employee who had responsibility for Respondent's account, the Hartford agent responsible for Respondent, or the Hartford underwriter. The compliance officer did not request Hartford's complete file for Respondent. The audit report included a copy of an exemption for a person identified in the record as Mr. Stinnett who was included in Petitioner's penalty calculation. The audit report and penalty calculation each identified Mr. Stinnett by the same social security number. On March 16, 2003, Petitioner amended the amount of the proposed fine to $526,593.44 pursuant to Amended Order of Penalty Assessment Number 04-094-D7-2 (the Amended Order). Petitioner issued a Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment Number 04-094-D7-3 (the Second Amended Order) on March 23, 2004. The Second Amended Order reduced the proposed penalty to $90,131.51. Petitioner reduced the $526,593.44 fine proposed in the Amended Order by $426,461.91. The latter sum pertained to penalties assessed for the period preceding October 1, 2003, and for the period following December 31, 2003. The parties agree that statutory amendments authorizing Petitioner to issue a stop work order to an employer that materially misrepresents employee duties or materially understates or conceals payroll became effective on October 1, 2003, and cannot be applied to Petitioner retroactively. In addition, the parties agree that Hartford's audit report for Petitioner did not cover the period after December 31, 2003. Respondent paid the proposed fine of $90,131.51. On March 23, 2004, Petitioner issued a Release of Stop Work Order (the Release) that removed the Stop Work Order issued on March 10, 2004. In a Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment Number 04-094-D7-4 (the Third Amended Order) dated May 26, 2004, Petitioner reduced the proposed penalty by $21,679.28 to $68,432.23. Petitioner discovered errors totaling $16,261.42 that occurred when employees input numbers to calculate the proposed penalties against Respondent. The remaining portion of the reduction in the amount of $5,417.86 was attributable to the deletion of Mr. Sinnett from the penalty calculation. In a Fourth Amended Order of Penalty Assessment Number 04-094-D7-5 (the Fourth Amended Order) dated June 1, 2004, Petitioner further reduced the proposed penalty by $1,531.97 to $66,926.00. Respondent provided additional information concerning exemptions for a few workers. On June 7, 2004, Petitioner issued a Fifth Amended Order of Penalty Assessment Number 04-094-D7-5 (the Fifth Amended Order) deleting the charge that Respondent materially misrepresented or concealed employee duties. Petitioner admits that Hartford committed errors in the audit report and in recording the description of duties that Respondent reported to Hartford. Mr. Rivera personally reported to the appropriate Hartford employee that Respondent's primary business was stucco and that Respondent hired subcontractors to perform drywall plastering. The Fourth Amended Order dated June 1, 2004, as amended by the Fifth Amended Order, remain at issue in this proceeding. The Fourth Amended Order proposes a penalty in the amount of $66,920.26. The Fifth Amended Order limits the grounds for the proposed penalty to the charge that Respondent materially understated or concealed payroll by excluding subcontractors from Respondent's payroll from October 1 through December 31, 2003 (the relevant period), and by excluding either subcontractors or independent contractors thereafter. If a worker included in the penalty calculation were an independent contractor, within the meaning of former Subsection 440.02(15)(d)1, Florida Statutes (2003), the worker should be excluded from the penalty calculation during the relevant period. Effective January 1, 2004, however, Subsection 440.02(15)(d)1, Florida Statutes (2003), no longer excluded independent contractors in the construction industry from the definition of an employee. Thus, a determination of whether a worker was an independent contractor is not probative of that portion of the proposed penalty covering any period after December 31, 2003. Prior to January 1, 2004, former Subsection 440.02(15), Florida Statues (2003), did not except subcontractors from the definition of an employee unless the subcontractor satisfied the definition of an independent contractor. Effective January 1, 2004, Subsection 440.02(15)(c)2, Florida Statutes (2003), excluded from the definition of an employee those subcontractors that did not satisfy the definition of an independent contractor if a subcontractor either executed a valid exemption election or otherwise secured payment of compensation coverage as a subcontractor. There is insufficient evidence to support a finding that subcontractors included in that part of the penalty assessment