The Issue The issues are whether, under section 440.107, Florida Statutes, Petitioner may calculate a penalty assessment for a failure to secure the payment of workers' compensation for one day as though the failure persisted over two years and whether Petitioner may calculate a penalty assessment based on double the statewide average weekly wage (AWW) when the lone uncovered employee earned $10 per hour.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was incorporated in 2008 by Ineido Soler, Sr., and his son, Ineido Soler, Jr. Since the corporation began operations, the wife of Mr. Soler, Jr., Idalmis Pedrero, has served as the office manager of this family-owned company. At all material times, Respondent has contracted with a personnel leasing company to handle employee matters, such as securing the payment of workers' compensation. Ms. Pedrero's responsibilities include informing the employee leasing company of new hires, so the company can obtain workers' compensation coverage, which typically starts the day following notification. On the afternoon of November 22, 2015, Mr. Soler, Jr., telephoned his wife and told her that he and his father had hired, at the rate of $10 per hour, a new employee, Geony Borrego Lee, who would start work the following morning. Customarily, Ms. Pedrero would immediately inform the employee leasing company. However, Ms. Pedrero was working at home because, six days earlier, she had delivered a baby by caesarian section, and she was still recuperating and tending to her newborn. A fatigued Ms. Pedrero did not notify the employee leasing company that day of the new hire. Late the next morning, Ms. Pedrero was awakened by a call from her husband, who asked her if she had faxed the necessary information to the employee leasing company. Ms. Pedrero admitted that she had not done so, but would do so right away. She faxed the information immediately, so that the employee leasing company could add Mr. Lee to the workers' compensation policy, effective the next day, November 24. Uncovered for November 23, Mr. Lee joined three other employees of Respondent and performed roofing work at a worksite. Late in the afternoon of November 23, one of Petitioner's investigators conducted a random inspection of Respondent's worksite and determined that Respondent had secured the payment of workers' compensation for the three other employees, but not for Mr. Lee. The investigator issued an SWO on the day of the inspection, November 23. The SWO contains three parts. First, the SWO orders Respondent to cease work anywhere in the state of Florida. Second, the SWO includes an Order of Penalty Assessment, which does not contain a specific penalty, but instead sets forth the formula by which Petitioner determines the amount of the penalty to assess. Tracking the statute discussed below, the formula included in the SWO is two times the premium that the employer would have paid when applying approved manual rates to the employer's payroll "during periods for which it has failed to secure the payment of compensation within the preceding 2-year period." Third, the SWO includes a Notice of Rights, which advises Respondent that it may request a chapter 120 hearing. On November 24, Petitioner released the SWO after Respondent had secured the payment of workers' compensation for Mr. Lee. On November 25, the investigator hand delivered to Respondent a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation (Request). The Request covers November 24, 2013, through November 23, 2015, and demands records in eight categories: identification of employer, occupational licenses, payroll documents, account documents, disbursements, contracts for work, identification of subcontractors, and documentation of subcontractors' workers' compensation coverage. The Request identifies "payroll documents" as: all documents that reflect the payroll of the employer . . . including . . . time sheets, time cards, attendance records, earning records, check stubs and payroll summaries for both individual employees and aggregate records; [and] federal income tax documents and other documents reflecting the . . . remuneration paid or payable to each employee . . . . The Request adds: The employer may present for consideration in lieu of the requested records, proof of compliance with F.S. 440 by a workers' compensation policy or coverage through employee leasing for all periods of this request where such coverage existed. If the proof of compliance is verified by the Department the requested records for that time period will not be required. The Request warns: If the employer fails to provide the required business records sufficient to enable the . . . Division of Workers' Compensation to determine the employer's payroll for the period requested for the calculation of the penalty provided in section 440.107(7)(d), F.S., the imputed weekly payroll for each employee shall be the statewide average weekly wage as defined in section 440.12(2), F.S., multiplied by 2. The