The Issue The issues are whether nine workers were employees of Respondent, during part of the audit period; whether Respondent failed to secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage in violation of Section 440.107, Florida Statutes (2003); and whether Petitioner should impose a penalty against Respondent in the amount of $123,960.23.
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 closely held corporation domiciled in Florida and engaged in the sale and installation of floor coverings. Mr. Dennis Davison and Mrs. Lynne Davison, a married couple, own all of the outstanding stock of Respondent (the owners). Respondent has five in-office employees, including the owners, and had a net worth of approximately $100,000 before paying the proposed penalty. On April 2, 2004, Petitioner's compliance officer conducted a random site inspection of a single-family residence at 213 Northwest 3rd Place, Cape Coral, Florida. Mr. John Walega and Mr. Mike Stephens were laying carpet in the residence (Walega and Stephens, respectively). Walega was a sole proprietor who employed Stephens. The compliance officer determined that Walega was an employee of Respondent because Walega had an expired exemption and no proof of workers' compensation insurance coverage. The compliance officer issued separate stop work orders against Walega and Respondent. The stop work order against Walega is not at issue in this proceeding. The compliance officer issued the stop work order against Respondent even though: she knew that Respondent had compensation coverage for Respondent's five employees through a leasing company; and she had no knowledge that Respondent had subcontractors other than Walega working for Respondent. The compliance officer requested Respondent's business records for the three years from April 2, 2001, through April 2, 2004 (the audit period). Respondent fully complied with the request in a timely manner. The stop work order issued against Respondent on April 2, 2004, also assessed a penalty stated as the greater of $1,000 or 1.5 times the premium Respondent would have paid in premium charges during the period Respondent allegedly failed to secure the payment of workers' compensation insurance. Sometime between April 2 and 16, 2004, Petitioner amended the penalty assessment to $137,820.72. On April 16, 2004, the owners mortgaged their personal residence to pay the amended penalty assessment. Petitioner released the stop work order, but the owners lost business in an unspecified dollar amount while the stop work order was in effect and continue to incur monthly interest expense in the amount of $500 to service the mortgage on their home. On June 28, 2004, Petitioner issued a Seconded Amended Order of Penalty Assessment No. 04-157-D7-2 that reduced the assessed penalty to $123,960.23 (the Seconded Amended Order). Respondent is entitled to a refund in the amount of $13,860.49, but Petitioner had not paid the refund as of the date of hearing. The Second Amended Order is the proposed agency action at issue in this proceeding. 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. Respondent does not challenge the mathematical accuracy of the penalty calculations by Petitioner, but challenges the legal and factual basis of Petitioner's determination that nine workers were Respondent's employees. The nine workers are identified in the record as Walega; Messrs. James Allan, Bertin Flores, Cliff Hill, David Lancaster, Earl Lancaster, Jeff Dozier, Anthony Gioe; and Ms. Patricia Lancaster. The statutory definition of an employee for that part of the audit period before January 1, 2004 (the relevant period), was different than the statutory definition that became effective on January 1, 2004. Factual findings concerning the nine workers at issue are driven by one statutory definition during the relevant period and another statutory definition thereafter. Any of the nine workers that satisfied the statutory definition in former Subsection 440.02(15)(d)1, Florida Statutes (2003), of an independent contractor should not have been included in that part of the proposed penalty attributable to the relevant period. Effective January 1, 2004, however, Subsection 440.02(15)(d)1, Florida Statutes (2003), no longer excludes 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 relevant to that portion of the proposed penalty covering any part of the audit period after December 31, 2003. Effective January 1, 2004, Subsection 440.02(15)(c)2, Florida Statutes (2003), no longer excludes a subcontractor, including those that would have satisfied the former definition of an independent contractor, from the definition of an employee unless the subcontractor either executes a valid exemption election or otherwise secures payment of compensation coverage as a subcontractor. There is insufficient evidence to support a finding that any of the nine workers at issue in this proceeding either elected a valid exemption or otherwise secured payment for compensation coverage after December 31, 2003. The nine workers at issue in this proceeding are not excluded from the definition of an employee after December 31, 2004, even if they were independent contractors throughout the audit period. 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 nine workers included in that part of the penalty assessment attributable to the relevant period were subcontractors throughout the audit period. Respondent's ledger clearly treated the workers as subcontractors and reported their earnings on Form 1099 for purposes of the federal income tax. Petitioner treated the workers as subcontractors in the penalty calculation. Customers of Respondent paid Respondent for installation of floor coverings they purchased from Respondent, and Respondent paid each of the nine workers to install the floor coverings. 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. Findings concerning the existence of an exemption election or payment of compensation coverage are neither relevant nor material to the statutory definition of an employee during the relevant period. During the relevant period, the nine workers at issue were excluded from the definition of an employee only if they satisfied the definition of an independent contractor in former Subsection 440.02(15)(d)1, Florida Statutes (2003). Each of the nine workers were required to satisfy all of the following requirements: 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. The preponderance of evidence shows that each of the nine workers at issue was an independent contractor during the relevant period. Respondent conducted the ordinary course of its trade or business with each of the nine workers in substantially the identical manner. None of the workers shared office space with Respondent. Each worker used his or her own truck, equipment, and tools to transport the floor coverings sold by Respondent and to install them in a customer's premises. Petitioner admits that Walega was a sole proprietor. Each of the other workers either held a federal employer identification number or was a sole proprietor who was not required to obtain a federal employer identification number. Each worker agreed to perform specific services or work for specific amounts of money and controlled the means of performing the services or work. Each worker incurred his or her own expenses to install floor coverings. Each worker transported floor coverings and necessary materials to the work site in the worker's own truck and used his or her own tools to perform the work. Each worker exercised independent professional judgment to perform the work. Respondent did not perform any pre-installation site inspection and did not perform any site preparation. Respondent did not train workers, instruct workers on how to perform their work, did not supervise their work while it was being performed, and did not perform any post-installation site inspection unless Respondent received a customer complaint. Each worker was responsible for the satisfactory completion of work or services that he or she performed. Each worker was liable to Respondent and the customer for any failure to complete the work or services or for inferior workmanship. Each worker warranted his or her work to the customer's satisfaction and absorbed the costs of rework and any damage to the customer's premises. Respondent paid each worker for work or services performed