attributable to the period after December 31, 2003, either elected a valid exemption or otherwise secured payment for compensation coverage. These subcontractors would not be excluded from the definition of an employee after December 31, 2004, even if they were independent contractors. Except for constitutional arguments raised by Respondent over which DOAH has no jurisdiction, Respondent owes that part of the penalty attributable to any period after December 31, 2003. It is undisputed that the workers included in that part of the penalty assessment attributable to the relevant period were subcontractors. Respondent's ledger clearly treated those workers as subcontractors and reported their earnings on Form 1099 for purposes of the federal income tax. Petitioner treated those workers as subcontractors in the penalty calculation. The Workers' Compensation Law in effect during the relevant period did not expressly exclude from the definition of an employee those subcontractors who executed a valid exemption election or otherwise secured payment of compensation coverage as a subcontractor. Rather, former Subsection 440.02(15)(c), Florida Statutes (2003), required a subcontractor to be an independent contractor to escape the definition of an employee. Former Subsection 440.02(15)(c), Florida Statutes (2003), required a subcontractor to satisfy all of the following requirements in former Subsection 440.02(15)(d)1, Florida Statutes (2003), in order for the subcontractor to be classified as an independent contractor: The independent contractor maintains a separate business with his or her own work facility, truck, equipment, materials, or similar accommodations; The independent contractor holds or has applied for a federal employer identification number, unless the independent contractor is a sole proprietor who is not required to obtain a federal employer identification number under state or federal requirements; The independent contractor performs or agrees to perform specific services or work for specific amounts of money and controls the means of performing the services or work; The independent contractor incurs the principal expenses related to the service or work that he or she performs or agrees to perform; The independent contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of work or services that he or she performs or agrees to perform and is or could be held liable for a failure to complete the work or services; The independent contractor receives compensation for work or services performed for a commission or on a per-job or competitive-bid basis and not on any other basis; The independent contractor may realize a profit or suffer a loss in connection with performing work or services; The independent contractor has continuing or recurring business liabilities or obligations; and The success or failure of the independent contractor's business depends on the relationship of business receipts to expenditures. There is insufficient evidence to find that the workers included in that part of the penalty assessment attributable to the relevant period were independent contractors within the meaning of former Subsection 440.02(15)(d)1.a.-i., Florida Statutes (2003). Petitioner did not exceed its statutory authority by proposing a penalty of $66,920.26 in accordance with the Fourth Amended Order and Fifth Amended Order. Respondent previously paid a fine in excess of that proposed by Petitioner and is entitled to a refund of the excess penalty that Respondent paid.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order sustaining the allegations and penalties in the Fourth Amended Order and the Fifth Amended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of August, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of August, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Colin M. Roopnarine, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Workers' Compensation 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 Susan McLaughlin, Esquire Law Offices of Michael F. Tew Building 800, Suite 2 6150 Diamond Center Court Fort Myers, Florida 33912 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