Department shall impute the employer's payroll at any time after ten, but before the expiration of twenty eight business days after receipt by the employer of [the Request]. (FAC 69L-6.028) . . . . On December 11, 2015, Respondent provided the following documents to Petitioner: itemized invoices, including for workers' compensation premiums, from the employee leasing company to Respondent and checks confirming payment, but the invoices and checks are from December 2011; an employee leasing agreement signed by Respondent on August 1, 2014, and signed by the employee leasing company on August 5, 2014; an employee leasing application for Mr. Lee dated November 23, 2015, showing his date of birth as November 20, 1996, his hourly pay as $10, and his hire date as November 23, 2015; and an employee census dated December 1, 2015, showing, for each employee, a date of hire and, if applicable, date of termination. Partially compliant with the Request, this production omitted any documentation of workers' compensation coverage prior to August 1, 2014, and any documentation of payroll except for Mr. Lee's rate of pay. On December 14, 2015, Respondent filed with Petitioner its request for a chapter 120 hearing. On December 30, 2016, Petitioner issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment (Amended Assessment), which proposes to assess a penalty of $63,434.48. On the same date, Petitioner transmitted the file to DOAH. Petitioner issued a Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on February 16, 2016, which is mentioned in, but not attached to, the Prehearing Stipulation that was filed on April 26, 2016, but the second amended assessment reportedly leaves the assessed penalty unchanged from the Amended Assessment. In determining the penalty assessment, Petitioner assigned class code 5551 from the National Council on Compensation Insurance because Mr. Lee was performing roofing work; determined that the entire two-year period covered in the Request was applicable; identified the AWW as $841.57 based on information provided by the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity for all employers subject to the Florida Reemployment Assistance Program Law, sections 443.01 et seq., Florida Statutes, for the four calendar quarters ending June 30, 2014; applied the appropriate manual rates for class code 5551 to $841.57, doubled, and divided the result by 100--all of which yielded a result of $31,717.24, which, doubled, results in a total penalty assessment of $63,434.48. There is no dispute that the classification code for Mr. Lee is code 5551, the AWW is $841.57, and the manual rates are 18.03 as of July 1, 2013, 18.62 as of January 1, 2014, and 17.48 as of January 1, 2015. Because Petitioner determined that Respondent had failed to provide sufficient evidence of its payroll, Petitioner calculated the penalty assessment by using the AWW of $841.57, doubled, instead of Mr. Lee's actual rate of $10 per hour. Petitioner's calculations are mathematically correct. For the 5.27 weeks of 2013, the penalty assessment is $3198.58 based on multiplying the AWW, doubled, by the manual rate of 18.03 divided by 100 multiplied by 2 and multiplied by 5.27. For the 52 weeks of 2014, the penalty assessment is $32,593.67 based on multiplying the AWW, doubled, by the manual rate of 18.62 divided by 100 multiplied by 2 and multiplied by 52. For the 46.44 weeks of 2015, the penalty assessment is $27,326.48 based on multiplying the AWW, doubled, by the manual rate of 17.48 divided by 100 multiplied by 2 and multiplied by 46.44. Adding these sums yields a total penalty assessment of $63,118.73, which approximates Petitioner's penalty assessment calculation of $63,434.48. (Mistranscription of difficult-to- read manual rates or a different rule for handling partial weeks may account for the small difference.) Respondent challenges two factors in the imputation formula: the two-year period of noncompliance for Mr. Lee instead of one day's noncompliance and the AWW, doubled, instead of Mr. Lee's $10 per hour rate of pay. Underscoring the differences between the two-year period of noncompliance and double the AWW and the actual period of noncompliance and Mr. Lee's real pay rate, at the start of the two-year period, Mr. Lee was three days past his 16th birthday and residing in Cuba, and Mr. Lee continues to earn $10 per hour as of the date of the hearing. The impact of Petitioner's use of the two-year period of noncompliance and double the AWW is significant. If the calculation were based on a single day, rather than two years, the assessed penalty would be less than the statutory minimum of $1000, which is described below, even if double the AWW were used. One day is 0.14 weeks, so the penalty assessment would be $82.38 based on multiplying the AWW, doubled, by the manual rate of 17.48 divided by 100 multiplied by 2 and multiplied by 0.14. If the calculation were based on the entire two years, rather than a single day, the assessed penalty would be about one-quarter