on a per-job or competitive-bid basis rather than any other basis. Respondent negotiated the price paid to a worker on a square-foot basis. The price did not change regardless of the amount of time the job required or the number of helpers the worker paid to assist the worker on the job. Each worker realized a profit or suffered a loss in installing floor coverings sold by Respondent. Each worker performed work for other vendors and had continuing or recurring business liabilities or obligations apart from installing floor coverings for Respondent. Each worker depended on the relationship of business receipts of expenditures for the success or failure of the worker's business. Each worker maintained his or her own occupational and professional licenses. Each worker maintained his or her own liability insurance. Respondent required each worker to sign a written form stating that the worker was an independent contractor. The form acknowledged the workers' warranty obligations and his or her obligations for their own taxes and insurance. Each form disclosed the workers' social security number or federal employer identification number. Respondent did not withhold federal income taxes from the payments to workers. Petitioner did not explicate the basis for reducing the proposed assessment in the Second Amended Order. However, the evidence reveals that the penalty reduction resulted from the exclusion of corporate subcontractors from the penalty base. The business relationship between Respondent and its corporate subcontractors during the relevant period was substantially the same as that between Respondent and the nine workers at issue. Early in this administrative proceeding on April 8, 2004, the compliance officer advised the owners that she was unable to release the stop work order against Respondent unless she could verify in Petitioner's data base, in relevant part, that the nine workers at issue each had a valid exemption or had insurance. However, Petitioner's database would not have disclosed compensation coverage maintained by a subcontractor through a leasing company. The compliance officer's advice to the owners did not reflect the law in effect during the relevant period. The Workers' Compensation Law in effect during the relevant period did not expressly exclude from the definition of an employee those workers who executed a valid exemption election or otherwise secured payment of compensation coverage as a subcontractor. The law excluded subcontractors from the definition of an employee only if the subcontractors satisfied the statutory definition of an independent contractor. The compliance officer made no effort to determine whether any of the workers she included in the penalty base satisfied the definition of an independent contractor. The compliance officer never advised the owners that establishing a subcontractor as an independent contractor would avoid part of the assessment against Respondent during the relevant period. The compliance officer never advised the owners that Respondent was free to choose to be represented by counsel during the audit process. The compliance officer told the owners that the only thing Respondent could do to avoid the assessment was to provide a certificate of insurance or an exemption for each of the subcontractors included in the penalty base. The compliance officer admitted that she was unaware that a subcontractor who was an independent contractor during the relevant period was legally excluded from the penalty base. Counsel for Respondent advised the compliance officer of the correct legal standard on April 12, 2004, but the compliance officer refused to release the stop work order unless Respondent paid the assessed penalty. The compliance officer knew that Walega had held a valid exemption at various times in the past as a sole proprietor. She knew Walega had renewed the exemption on October 29, 2003, for five years. However, Petitioner's database showed the exemption had expired on January 1, 2004, by operation of new law. Walega provided Respondent with a copy of the exemption he renewed on October 29, 2003. The exemption stated on its face that it was effective for five years. The owners had no actual knowledge that the exemption expired on January 1, 2004, as a result of a change in the Workers' Compensation Law. Petitioner admits that it issued the exemption to Walega knowing that the exemption would expire on January 1, 2004. Petitioner issued the exemption so that Walega could use it until January 1, 2004.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order dismissing the disputed charges against Respondent for the relevant period, refunding any overpayment by Respondent, and sustaining the remaining allegations and penalties against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of August, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 27th day of August, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: David C. Hawkins, Esquire Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 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 The issues in this case are whether Respondent failed to provide workers' compensation coverage, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing section 440.107. That section mandates, in relevant part, that employers in Florida secure workers' compensation insurance coverage for their employees. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. At all times relevant, All Florida was a Florida corporation engaged in the business of well drilling for water, a construction business, with its principal office located at 2250 Havana Avenue, Fort Myers, Florida. On August 3, 2010, Amy Thielen (Ms. Thielen), a compliance investigator for the Department, conducted an on-site investigation at a work site located at 129 Montrose Street, Fort Myers, Florida. Ms. Thielen observed a parked truck with the All Florida logo on it at this work site and an individual working nearby. After identifying herself to the individual, the individual identified himself as Edward Perez (Mr. Perez), an employee of and working for All Florida at that time. Ms. Thielen then consulted the Department's Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) database to determine if All Florida had workers' compensation coverage. The insurance companies report any workers' compensation coverage to the Department through this CCAS database, which is kept current. The CCAS showed that All Florida had two periods in which its workers' compensation coverage lapsed: March 3, 2009, through October 24, 2009, and a second period when the workers' compensation policy was cancelled from January 9, 2010, to August 3, 2010. Ms. Thielen contacted All Florida's last workers' compensation carrier and was informed that there was no workers' compensation policy in place. There was no workers' compensation coverage in effect on August 3, 2010, when Ms. Thielen confirmed that Mr. Perez was working for All Florida. Ms. Thielen testified that any construction company could obtain an exemption from having workers' compensation coverage through an application to the Department. All Florida did not have an exemption for any corporate officers.2/ Ms. Thielen checked the Department of State, Division of Corporations', records and learned that Robert Henshaw (Mr. Henshaw) was the president and only officer of All Florida. Based on her investigation, Ms. Thielen determined that All Florida did not have the requisite workers' compensation coverage at that time. After consulting with her supervisor, Ms. Thielen issued a Stop-Work Order to All Florida on August 11, 2010. A stop-work order is an enforcement action issued against employers that forces the employer to cease all business operations in Florida until they obtain the requisite workers' compensation coverage and return to full compliance. At the time Ms. Thielen served All Florida with the Stop-Work Order, she also served a request for production of business records for penalty assessment calculation to All Florida. This document requests certain business records from the employer for a three-year period in order for an audit to be performed to properly calculate the penalty assessment. All Florida produced the requested business records to the Department. Melissa Geissler (Ms. Geissler), a penalty calculator for the Department's Bureau of Compliance, calculated