The Issue Whether Respondent violated chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2016), by failing to secure payment of workers’ compensation coverage, as alleged in the Stop-Work Order (“SWO”) and Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment (“Third AOPA”); and, if so, whether Petitioner correctly calculated the proposed penalty assessment against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence admitted at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: Background 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. The Department is the agency responsible for conducting random inspections of jobsites and investigating complaints concerning potential violations of workers’ compensation rules. Gregg Construction is a corporation engaged in business in the State of Florida. Gregg Construction has been operating as a business since November 9, 2007. William Gregg is the owner of Gregg Construction and its sole employee. The address of record for Gregg Construction is 166 Big White Oak Lane, Crawfordville, Florida 32327. On June 15, 2017, the Department’s investigator, Lewis Johnson, conducted a routine visit to a jobsite to conduct a compliance investigation. Mr. Johnson observed Mr. Gregg use a table saw, measure, and cut a piece of wood. Mr. Johnson then observed Mr. Gregg nail the wood to the exterior wall of the home at the jobsite. After Mr. Johnson inquired about the work Mr. Gregg was performing, Mr. Gregg ultimately told Mr. Johnson that he was working as a subcontractor for Respondent. Based on Mr. Johnson’s observations, Mr. Gregg was performing construction-related work at the job site. Mr. Johnson then conducted a search of the Department’s Coverage and Compliance Automated System (“CCAS”), which revealed that Respondent did not have active workers’ compensation coverage for Mr. Gregg. Based on the results of his investigation, on May 10, 2017, Mr. Johnson issued a SWO to Respondent for failure to maintain workers’ compensation coverage for its employees. On May 10, 2017, Mr. Johnson hand-served a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculations (“Records Request”) on Respondent. The Records Request directed Respondent to produce business records for the time period of May 10, 2015, through May 11, 2017. While Respondent provided tax returns, it did not provide sufficient business records to the Department. Penalty Assessment To calculate the penalty assessment, the Department uses a two-year auditing period looking back from the date of the SWO, May 10, 2017, also known as the look-back period. Generally, the Department uses business records to calculate the penalty assessment. If the employer does not produce records sufficient to determine payroll for employees, the Department uses imputed payroll to assess the penalty as required by section 440.107(7)(e) and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.028. Eunika Jackson, a Department penalty auditor, was assigned to calculate the penalty assessment for Respondent. Based upon Mr. Johnson’s observations at the jobsite on May 10, 2017, Ms. Jackson assigned National Council on Compensation Insurance (“NCCI”) classification code 5645 to calculate the penalty. Classification code 5645 applies to work involving carpentry. Ms. Jackson applied the approved manual rates for classification 5645 for the work Mr. Johnson observed Mr. Gregg perform. The application of the rates was utilized by the methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)1. and rule 69L- 6.027 to determine the penalty assessment. The manual rate applied in this case was $15.91 for the period of May 11, 2015, through December 31, 2017; and $16.92 for the period of January 1, 2016, through June 10, 2017. The statewide average weekly wage, effective January 1, 2017, was used to calculate the penalty assessment. Mr. Johnson discovered that Mr. Gregg previously held an exemption, which expired on April 26, 2013. Although Mr. Gregg currently has an exemption, his exemption was not in effect during the audit period. On June 6, 2017, the Department issued its first AOPA that ordered Respondent to pay a penalty of $46,087.72, pursuant to section 440.107(7)(d). On August 1, 2017, Petitioner issued the Second AOPA based upon records submitted by Respondent, which reduced the penalty assessment to $14,752.62. After this matter was referred to the Division, on January 23, 2018, Petitioner filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Order of Penalty Assessment and issued the Third AOPA based upon records submitted by Respondent. Based on the Department’s calculation, the record demonstrates that the penalty assessment, based on records provided by Respondent, would be $9,785.50.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, enter a final order finding the following: that Respondent failed to secure and maintain workers’ compensation coverage for Mr. Gregg; and that Respondent shall pay a penalty of $9,785.50.1/ DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of March, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN 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 23rd day of March, 2018.
Findings Of Fact The factual allegations contained in the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, the 24 Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, which are fully incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted as the Department’s Findings of Fact in this case.