of the proposed assessed penalty, if Mr. Lee's actual weekly rate of pay were used instead of double the AWW. Substituting $400 for twice the AWW in the calculations set forth in paragraph 15 above, the penalty would be $760.14 for 2013, $7746.92 for 2014, and $6494.17 for 2015 for a total of $15,001.23. Explaining why Petitioner treated one day of noncompliance as two years of noncompliance, one of Petitioner's witnesses referred to Mr. Lee as a "placeholder" because the real focus of the imputation formula is the employer. The same witness characterized the imputation formula as a "legal fiction," implying that the formula obviously and, in this case, dramatically departs from the much-smaller penalty that would result from calculating exactly how much premium that Respondent avoided by not covering the modestly paid Mr. Lee on his first day of work. Regardless of how Petitioner characterizes the imputation formula, the statutory mandate, as discussed below, is to determine the "periods" during which Respondent failed to secure workers' compensation insurance within the two-year period covered by the Request. The focus is necessarily on the employee found by the investigator to be uncovered and any other uncovered employees. Petitioner must calculate a penalty based on how long the employee found by the investigator on his inspection has been uncovered, determining how many other employees, if any, in the preceding two years have been uncovered, and calculating a penalty based on how long they were uncovered. There is evidence of one or two gaps in coverage during the relevant two years, but Petitioner has failed to prove such gaps by clear and convincing evidence. One of Petitioner's witnesses testified to a gap of one month "probably" from late January to late February 2015. This witness relied on Petitioner Exhibit 2, but it is completely illegible. Ms. Pedrero testified that Respondent had workers' compensation coverage since 2011, except for a gap, which she thought had occurred prior to August 2014, which is the start date of the current policy. This conflicting evidence does not establish by clear and convincing evidence any gap, and, even if a gap had been proved, no evidence establishes the number of uncovered employees, if any, during such a gap, nor would such a gap justify enlarging the period of noncompliance for Mr. Lee. Ms. Pedrero testified that her mother-in-law, Teresa Marquez cleaned the office and warehouse on an occasional basis, last having worked sometime in 2015. Respondent never secured workers' compensation coverage for Ms. Marquez, but she did no roofing work and appears to have been a casual worker, so her periods of employment during the two-year period covered by the Request would not constitute additional periods for which Respondent failed to secure workers' compensation insurance. Based on the foregoing, Petitioner has proved by clear and convincing evidence only a single day of noncompliance, November 23, concerning one employee, Mr. Lee, within the relevant two-year period for the purpose of calculating the penalty assessment. Likewise, Petitioner has proved by clear and convincing evidence a rate of pay of only $10 per hour for the purpose of calculating the penalty assessment. At no time has Respondent provided payroll records of all its employees for November 23, 2015. Respondent Exhibit E covers payroll for Respondent's employees for a two-week period commencing shortly after November 23, 2015. But the evidence establishes that Mr. Lee's rate of pay was $80 for the day, which, as discussed below, rebuts the statutory presumption of double the AWW.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order determining that Respondent has failed to secure the payment of workers' compensation for one employee for one day within the two-year period covered by the Request and imposing an administrative penalty of $1000. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of July, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of July, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Jonathan Anthony Martin, Esquire Trevor S. Suter, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 (eServed) Daniel R. Vega, Esquire Robert Paul Washington, Esquire Taylor Espino Vega & Touron, P.A. 2555 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 220 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 (eServed) Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Respondent violated chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2017), by failing to secure payment of workers’ compensation coverage, as alleged in the Stop-Work Order (“SWO”) and Amended Order of Penalty Assessment (“Amended Penalty Assessment”); 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 requires employers to secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage for their employees and corporate officers. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. The Department is also responsible for conducting random inspections of jobsites and investigating complaints concerning potential violations of workers’ compensation rules. At all times material to this matter, Native Cuts was a for-profit limited liability company engaged in business in the State of Florida. Native Cuts was organized as a business on January 19, 2010, and engaged in the business of construction and landscaping. Earl Lee, Jr. and Virginia Brown are Respondent’s managers. Earl Lee, Jr. is Respondent’s registered agent, with a mailing address of 316 North Lake Avenue, Leesburg, Florida 34748. Investigation On July 27, 2017, the Department’s investigator, Chuck Mays, conducted a random workers’ compensation compliance inspection at 27746 Cypress Glen Court, Yalaha, Florida 34797. At that time, Mr. Mays observed three men performing work. Mr. Mays testified that one man was observed operating a Bobcat utility vehicle (small tractor) to transport dirt from the front to the back of the structure, which was under construction. The two other men were removing debris, e.g., cut tree limbs, from the jobsite. Mr. Mays approached the man on the Bobcat and identified himself as an investigator. Mr. Mays began interviewing the Bobcat driver who reported that he and the other two workers at the jobsite were employees of Native Cuts, which the two men confirmed. Mr. Mays ultimately identified the three men at the jobsite as Rodolfo Ramirez, Mitchel Pike, and Dave Herrington. Based on his observations, Mr. Mays determined that the three men were performing construction-related work. Mr. Mays called Respondent’s manager, Mr. Lee, who identified the three men working at the jobsite as his employees. Mr. Mays asked Mr. Lee about the rate of pay and the length of employment for the employees and Mr. Lee referred Mr. Mays to Virginia Brown to obtain the information. Ms. Brown confirmed the three employees, and a fourth employee who was not present at the jobsite. Following the interviews on July 27, 2017, Mr. Mays researched the Division of Corporations system and established that Native Cuts was an active business. He then conducted a search of the Department’s Coverage Compliance Automated System (“CCAS”) and found Respondent did not have workers’ compensation coverage for its employees. Mr. Mays also conducted a further search of CCAS and discovered that Mr. Lee previously had an exemption, which expired on October 30, 2016. Based on his investigation and after consultation with his supervisor, Mr. Mays issued SWO No. 17-246-D4, and posted it at the jobsite. On July 28, 2017, Mr. Mays met with Ms. Brown at her home and personally served the SWO and Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation (“Business Records Request”). The Business Records Request directed Respondent to produce business records for the time period of July 28, 2015, through July 27, 2017 (“Audit Period”), within 10 business days from the receipt of the Business Records Request. On August 11, 2017, Respondent provided business records, including bank statements, checks, and receipts. The records were deemed sufficient to apply a 25-percent discount to Respondent for timely production of records. Penalty Calculation Generally, the Department uses business records to calculate the penalty assessment. Lynne Murcia, a Department penalty auditor, was assigned to review the calculation of the penalty assessment for Respondent. To calculate the penalty assessment, the Department uses a two-year auditing period looking back from the date of the SWO, July 27, 2017, also known as the look-back period. Penalties for workers' compensation insurance violations are based on doubling the amount of insurance premiums that would have been paid during the look-back period. § 440.107(7)(d), Fla. Stat. Ms. Murcia testified as to the process of penalty calculation. Ms. Murcia reviewed the business records submitted by Respondent, as well as notes, worksheets, and summaries from the original auditor.1/ Based on her review of the records, Ms. Murcia identified the individuals who received payments from Respondent as employees during the Audit Period. Ms. Murcia deemed payments to each of the individuals as gross payroll for purposes of calculating the penalty. In the penalty assessment calculation, the Department consulted the classification codes and definitions set forth in the SCOPES of Basic Manual Classifications (“Scopes Manual”) published by the National Council on Compensation Insurance (“NCCI”). The Scopes Manual has been adopted by reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.021. Classification codes are assigned to occupations by the NCCI to assist in the calculation of workers' compensation insurance premiums. Rule 69L-6.028(3)(d) provides that "[t]he imputed weekly payroll for each employee . . . shall be assigned to the highest rated workers' compensation classification code for an employee based upon records or the investigator's physical observation of that employee's activities." Based on Mr. Mays’ observations at