the penalty assessment based on All Florida's business records. Based on a review of the produced business records, the initial penalty assessment was $18,216.73. On September 8, 2010, Mr. Henshaw, acting on behalf of All Florida, executed a "payment agreement schedule for periodic payment of penalty" with the Department. Mr. Henshaw paid ten percent of the penalty assessment, put the remainder of the penalty assessment in a payment plan, and obtained the requisite worker's compensation coverage. The Department then issued an "Order of Conditional Release from Stop-Work Order," thus allowing All Florida to continue to operate while paying the remaining penalty assessment in specific increments. After the original penalty assessment order was issued, All Florida submitted additional business records, and the Department sought to and did revise the penalty assessment amount downward. As the case was already at the Division, the Department, with All Florida's consent, requested that a second amended order of penalty assessment be issued, reducing the penalty amount to $13,267.24. On October 20, 2010, the Division issued an Order allowing the second amended order of penalty assessment to be issued. In April 2011, after still more business records were delivered to the Department, the Department issued a third amended order of penalty assessment. This time the penalty assessment was reduced to $12,721.73. On August 24, 2011, the Department filed a motion to amend order of penalty assessment. There was insufficient time for All Florida to respond to the motion, and, at hearing, All Florida, through its president, Mr. Henshaw, voiced no objection to the reduction in the penalty assessment amount. Ms. Geissler's duties at the Department include reviewing financial documentation from employers, identifying payroll transactions, and verifying workers' compensation coverage. Ms. Geissler testified that she utilizes the CCAS database to confirm whether any employer has secured workers' compensation coverage. When she finds a payroll transaction that reflects such coverage, that transaction is not used in the penalty assessment calculation; otherwise, the transaction is used in calculating the coverage cost amount. Ms. Geissler also testified that she utilizes the penalty worksheet authorized in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.027 to aid in the penalty calculation process. Ms. Geissler conducted an audit of All Florida based on the business records it provided to the Department. Ms. Geissler determined the amount of workers' compensation premium that All Florida would have paid had it been in compliance with Florida law between August 12, 2007, and August 11, 2010 (excluding October 25, 2009, through January 8, 2010, when there was coverage). Ms. Geissler testified that, during this three-year period, All Florida was an active construction based employer. It was confirmed that there were four employees (including Mr. Henshaw) of All Florida. In order to calculate the appropriate penalty, Ms. Geissler took 1/100th of the gross payroll and multiplied that figure by the approved manual rate applicable to class code 6204 (the class code designated to specialist contractors engaged in drilling work as found in the approved Scopes Manual3/). The approved manual rates are determined by the National Council on Compensation Insurance, adopted by the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation, and represent the recent trends in workers' compensation loses associated with each individual class code. After reviewing all of the business records submitted by All Florida, and using the applicable formula, Ms. Geissler credibly testified that the final penalty assessment was $12,721.73. Ms. Geissler's calculations for the penalty assessment were performed in accordance with the requirements of section 440.107(7) and rule 69L-6.027. Mr. Henshaw did not provide any testimony during the proceeding, but rather made the statement that there was no point in fighting the allegation, "everything is correct."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that All Florida failed to secure workers' compensation coverage and assessing a penalty of $12,721.73 against All Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of October, 2011, 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 5th day of October, 2011.
Findings Of Fact The factual allegations contained in the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment issued on August 23, 2010, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on September 13, 2010, and the Order Closing File 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 Order of Penalty Assessment, the Petition for Request of Hearing, and the Order Closing File, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby finds that: 1. On August 23, 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. 10-341-1A to AN & YA CONSTRUCTION, INC. 2. On August 23, 2010, the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment was personally served on AN & YA CONSTRUCTION, 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 September 13, 2010, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 10-341-1A to AN & YA CONSTRUCTION, INC. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $75,724.80 against AN & YA CONSTRUCTION, INC. 4. On September 20, 2010, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served by certified mail on AN & YA CONSTRUCTION, INC. A copy of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit B” and incorporated herein by reference. 5. On October 8, 2010, AN & YA CONSTRUCTION, INC filed a Petition for Request of Hearing (“Petition”) with the Department in response to the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. A copy of the Petition is attached hereto as “Exhibit C” and incorporated herein by reference. 6. On November 24, 2010, the Petition was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned DOAH Case No. 10-10421. 7. On April 28, 2011, an Order Closing File was entered in Division of Administrative Hearings Case. No. 10-10421. A copy of the Order Closing File is attached hereto as “Exhibit D” and incorporated herein by reference.
Findings Of Fact 1. Pursuant to Section 440.107, Florida Statutes, the Florida Department of Financial Services is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure the payment of workers’ compensation for the benefit of their employees, and has the authority to “issue stop-work orders, penalty assessment orders, and any other orders necessary for the administration of this section.” Section 440.107(3)(g), Florida Statutes (2004). On March 29, 2006, the Department’s Investigator, John Wheeler, conducted a compliance investigation of Terry’s Paint & Body Shop, Inc. in Pensacola, Florida, and found that contrary to Florida law, the Business did not maintain a policy of worker’s compensation insurance for its’ employees. A Stop-Work Order and an Order of Penalty Assessment was issued to Terry’s Paint & Body Shop, Inc., on March 29, 2006, for “failing to obtain coverage that meets the requirements of Ch. 440, Fla. Stat.” (Respondent’s Exhibit 1.) The Stop-Work Order provided that Terry’s Paint & Body, Inc., cease all business operations in this State until such time as the Business secures workers’ compensation insurance for its’ employees. (id.) On March 29, 2006, a Division of Workers’ Compensation Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation was served on Terry’s Paint & Body, Inc. (Respondent’s Exhibit 2.) The Petitioner cooperated with the Division of Workers’ Compensation and timely produced business records in response to the March 29, 2006 request. On March 30, 2006, an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was issued and personally served on Terry’s Paint & Body Shop, Inc., by John Wheeler, the Respondent’s workers’ compensation compliance investigator, and provided for a total penalty assessment of $29,223.48. (Respondent’s Exhibit 3). On April 3, 2006, Terry’s Paint & Body Shop, Inc. entered into a Payment Agreement for Periodic Payment of Penalty that provided for the periodic payment of the assessed penalty of $29,223.48 over a period of sixty (60) months. (Respondent’s Exhibit 6.) Pursuant to that Agreement, the Petitioner paid a required initial payment down-payment of ten percent (10%) of the assessed penalty ($3,000), and