Conclusions THIS PROCEEDING came on for final agency action and Jeff Atwater, Chief Financial Officer of the State of Florida, or his designee, having considered the record in this case, including the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment, the Amended Orders of Penalty Assessment, the Request for Administrative Hearing, the withdrawal of Petition, and the Order Relinquishing Jurisdiction and Closing File, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby finds that: 1. On March 14, 2011, the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (hereinafter “Department”) issued a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 11-083-1A to TRACY B. HINOTE, D/B/A T.H. PLASTERING. 2. On March 14, 2011, the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment was personally served on TRACY B. HINOTE, D/B/A T.H. PLASTERING. A copy of the Stop- Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit A” and incorporated herein by reference. 3. On March 28, 2011, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 11-083-1A to TRACY B. HINOTE, D/B/A T.H. PLASTERING. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $7,590.78 against TRACY B. HINOTE, D/B/A T.H. PLASTERING. . 4. On April 6, 2011, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was personally served on TRACY B. HINOTE, D/B/A T.H. PLASTERING. A copy of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit B” and incorporated herein by reference. 5. On April 28, 2011, the Department issued a 2" Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 11-083-1A to TRACY B. HINOTE, D/B/A T.H. PLASTERING. The 2" Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $6,050.69 against TRACY B. HINOTE, D/B/A T.H. PLASTERING. 6. On May 3, 2011, the 2"4 Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was personally served on TRACY B. HINOTE, D/B/A T.H. PLASTERING. A copy of the 2" Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit C” and incorporated herein by reference. 7. On April 25, 2011, the Division received from TRACY B. HINOTE, D/B/A T.H. PLASTERING a request for an administrative hearing. The request for administrative hearing is attached hereto as “Exhibit D” and incorporated herein by reference. 8. On June 28, 2011, the Department issued a 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 11-083-1A to TRACY B. HINOTE, D/B/A T.H. PLASTERING. The 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $2,618.57 against TRACY B. HINOTE, D/B/A T.H. PLASTERING. 9. On June 29, 2011, the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served by overnight mail delivery on TRACY B. HINOTE, D/B/A T.H. PLASTERING. A copy of the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit E” and incorporated herein by reference. 10. On October 17, 2011, the Petition was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned DOAH Case No. 11-5327. 11. On November 23, 2011, the Division received from TRACY B. HINOTE, D/B/A T.H. PLASTERING a withdrawal of the request for administrative hearing. The withdrawal of request for administrative hearing is attached hereto as “Exhibit F” and incorporated herein by reference. 12. On December 8, 2011, an Order Relinquishing Jurisdiction and Closing File was entered in Division of Administrative Hearings Case. No. 11-5327. A copy of the Order Relinquishing Jurisdiction and Closing File is attached hereto as “Exhibit G” and incorporated herein by reference.
The Issue The issue is whether the Stop-Work Order and 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued by Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation (Department), on July 1, 2015, and February 29, 2016, respectively, should be upheld.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the various requirements of chapter 440. Respondent is a Florida corporation with offices located at 1904 28th Avenue North, St. Petersburg, Florida. The company is engaged in the construction business, and its activities fall within the statutory definition of "construction industry." See § 440.02(8), Fla. Stat. Respondent also does business under the name of M & M Construction of South Florida, but both are the same corporate entity with the same Federal Employer Identification Number and use the same bank accounts. Respondent's assertion that the two are separate and work done under the "d/b/a" name cannot be used to establish liability under chapter 440 is rejected. On July 1, 2015, Munal Abedrabbo, a Department compliance inspector, made a random inspection of a job site at 4115 East Busch Boulevard, Tampa, where remodeling work on a commercial building was being performed. When he entered the premises, Mr. Abedrabbo observed Bernard Reed on a ladder painting an interior ceiling. After identifying himself, he informed Mr. Reed that he needed to verify his insurance coverage. Mr. Abedrabbo was directed to Mr. Cook, Respondent's vice-president and part owner, who acknowledged that he was the general contractor on the job and had three employees/painters working that day, Reed, James Dabnes, and John Russell. Mr. Cook informed the inspector that the three employees were leased from Paychek, Inc., an employee leasing company, and that firm provided workers' compensation coverage for the leased employees. Mr. Abedrabbo returned to his vehicle and accessed on his computer the Department of State, Division of Corporations, Sunbiz website to verify Respondent's status as a corporation. After verifying that it was an active corporation, he then checked the Department's Coverage and Compliance Automated System to verify whether Respondent had a workers' compensation policy or any exemptions. He