the jobsite, the Department assigned either NCCI classification (“class”) code 0042, entitled “Landscaping, Gardening, & Drivers” or class code 9102, entitled “Lawn Maintenance-Commercial or Domestic & Drivers.” The class code 0042 “applies to work involving new landscaping installations whereas class code 9102 applies to work involving maintenance of existing landscaping and/or lawn maintenance.” Mr. Mays testified that class code 0042 is considered construction work, whereas class code 9102 is considered nonconstruction work for workers’ compensation purposes. Generally, if a business provides proper payroll records to support a division, the appropriate code and correlating rate would apply based on the work performed. If the payroll records are not maintained to support the division of the work performed between class code 0042 and class code 9102, the highest rate of the two classifications is applied to the employee. Ms. Murcia testified that class code 0042 and class code 9102 were applied to Native Cuts employees due to the mixed work performed (Landscaping and Lawn Maintenance) by Respondent. However, class code 9102 was applied to most of the employees. Utilizing the statutory formula for penalty calculation specified in section 440.107(7)(d)1. and rule 69L- 6.027, the total penalty was calculated based on periods of non- compliance for employees based on the dates they received payments from Respondent and were not covered for workers’ compensation. Since Mr. Lee’s exemption expired on October 30, 2016, the calculation for his work performed was limited to the period after the expiration of his exemption, November 1, 2016, through July 27, 2017. Regarding records designated as cash payments, the Department determined that the Native Cuts’ records and receipts did not validate the payroll and expenses that corresponded with the company’s cash withdrawals. Pursuant to rule 69L- 6.035(1)(k), the Department included 80 percent of cash withdrawals as wages or salaries to employees. Penalty Calculation for Imputed Payroll The Department determined the calculated penalty for Rudolfo Ramirez, David Harrington, and Mitchel Pike, the workers who were identified at the jobsite as employees on July 27, 2017. Mr. Lee was also included in the calculation of penalty for the imputed payroll. The Department maintains that the business records submitted by Respondent were insufficient to determine Respondent’s payroll for these employees during the investigation period, thus, the Department used the statutory formula to impute payroll to these employees. The Department correctly assigned a class code of 0042 and calculated a penalty of $149.20 against Respondent for failure to secure payment of workers’ compensation insurance for each of these employees. The Department also calculated the penalty for Ms. Brown, who was not at the jobsite but participated in the investigation on July 27, 2017. The Department applied a classification code 9102 to Ms. Brown. However, the evidence presented at hearing demonstrated Ms. Brown maintained records for the business and was the person identified as maintaining the wage rate information for employees. The evidence of record does not support a finding that Ms. Brown provided any landscaping or construction services to Respondent. Ms. Brown’s work, at best, could be described as clerical work. The Department introduced no evidence of an appropriate NCCI class code for Ms. Brown. Thus, the Department did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the imputed payroll related to Ms. Brown should be included for purposes of calculating the penalty. The Department did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the penalty in the amount of $19.60 attributed to Ms. Brown should be included in the penalty assessment. Penalty Calculation for Uninsured Labor Ms. Murcia testified that the class code 0042 was applied to the general category of uninsured labor, as the work performed could not be determined from the payroll records. Thus, the highest rate, class code 0042, of the two classifications for work performed by Native Cuts, is applied to these individuals. The Department correctly calculated a penalty of $17,015.10 for these employees. Penalty Calculation for Remaining Employees In addition to the penalty calculated for the imputed payroll (excluding Ms. Brown) and uninsured labor, the Department applied the appropriate class code for the work performed and correctly calculated the penalty for Native Cut employees2/ in the amount of $52,350.10. Total Penalty Calculation Ms. Murcia calculated a total penalty of $69,534.34 against Respondent for failure to secure payment of workers’ compensation insurance for each of its employees during the audit period. The amount of the penalty should be reduced by the amount attributed to Ms. Brown in the amount of $19.60. Thus, the total penalty amount that should be assessed against Native Cuts is $69,514.40. Mr. Lee paid a $1,000.00 down payment for the penalty assessed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, assessing a penalty of $68,514.74 against Native Cuts Property Management, LLC. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 2019, 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 31st day of May, 2019.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Axiom Construction Design Corporation (Axiom), failed to provide workers' compensation coverage, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the various requirements of chapter 440, Florida Statutes. Section 440.107(3) mandates, in relevant part, that employers in Florida must secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage for their employees. At all times relevant, Axiom was a small Florida corporation engaged in the construction industry, principally installing drywall. Axiom’s principal office is located at 1067 Walt Williams Road, Lakeland, Florida. Mr. Pratt is Axiom’s owner, sole corporate officer, and registered agent. On July 23, 2014, Randall Durham conducted a job site workers’ compensation compliance investigation (Compliance Investigation). Mr. Durham spoke with Mr. Pratt at a job site at 109 Cattleman Road, the new Sarasota mall. Mr. Pratt and Al Lappohn were working the job site at the new mall. Mr. Pratt had a workers’ compensation policy in place with Southeast Personnel Leasing. Mr. Lappohn did not have an exemption from workers’ compensation coverage, and he was not covered by Axiom’s Southeast Personnel Leasing policy. On July 23, 2014, Mr. Pratt, as Axiom’s representative, was hand-served a Stop-Work Order1/ and a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation (Request). This Request encompassed all of Axiom’s payroll documents, account documents, disbursements, workers’ compensation coverage policies, and professional employer organization records from January 4, 2013, through July 23, 2014. Mr. Pratt provided the certificates of liabilities, payroll and tax records for 2013, and additional business records to the Department. These records were given to Mr. Knopke to calculate the penalty. In reviewing the records, Mr. Knopke determined that Mr. Pratt, Mr. Lappohn and Frank Cutts were employees of Axiom, and that Axiom did not provide workers’ compensation coverage for them. Mr. Cutts worked for Axiom at a Family Dollar Store build-out in Orlando in early 2014. Mr. Cutts swept up after the drywall was installed in the store, and was paid $125. Axiom conceded it owed the workers’ compensation penalty based on the work Mr. Lappohn and Mr. Cutts performed. The business records provided that during the audit period Mr. Pratt had dual employment, payment being paid outside of leasing. Dual employment is when a business has a leasing policy and there is extraneous payroll that is paid outside of the leasing policy. Payments received outside of a leasing policy are considered unsecured payroll for the purposes of calculating a penalty against an employer. Mr. Knopke included Mr. Pratt’s outside distributions in the penalty calculation. The “Scopes Manual” is published by the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc. (NCCI), the nation’s most authoritative data collecting and disseminating organization for workers’ compensation. The manual contains certain codes related to the construction industry and trades considered to be within that industry. The installation of drywall, wallboard, sheetrock, plasterboard or cement board is considered to be “construction” under the relevant codes in the manual. The manual, with its codes and classifications, is relied upon in the insurance industry and has been adopted by the Department in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.021. Mr. Knopke, using the manual, determined the appropriate classification code for Respondent’s employees was 5445. Mr. Knopke applied the correct rates and used the methodology found in section 440.107(7)(d)1., and Florida Administrative Code Rules 69L-6.027 and 69L-6.028 to calculate the penalty assessment. Based upon the testimony and exhibits, the 3rd Amended Penalty Assessment in the amount of $20,221.62 is accurate and correct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, issue a final order upholding the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and assess a penalty in the amount of $20,221.62. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of June, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of June, 2015.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner was operating its restaurant business in violation of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, the Florida Workers' Compensation Law, by failing to have required workers' compensation coverage. The related issues are whether the Department should therefore issue a Stop Work Order, whether a penalty should be imposed for so operating and what the correct penalty should be.