agreed to make sixty (60) payments of $437.08 per month, payable on the first day of the month. (Id.) The first scheduled monthly payment was due on June 1, 2006. (Id.) On April 3, 2006, and based on the executed Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty, the ten percent (10%) down payment by Terry’s Paint & Body, Inc., and pursuant to Florida law, the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation entered their Order of Conditional Release from Stop-Work Order to Petitioner. (Respondent’ Exhibit 5.) Pursuant to the Order of Conditional Release from Stop-Work Order, the Petitioner was permitted to resume business operations in Pensacola, Florida. (Id.) Pursuant to the Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty and the Order of Conditional Release from Stop-Work Order, the Petitioner was obligated to make sixty (60) monthly payments of $437.08 that were payable on the first day of every month. (Respondent’s Exhibit 5 and 6.) The Petitioner failed to timely submit the schedule monthly payments that were due on October 1, 2008 and November 1, 2008, and defaulted on the April 3, 2006, Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty. (Respondent’s Exhibit 8.) Because of the missed payments and the default of the Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty, the Respondent entered an Order Reinstating Stop-Work Order on December 24, 2008. (Jd.) 10. 11. On or about January 14, 2009, the Petitioner submitted a payment for the months of October and November 2008 to the Workers’ Compensation Administration Trust Fund. (Respondent’s Exhibits 7 and 7A.) Because the Petitioner became current on his monthly payments and pursuant to Florida Law, the Respondent entered a January 28, 2009 Order Rescinding Order Reinstating Stop-Work Order wherein the Petitioner was allowed to resume normal business operations in Pensacola, Florida provided the future monthly payments were timely paid. (Respondent’s Exhibit 9.) Pursuant to the Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty and the Order of Conditional Release from Stop-Work Order, the Petitioner was obligated to make sixty (60) monthly payments of $437.08 that were payable on the first day of every month. (Respondent’s Exhibit 5 and 6) The Petitioner failed to timely submit the schedule monthly payment that was due on January 1, 2009, and again defaulted on the April 3, 2006, Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty. (Respondent’s Exhibit 10.) Because of the missed payment and the default of the Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty, the Respondent entered an Order Reinstating Stop-Work Order on March 21, 2009. (Id.) On or about April 7, 2009, the Petitioner submitted a payment for the months of January and February 2009 to the Workers’ Compensation Administration Trust Fund. (Respondent’s Exhibits 7 and 7A.) Because the Petitioner became current on his monthly payments and pursuant to Florida Law, the Respondent entered an April 13, 2009 Order Rescinding Order Reinstating Stop-Work Order wherein the Petitioner was allowed to resume normal business operations in Pensacola, Florida, provided the future monthly payments were timely paid. (Respondent’s Exhibit 9.) 12. 13. 14. Pursuant to the Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty and the Order of Conditional Release from Stop-Work Order, the Petitioner was obligated to make sixty (60) monthly payments of $437.08 that were payable on the first day of every month. (Respondent’s Exhibit 5 and 6.) The Petitioner failed to timely submit the schedule monthly payment that was due on March 1, 2009, and defaulted on the April 3, 2006, Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty for a third time. (Respondent’s Exhibit 12.) Because of the missed payment and the default of the Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty, the Respondent entered an Order Reinstating Stop-Work Order on June 16, 2009. (Id.) In addition, the June 16, 2009 Order Reinstating Stop-Work Order requires the current unpaid balance of the total assessed penalty to become immediately due in order to withdraw the current stop-work order, which totals $11,800.50. (Id.) In addition to the above penalty and stop-work orders, on October 19, 2009, an Order Assessing Penalty for Working in Violation of Reinstated Stop-Work Order was issued and personally served on Terry’s Paint & Body Shop, Inc., in the amount of $125,000.00. This penalty is being contested by Petitioner before the Division of Administrative Hearings, is not being considered by this Hearing Officer, and is not part of the instant Matter. (Respondent’s Exhibit 4.) In his Petition for Hearing and throughout this proceeding, the Petitioner is seeking a third order rescinding the Terry’s Paint & Body, Inc., Stop-Work Order conditioned on his paying all past due amounts and making future payments under the April 3, 2006 Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty. uo
Conclusions Terry’s Paint & Body, Inc. by and through Mr. Terry Hedges 8129 Pensacola Boulevard Pensacola, Florida 32534 Petitioner Pro Se Paige Shoemaker, Esq. Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 Attorney for the Florida Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order upholding the June 16, 2009 Order Reinstating Stop-Work Order issued to Terry’s Paint & Body Shop, Inc. until such time that the Petitioner pays the balance of its’ monetary penalties that were assessed beginning on March 29, 2009, as a result of the Business failing to secure mandated workers’ compensation insurance for its’ employees. In addition, it is RECOMMENDED the final order in this matter hold that Florida law does not provide the Department or this Hearing Officer any discretion whatsoever to enter an order rescinding the Department’s Stop-Work Order after the Petitioner has defaulted three (3) times on his April 3, 2006 Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty. Respectfully submitted this 26" day of July 2010. Alan J. ma bf Department of Financial Services 3700 Lifford Circle Tallahassee, Florida 32309 Phone: (850)668-9820 Fax: (850)668-9825 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing Recommended Order has been provided by US Mail to: Mr. Terry Hedges, Terry’s Paint & Body, Inc,, 8129 Pensacola Boulevard, Pensacola, Florida 32534 and via hand delivery to Paige Shoemaker, Esq., Department of Financial Services, Division of Legal Services, 200 East Gaines Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399-4429 in the interests of judicial economy, this 26" day of July, 2010. Alan J. on aff -13-
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Respondent was operating its business without workers' compensation coverage for employees in violation of the below-referenced provisions of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, whether it continued its business operations in violation of a Stop Work Order issued August 11, 2005, in purported violation of Section 440.107(7)(a), Florida Statutes (2005), and what, if any, penalty is warranted.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation (Department) is an agency of the State of Florida charged with enforcing the statutory requirements requiring employers to secure the payment of workers' compensation benefits by obtaining insurance coverage therefor for employees, as mandated by Section 440.107, Florida Statutes (2005). The Respondent, Krashco, Inc., d/b/a J. Krash's Sports Bar (Krashco, Inc.) is a Florida corporation domiciled in Panama City, Florida. On August 11, 2005, it was engaged in the business of operating J. Krash's Sports Bar at 1508 Calhoun Avenue in Panama City, Florida. Patricia Krossman is a Workers' Compensation Investigator for the Department. She conducts investigations into all types of business to verify that they have required workers' compensation insurance coverage or are statutorily exempt. She visited J. Krash's Sports, Bar accompanied by her supervisor, William Dorney, and another investigator on August 11, 2005. J. Krash's Sports Bar is a business owned by the Respondent Krashco, Inc. Upon entering the bar, Ms. Krossman, observed several customers and a bartender. She inquired of the bartender whether the owner was present. She was then introduced to Mr. Matthew McDonough who identified himself as the accountant for Krashco, Inc. Mr. Dorney was present and