was unable to find any active policy for Respondent, as the most recent policy had lapsed in January 2013. Mr. Cook has an exemption, covering the period October 20, 2014, through October 19, 2016, but the exemption is with a different company, Thomas Cook Carpenter, LLC. Mr. Abedrabbo spoke again with Mr. Cook and informed him that Department records showed no insurance coverage for his employees. Mr. Cook telephoned Paychek, Inc., and then confirmed that the three painters had no workers' compensation insurance. Mr. Cook explained that before he allowed Mr. Reed to begin work, Mr. Reed had shown him an insurance certificate that turned out to be "falsified," and then "conveniently lost it" when the inspector appeared. He also explained his firm "was caught with our pants down once before" and he did not want it to happen again. For that reason, he contended he was especially careful in hiring leased employees. Even so, he does not deny that Respondent has had no insurance in place since January 2013 and Paychek, Inc., failed to provide coverage. The Department issued a Stop Work Order and Penalty Assessment the same day. To determine the amount of Respondent's unsecured payroll for purposes of assessing a penalty in accordance with section 440.107(7)(d)(1), Florida Statutes, the Department requested Respondent to provide business records for the preceding two years. This period of non-compliance is appropriate, as Respondent was actively working in the construction industry during that time period without securing insurance. The request informed Mr. Cook that if complete records were not provided, the Department would use the imputation formula found in section 440.107(7)(e) to calculate the penalty. After reviewing the information provided by Respondent, on August 18, 2015, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in the amount of $114,144.52 for the period July 7, 2014, through June 30, 2015. Based on two depositions of Mr. Cook, a 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in the amount of $105,663.48 was issued on February 29, 2016. The Department penalty auditor calculated the final penalty assessment using the "imputed" method because insufficient business records were provided to determine Respondent's payroll for all relevant time periods, except the month of October 2014. In addition to missing bank statements and check images, Respondent failed to provide its entire second bank account. Although Mr. Cook contends some records were in the possession of M & M Construction of South Florida, and he could not access them in a timely manner, this does not excuse Respondent's failure to timely produce all relevant records. Under the imputed method, the penalty auditor used the average weekly wage ($841.57) times two to determine Respondent's payroll for the imputed portions. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.028(2); § 440.107(7)(e), Fla. Stat. The gross payroll was then divided by 100 in order to be multiplied by the applicable approved manual rates. The Department applied the proper methodology in computing the penalty assessment. A class code is a numerical code, usually four digits, assigned to differentiate between the various job duties or scope of work performed by the employees. The codes were derived from the Scopes Manual Classifications (Manual), a publication that lists all of the various jobs that may be performed in the context of workers' compensation. The Manual is produced by the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc., an authoritative data collecting and disseminating organization for workers' compensation. The Manual provides that class code 5474 applies to painters who perform painting activities. Reed, Dabnes, and Russell were assigned this code. Mr. Cook agrees this code is correct. Mr. Cook was assigned class code 5606 (construction executive) and placed on the penalty assessment because he is an owner of the corporation and was managing the work. Although Mr. Cook argues he had an exemption and should not be placed on the assessment, Department records reflect that Mr. Cook had an exemption with a different company during the audit period. Therefore, his inclusion in the employee census was correct. Because Respondent's business records included checks written to Kerry Francum for tile work, he was assigned class code 5348 (tile work) and placed on the penalty assessment as an employee. At his deposition, Mr. Cook acknowledged that Francum performed tile work for his firm and was an employee. At hearing, Mr. Cook changed his testimony and contended Francum was only a material supplier, not a subcontractor, and should not be on the penalty assessment. This assertion has not been accepted. Mr. Francum's inclusion on the assessment is appropriate. Respondent's business records also indicated a check was written to Kerry Randall, a tile subcontractor. At hearing, however, Mr. Cook established, without contradiction, that because of Mr. Randall's violent temper, he was paid a one-time fee of $1,000.00 and let go before he performed any work. Mr. Randall should be removed from the assessment. The Department has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is correct, less any amount owed for Mr. Randall.
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 assessing Respondent the penalty in the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, less any amount owed for Mr. Randall. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of November, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER 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 21st day of November, 2016.