witnessed this encounter with Mr. McDonough. Mr. Krossman interviewed Mr. McDonough who stated that he handled all the business for Krashco, Inc., and that Krashco, Inc., had one full-time employee and six hourly employees. Mr. McDonough provided the names of those employees to Ms. Krossman and told her that Krashco, Inc., had no workers' compensation insurance policy to cover those employees. This revelation was corroborated by Mr. Dorney who was also present. Mr. McDonough identified Ms. Janis Kay Porter-Krasno as the sole officer of the corporation, Krashco, Inc. He provided the telephone number for Ms. Krasno and Investigator Krossman telephoned Ms. Krasno. She confirmed the number and the names of the employees of Krashco, Inc., and J. Krash's Sports Bar. She also confirmed that Krashco, Inc., had no workers' compensation coverage. In accordance with Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, insurance carriers report to the Department the issuance to businesses of workers' compensation insurance policies. The Department issues workers' compensation insurance exemptions also. The Department maintains an electronic database of employer coverage and exemptions in its Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS), which allows investigators to determine whether an employer has secured workers' compensation insurance coverage or whether that employer has an exemption from coverage. This database is used in the normal course of the Department's investigations. Ms. Krossman utilized the CCAS data base in the subject investigation. This database confirmed that the Respondent had no workers' compensation coverage and no exemption from coverage from any officer of the Respondent corporation at the time of the investigation. (See Department exhibits three and four in evidence). The Department has a policy or statutory interpretation which it carries out, concerning its duties under Section 440.107(7)(a), Florida Statutes (2005), requiring that if an employer who is required to secure payment of workers' compensation benefits has failed to do so, that failure is deemed an immediate serious danger to public health safety or welfare and results in the issuance of a "Stop Work Order" by the Department. In view of her investigation as described, Investigator Krossman determined that the Respondent was in violation of the workers' compensation law. This was because it employed more than four individuals, for whom the Respondent was required to secure the payment of workers' compensation and yet had no workers' compensation for any of its employees. Investigator Krossman's supervisor, Mr. Dorney, reviewed the results of Ms. Korssman's investigation and agreed with her and authorized her to issue a Stop Work Order to the Respondent due to its failure to comply with the relevant requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. Indeed, the Respondent ultimately stipulated its liability for the charge that it violated Section 440.107(7), Florida Statutes (2005), by not securing the payment of workers' compensation for the employees in question. The Stop Work Order was served on Krashco, Inc., on August 11, 2005, alerting that employer in accordance with Section 440.107(7)(d), Florida Statutes (2005), that a penalty would be assessed and that the penalty might be amended based on further information obtained, including the production of business records by the employer. The Stop Work Order also advised that if the employer conducted any business operations in violation of the Stop Work Order that a penalty of $1,000.00 per day of violation would be assessed. Under the mandate of Section 440.107(5), Florida Statutes (2005), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.015, Florida employers are required to maintain business records that enable the Department to determine whether an employer is complying with the workers' compensation law. On August 11, 2005, Ms. Krossman issued and hand served on Krashco, Inc., a written request for production of business records for purposes of a penalty assessment calculation. On September 14 and 19, 2005, the Respondent's accountant provided business records to the Department. After reviewing those business records, Investigator Krossman again consulted with her supervisor Mr. Dorney, who authorized her to issue an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is the Department's Exhibit 9 in evidence. The Amended Order was issued and served on Respondent on September 26, 2005, and assessed a total penalty of $49,979.79 under the authority of Section 440.107(7)(d)1. and (c), Florida Statutes (2005). The penalty calculations pertaining to each of the employees listed appeared in a three page worksheet attached and incorporated as part of Department's exhibit nine in evidence. Investigator Krossman selected the appropriate NCCI class code for Krashco Inc.'s business, and its corresponding premium rate, in order to apply that to each employee's wages. The Department relies on these premium rates and the classification codes for these purposes in the normal course of its regulation of such matters.1/ Ultimately, at hearing, the Respondent stipulated that it did not dispute the charge in the Amended Order and does not dispute the accuracy of the penalty calculation.2/ In light of the requirements of Section 440.107(7)(d)1., Florida Statutes (2005), Investigator Krossman calculated the penalty for the period of non-compliance back to September 1, 2002, pursuant to the three year "reach back standard" in the statute. The premium which had thus been evaded which the Respondent would have paid had it secured workers' compensation insurance was thus shown to be $7,986.43. The statutorily provided penalty on that amount of evaded premium multiplied by the statutory standard of 1.5 times resulted in a penalty amount of $11,979.79. Respondent also stipulated at the hearing that it had violated the Stop Work Order issued on August 11, 2005, by continuing to conduct its business operations of J. Krash's Sports Bar through September 19, 2005. This engendered an additional penalty as provided in Section 440.107(7)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes (2005). Investigator Krossman calculated the additional penalty at $1,000.00 per day of violation time from August 12, 2005 through September 19, 2005, at $38,000.00. This results in a total aggregate assessed penalty, pursuant to the Amended Order, of $49,979.79. The business of Respondent Krashco, Inc., is J. Krash's Sports Bar. Its principal place of business is 1508 Calhoun Avenue, Panama City, Florida 32405. Section 440.107(7)(a), Florida Statutes (2005), requires a cessation of all business operations by an employer when a Stop Work Order is issued by that employer by the Department. The Stop Work Order "shall remain in effect until the Department issues an order releasing the Stop Work Order upon a finding that the employer has come into compliance with the coverage requirements of this Chapter and has paid any penalty assessed under this section."3/ Krashco, Inc., has never paid any part of the assessed penalty pursuant to the Amended Order or the Second Amended Order filed later. The Department has never issued an Order of Release from the Stop Work Order. Nevertheless, the Respondent Krashco, Inc., after September 19, 2005, continued the business operations of J. Krash's Sports Bar. Officers of corporations may elect an exemption from coverage under the workers' compensation law as an employee (see Section 440.05). This exemption is effective, however, only for the corporation listed in the eligible officer's Notice of Election to be Exempt and which is paying that officer's salary or wages. Three new corporations were formed whereby the previous employees of Krashco, Inc., d/b/a J. Krash's Sports Bar became officers of Krashco, Inc., and those three new corporations. This is because Krashco, Inc., needed people to operate the bar on its behalf to buy goods and services to sell and dispense at its business, J. Krash's Sports Bar. Krashco, Inc.'s former employees became officers of these three newly created corporations and two of the former employees became officers of the Respondent Krashco, Inc. Krashco, Inc., d/b/a J. Krash's Sports Bar verbally contracted with these new officers of the new corporations to perform the same services for its business, J. Krash's Sports Bar, that those same individuals had been performing before becoming officers of these corporations, performing security, catering, and bartending services. Krashco, Inc.'s, principals were of the belief that it was necessary to secure the services in this manner in order to continue the operation of its business, without employees, so that it would no longer be required to have workers' compensation coverage for them. After August 11, 2005, and through most of the remainder of 2005, Ms. Janis Krasno, the President of Krashco, Inc., continued to pay these new officers, the former employees, directly with checks drawn on Krashco Inc.'s account and made payable to the individual officers as payees (not to their corporation) for the same services they had performed for the benefit of J. Krash's Sports Bar.4/ Keith Larson, an employee of Krashco, Inc., became an officer of the original Krashco, Inc., as well as Crashco, Inc., one of the three newly created corporations. Keith Larson elected an exemption from Chapter 440 as an officer of Krashco, Inc. Larson's election of exemption with Krashco, Inc., however, did not become effective until November 2, 2005. Consequently, Keith Larson continued to be paid by Krashco, Inc., as an employee through at least November 1, 2005. Six other Krashco, Inc., employees were granted exemptions (as officers of the other corporations) by the Petitioner from the requirement of workers' compensation coverage, which were all effective on August 22, 2005. This reduced the number of employees of record to less than the compliment of four (or more) for which coverage is required. This would seem, under only these circumstances, to represent the expiration of liability by the Respondent for failure to secure payment of workers' compensation and to also be the date the Stop Work Order should be rescinded and further penalties tolled. The fact is, however, that Ms. Krasno and the Respondent, Krashco, Inc., as found below, continued to pay these "former employees" with Krashco, Inc., checks made to them individually (not to their corporations), for the same job duties, until December 15, 2005. Thus they continued to function as employees of the Respondent, Krashco, Inc., until that date. After that date they were paid by a new corporation, Crashco, Inc. Ms. Janis Krasno, President of Krashco, Inc., continued to operate and run J. Krash's Sports Bar as an officer of and on behalf of Krashco, Inc., through April 28, 2006. This included payment of Krashco's expenses occasioned in the operation of the business. Ms. Krasno, President of Krashco, Inc., wrote checks through December 15, 2005, drawn on Krashco, Inc.'s bank account to pay for Krashco, Inc.'s business operation expenses, all of which were for the benefit of operating J. Krash's Sports Bar. Ms. Krasno as President of Krashco, Inc., issued checks through December 15, 2005, drawn on that corporation's account to pay the individual officers of the three new corporations which had been formed, and of Krashco, Inc., for those officers' bartending, security, and catering services, all of which were performed to continue and perpetuate the operation of J. Krash's Sports Bar. Ms. Krasno issued checks through December 15, 2005, on Krashco, Inc.'s account, to promote sales, by the promotion of upcoming activities to be held at the bar, or to purchase goods for sale at J. Krash's Sports Bar, from various vendors, for non-alcoholic drinks, restaurant supplies, food and other goods for parties. Such payments were also used to pay vendors such as Goldring Gulf Distributing Company and other distributors for alcoholic beverages to be sold in the operation of J. Krash's Sports Bar, and for incidental expenses. From August 12, 2005 through December 15, 2005, and through April 28, 2006, J. Krash's Sports Bar was generally open for business seven days a week from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 a.m. Since September 19, 2005 through April 28, 2006, Ms. Krasno still controlled the management and operations of Krashco, Inc., d/b/a J. Krash's Sports Bar. On December 21, 2005, however, Krashco, Inc.'s, president, Ms. Krasno, who also became president of Crashco, Inc., began issuing checks drawn on the bank account of Crashco, Inc., to pay for expenses occasioned in the operation of the Respondent's business J. Krash's Sports Bar. These were payments to the same officers she had been paying since September 19, 2005, for their bartending, security, and catering services, as well as to essentially the same vendors for purchases of alcoholic beverages, etc. for sale at J. Krash's Sports Bar. Through the date of the final hearing Ms. Krasno, with checks drawn on the account of Crashco, Inc., purchased alcoholic beverages on behalf of Krashco, Inc., the holder of liquor license BEV1301819, in order to continue the business operations of Krashco, Inc., d/b/a J. Krash's Sports Bar. After December 21, 2005 and through April 28, 2006, income of sales at J. Krash's Sports Bar was deposited in Crashco, Inc.'s account. After entry of the Amended Order on September 26, 2005, the Respondent timely filed its request for a formal proceeding on October 14, 2005. This rendered the initial agency action to be non-final, to await the outcome of this de novo, proceeding.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, the 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, under the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment and the Stop-Work Order, a penalty in the total amount of $136,979.80, together with an additional assessment for failure to secure coverage for the period of September 19, 2005 through December 15, 2005, in the manner provided in Subsection 440.107(7)(d)1., Florida Statutes (2005). DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of January, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of January, 2007.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes,1/ by failing to secure the payment of workers’ compensation, as alleged in the Stop-Work Order and Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure workers’ compensation coverage for the benefit of their employees. Respondent is a corporation with its principal office 3981 North W Street, Unit 36, Pensacola, Florida 32505. At all relevant time periods, Respondent has been engaged in business as a contractor in the construction industry. On March 28, 2012, after receiving a public referral regarding alleged uninsured construction activity at 2544 North D Street in Pensacola, Florida (the Site), Department Compliance Investigator Angelia Brown visited the Site. Upon Ms. Brown's arrival, there were plumbers and a siding company at the Site. According to Ms. Brown, she also saw an individual attaching u- shaped metal clips between the inside beams and the roof and soffits of the house that was being constructed at the Site. The plumbers had a workers' compensation policy and the siding workers had exemptions from workers' compensation requirements. Ms. Brown spoke to the man who appeared to be attaching the metal clips. Based upon that conversation, Ms. Brown concluded that the man was a subcontractor and Respondent's employee. The evidence, however, does not support that conclusion. The man, whose name is apparently Robert Madron, was not called as a witness at the final hearing. According to Ms. Brown, Mr. Madron told her he had his own company. Ms. Brown, however, was unable to obtain information verifying that assertion. Further, while Mr. Howard had paid Mr. Madron prior to Ms. Brown's visit for unsolicited work Mr. Madron had performed for Mr. Howard, consisting of picking up trash and repairing some equipment owned by Mr. Howard, Mr. Howard denied that Respondent ever employed Mr. Madron. Rather than showing that Mr. Madron was a subcontractor with his own business or an employee of Respondent, the evidence adduced at the final hearing indicated that Mr. Madron, who was known as "Gomer" by Mr. Howard, was an unemployed, homeless person, living in nearby woods. Mr. Madron would often come to the Site and surrounding neighborhood looking for work and food. Mr. Howard was surprised that Ms. Brown had taken Mr. Madron seriously, because Mr. Howard believes that Mr. Madron's facial expressions and unbalanced, awkward gait are obvious indicators that Mr. Madron is unstable and has mental problems. Ms. Brown issued a Stop-Work Order to Mr. Madron the day of her first visit at the Site, March 28, 2012. The evidence presented at the final hearing, however, failed to show that Mr. Madron was ever employed by Respondent. The next day, March 29, 2012, Ms. Brown returned and observed four other individuals working at the Site. The individuals included Robert Jones, Charles Lyons, Martin Shaughnessy, and Allen Weeden. While Ms. Brown concluded that these individuals were Respondent's employees on March 29, 2012, the evidence shows that they were paid for the work that day by Pacesetter Personnel, an employee-leasing company. Aside from alleging that Respondent employed Mr. Madron, the Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is based upon Respondent's alleged employment and failure to provide workers' compensation coverage for Mr. Jones, Mr. Lyons, Mr. Shaughnessy, and Mr. Weeden. In addition, the Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment alleges that Respondent employed its officer, Mr. Howard, during a lapse in Mr. Howard's exemption from workers' compensation. There was no testimony from Robert Jones, Charles Lyons, Martin Shaughnessy, or Allen Weeden offered at the final hearing and the evidence is otherwise insufficient to show that those individuals were employed by Respondent on March 29, 2012. The Department's investigator, Ms. Brown, further concluded that Pacesetter Personnel had not provided worker's compensation coverage for those four men on March 29, 2012. Her conclusion, however, was based on a conversation she said she had with Pacesetter Personnel. The Department did not offer the testimony from anyone at Pacesetter, nor did it offer any non- hearsay evidence to support Ms. Brown's conclusion that Pacesetter Personnel was not providing workers' compensation to those four individuals. Further, the only evidence that the Department offered to prove that Messrs. Jones, Lyons, Shaughnessy, and Weeden were ever employed by Respondent, or to support the Third Amended Penalty Assessment, consists of Mr. Howard's cancelled checks to those individuals. The Third Amended Penalty Assessment seeks an assessment for Robert Jones from January 1 to March 28, 2012. At the final hearing, Mr. Howard testified that Mr. Jones is a relative, and the payment to Mr. Jones was a loan to help Mr. Jones with moving expenses. There is no contrary evidence. The Third Amended Penalty Assessment provides an assessment for Charles Lyons for the periods from July 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010, and from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011. The assessment is based upon one check to Mr. Lyons in the amount to $480. Mr. Howard testified that Mr. Lyons had an exemption from workers' compensation. The Department presented no contradictory evidence. The Third Amended Penalty Assessment seeks an assessment for Martin Shaughnessy for several time periods based upon several checks from Mr. Howard. Mr. Howard testified that Mr. Shaughnessy had an exemption and the Department presented no contrary evidence. The Third Amended Penalty assessment also seeks an assessment for James Howard, individually, from July 17 to August 11, 2011, during which time there was a lapse in his certificate of exemption from workers' compensation. The evidence showed that, other than that 26-day lapse, Mr. Howard has maintained his exemption since 2003. The Department presented no evidence that Mr. Howard provided services to, or was paid by, Respondent during the time that his exemption had lapsed. The only evidence presented was a check from Respondent's checking account showing a payment to Mr. Howard's mother during the lapse period. Mr. Howard testified that the check was to reimburse his mother for the use of her American Express card to purchase materials and supplies. The Department presented no countervailing evidence. In sum, the evidence presented at the final hearing was insufficient to support the Stop Work Order or Third Amended Penalty Assessment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Workers’ Compensation enter a final order dismissing the Stop-Work Order and Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of June, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June, 2013.
Findings Of Fact 11. The factual allegations in the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment issued on February 18, 2010, and the 2"! Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on August 5, 2011, 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 and the 2" Amended Order of Penalty Assessment served in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 10-053-D4 and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby finds that: 1. On February 18, 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. 10-053-D4 to McDonnell Painting, d/b/a Painting and Wallcovering by McDonnell (McDonnell). The Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of rights wherein McDonnell 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. 2. On March 3, 2010, the Stop- Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment was served via certified mail on McDonnell. 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 February 19, 2010, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to McDonnell in Case No. 10-053-D4. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $10,058.88 against McDonnell. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein McDonnell 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. 4. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served on McDonnell by certified mail on February 25, 2010. A copy of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit B” and incorporated herein by reference. 5. On March 15, 2010, McDonnell timely filed a Petition requesting a formal administrative hearing. The Petition failed to satisfy the requirements of Rule 28-106.2015(S), Florida Administrative Code, in that it did not contain a statement requesting an administrative hearing which identified those material facts in dispute, or in the alternative a statement that there were no disputed issues of material fact. As a result, on April 23, 2010, the Department issued an Order Dismissing Petition for Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, Hearing Without Prejudice, giving McDonnell 21 days to file a Petition that satisfied the requirements of Rule 28- 106.2015(5), Florida Administrative Code. 6. The Order Dismissing Petition for Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, Hearing Without Prejudice was served on McDonnell by certified mail on April 27, 2010. 7. On May 19, 2010, McDonnell timely filed an Amended Petition requesting an administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. A copy of the Amended Petition is attached hereto as “Exhibit C” and incorporated herein by reference. The matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings, where it was assigned Case No. 10-2788. 8. On January 10, 2011, the Department and McDonnell reached a negotiated settlement in which the Department agreed to issue a 2"! Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessing a penalty in the amount of $2,379.00, and McDonnell agreed to pay the total penalty of $2,379 and to no longer contest the Stop- Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment and gn Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. 9. On January 10, 2011, the Department filed a Notice of Settlement with the Division of Administrative Hearings, advising the Administrative Law Judge that the parties had resolved all issues pending in Case No. 10-2788. A copy of the Notice of Settlement is attached hereto as “Exhibit D.” 10. On January 10, 2011, Administrative Law Judge R. Bruce McKibben entered an Order Closing File, relinquishing jurisdiction to the Department. A copy of the Order Closing File is attached hereto as “Exhibit E.” 11. On August 5, 2011, the Department issued a 2"™ Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to McDonnell in Case No. 10-053-D4. The 2™ Amended Order of Penalty Assessment lowered the penalty assessed against McDonnell to $2,379.00 pursuant to the negotiated settlement. The 2"? Amended Order of Penalty was served on McDonnell by email on August 11,2011. A copy of the 2"! Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit F” and incorporated herein by reference.
Findings Of Fact 9. The factual allegations in the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment issued on August 23, 2010, and the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on March 10, 2011, 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 Order of Penalty Assesment, and the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment served in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 10-216-D7, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby finds that: 1. On August 23, 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. 10-216-D7 to Chastang & Siegel Custom Builders, LLC (Chastang). The Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein Chastang 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. 2. On September 7, 2010, the Stop- Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment was served on Chastang by certified mail. 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 October 5, 2010, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to Chastang in Case No. 10-216-D7. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $82,917.81 against Chastang. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein Chastang 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. 4. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served on Chastang by certified mail on October 23, 2010. A copy of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit B” and incorporated herein by reference. 5. On or about November 8, 2010, Chastang filed a timely Petition for formal administrative hearing in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. The Petition was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned Case No. 10- 10826. 6. On March 10, 2011, the Department issued a 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to Chastang in Case No. 10-216-D7. The 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $1,000.00 against Chastang. The 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served on Chastang on March 14, 2011 through the Division of Administrative Hearings. A copy of the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit C” and is incorporated herein by reference. 7. On March 28, 2011, the Department filed a Notice of Settlement in DOAH Case No. 10-10826. A copy of the Notice of Settlement filed by the Department is attached hereto as “Exhibit D.” 8. On March 28, 2011, Administrative Law Judge W. David Watkins entered an Order Closing File, relinquishing jurisdiction to the Department. A copy of the March 28, 2011 Order Closing File is attached hereto as “Exhibit E.”
The Issue The issue is whether The Department of Financial Services properly imposed a Stop Work Order and Amended Order of Penalty Assessment pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Division is charged with the regulation of workers' compensation insurance in the State of Florida. Petitioner Kenny Nolan, d/b/a/ Great Southern Tree Service, is a sole proprietor located in Jacksonville, Florida, and is engaged in the business of cutting trees, which is not a construction activity. Michael Robinson is an 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 June 6, 2006, Mr. Robinson visited a job site in a subdivision in Jacksonville, Florida, and observed five individuals at the residential work site. Mr. Robinson interviewed the individuals and, based upon these interviews, determined that four of the individuals worked for Mr. Nolan: Chad Pasanen, David Soloman, Michael Walton, and Eric Kane. None of these workers had a workers' compensation exemption. Mr. Robinson also completed a Field Interview Worksheet on June 6, 2006, when interviewing the four workers. Mr. Robinson wrote on the interview worksheet that Mr. Pasanen worked for Mr. Nolan for three weeks with a daily basis of pay and that Mr. Walton worked for Mr. Nolan for two weeks with a daily basis of pay. The interview worksheet has no entry for the length of time Mr. Solomon worked for Mr. Nolan but does indicate he was paid by the job. The portion of the interview worksheet regarding Mr. Kane is not in evidence. Mr. Robinson checked the database in the Coverage and Compliance Automated System and found no proof of coverage nor an exemption for Mr. Nolan. After conferring with his supervisor, Mr. Robinson issued a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment to Petitioner on June 6, 2006, along with a request for business records for the purpose of calculating a penalty for lack of coverage for the period June 6, 2003 through June 6, 2006. The request for business records instructed Mr. Nolan to produce business records within five days. Mr. Nolan did not produce business records as requested. On June 27, 2006, Mr. Robinson issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to Petitioner for $272,948.96. Attached to the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is a penalty worksheet with a list of names under the heading, "Employee Name," listing the names of Chad Pasanen, David Solomon, Michael Walton and Eric Kane. The amount of the penalty was imputed using the statewide weekly average wage that was in effect at the time of the issuance of the stop-work order. Through imputation of payroll for the four employees, the Department calculated a penalty for the time period of October 1, 2003 through June 6, 2006. Using rates from an approved manual, Mr. Robinson assigned a class code to the type of work performed by Petitioner and multiplied the approved manual rate with the imputed payroll per one hundred dollars, then multiplied all by 1.5. Penalties are calculated by determining the premium amount the employer would have paid based on his or her Florida payroll and multiplying by a factor of 1.5. The payroll was imputed back to October 1, 2003. For the period prior to October 1, 2003, Mr. Robinson assessed a penalty of $100 per day for each calendar day of noncompliance. The portion of the penalty attributable to the period June 6, 2003 through September 30, 2003, is $11,600.00. Respondent's Business Mr. Nolan started the business, Great Southern Tree Service, in February or March 2005, as a sole proprietor. Mr. Nolan was not in business prior to early 2005 and did not employ anyone in 2003 or 2004. At the inception of his tree trimming business, Mr. Nolan's brother worked for Mr. Nolan for two to three months until his brother's health rendered him unable to continue working for Mr. Nolan. Mr. Nolan subsequently worked with Christopher Wilcox until December 2005, when Mr. Wilcox was in an automobile accident and became unable to work. After Wilcox was injured in December 2005, Mr. Nolan did not have any employees for the remainder of the winter. Only Mr. Nolan's brother and Christopher Wilcox worked with Mr. Nolan in 2005. The nature of the tree trimming business is seasonal. Mr. Nolan obtained work sporadically. Typically, he had jobs two or three times a week. It is busiest in the spring and summer and slowest during the fall and winter months. In March 2006, Mr. Nolan was approached by David Solomon who was looking for work. Mr. Solomon worked for Mr. Nolan "maybe twice a week" and possibly three times a week when he was "lucky." Mr. Nolan worked exclusively for residential customers. He obtained business by knocking on doors and handing out business cards. When he was paid by his customers, he immediately paid the men who were helping him. He was usually paid in cash. In the instances when he was paid by a check, he would take his employees to the bank, where he would cash the check and pay off his workers. Eric Kane also began working for Nolan in March 2006. Like Mr. Soloman, he also worked two to three days a week for Mr. Nolan. Kane was at the jobsite on the day Mr. Robinson made the site visit, but was not working that day. He was sitting off to the side and was "just hanging out" with the other men. According to Mr. Kane, Mr. Robinson did not ask him any questions. In May 2006, a storm or small tornado hit an area of Jacksonville called Ortega. The resulting tree damage temporarily enabled Mr. Nolan to get more work. At that point, Mr. Nolan hired Chad Pasanen. Mr. Nolan estimates that Mr. Pasanen worked for him for about three weeks before the site visit by Mr. Robinson. Mr. Pasanen previously worked for Asplundh Tree Expert Company. One of his paycheck stubs establishes that he worked for Asplundh as late as April 8, 2006. Mr. Nolan also hired Michael Walton in May 2006. Mr. Walton previously worked for Seaborn Construction Company. A paycheck stub establishes that he worked for Seaborn as late as April 26, 2006. Mr. Walton sporadically worked for Mr. Nolan for about two weeks prior to the site visit. The Division did not count Mr. Nolan as an employee for purposes of calculating the penalty assessment.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it RECOMMENDED: That the Division of Workers' Compensation enter a Final Order rescinding the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued June 27, 2006, and the Stop Work Order issued to Petitioner on June 6, 2006. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of November, 2006, 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 28th day of November, 2006.