Findings Of Fact The Department is an Agency of the State of Florida charged with enforcing the statutory requirement, specifically Section 440.107, Florida Statutes, which mandates that employers in Florida secure the payment of workers' compensation insurance coverage for the benefit of employees. The Petitioner is a restaurant operating in the vicinity of Crystal River, Florida, which opened for business sometime in the year 2005. At certain times during its operation, which are those times relevant to this proceeding, the restaurant had four or more employees, and was thus subject to the requirement to secure payment of workers' compensation for those employees. Wanda Rivera is an investigator for the Division's Bureau of Compliance. On January 12, 2007, she was referred to investigate a restaurant in Crystal River, Florida. There was another restaurant nearby, the La Paz Mexican Grill, the Petitioner's business. Because she was in the area she made a routine visit to that restaurant as well. When Ms. Rivera entered the restaurant she saw two waitresses as well as another employee and the owner of the restaurant. She made a report of her visit as well as other events and observed facts from her investigation and included them as part of a narrative in her initial investigative report. Ms. Rivera checked the Department's Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) data base by first looking up the name La Paz Mexican Grill. She spoke to the restaurant's owner, Aswaldo Vazquez, and learned that the actual corporate name was 2 Friends, Inc. She researched that name in the Division's data base and found no indication of workers' compensation coverage for that corporation. She also interviewed workers present at the restaurant. Mr. Vazquez told Ms. Rivera that there were five employees and that the restaurant did not have workers' compensation coverage. Ms. Rivera also checked the CCAS data base, as well as the Department of State, Division of Corporation's data base. She thereby discovered that Mr. Vazquez was an officer of the corporation, but that he did not have an exemption from workers' compensation coverage which corporate officers may apply for and obtain. Ms. Rivera presented her investigative findings to her supervisor and after having done so issued a Stop Work Order, Number 07-012-D3, and served it upon Mr. Vazquez. She hand wrote the Stop Work Order Number on that form, having received that number from her supervisor. She served it on Mr. Vazquez personally on that same day, January 12, 2007. Part of her training as an investigator had emphasized serving documents personally on employers. The Stop Work Order was a three part form; she gave the yellow carbon copy of the Stop Work Order to Mr. Vazquez by hand delivery and, in checking her official file in the case in preparation for hearing, she found that her file contained no yellow copy of the Stop Work Order Form, corroborating her testimony that she had personally served the yellow copy of the Stop Work Order on Mr. Vazquez on January 12, 2007. The Stop Work Order specifically stated that all business operations had to cease immediately and could not resume until the Department issued an order releasing the Stop Work Order. The Order also stated that a penalty of $1,000.00 a day would be assessed the employer who conducted business operations in violation of the Stop Work Order. Ms. Rivera and Mr. Vazquez are fluent Spanish speakers. Ms. Rivera therefore conducted her interview with Mr. Vazquez in Spanish to assure that he understood all facets of the Division's position in his situation. She answered his questions and explained to him that the Stop Work Order was to take effect immediately and that there would be a $1,000.00 dollar per day fine for working in violation of the Stop Work Order. She also issued and served a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation. The records were to be produced within five business days. Two types of records were requested: those that would show how much payroll the establishment had paid over the previous three years and those that would show exemptions. The request for records allows the employer five days to provide the documents; if no records were received within 15 days of the request, the Department could impute the gross payroll. Three weeks after serving the request on Mr. Vazquez, Ms. Rivera received some records by mail on February 2, 2007. They were insufficient for her investigation. Thus, not having received records from which she could calculate payroll and determine when the restaurant had four or more employees, Ms. Rivera, in accordance with statute, imputed the payroll and thereupon calculated a penalty of $34,240.30 based upon the imputed amount. She issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to that effect on February 5, 2007, and it was served by certified mail on Mr. Vazquez on February 7, 2007. It was also served by a process server on February 13, 2007. That Amended Order of Penalty Assessment did not reference the Stop Work Order Number nor did it reflect the date it was issued. Ms. Rivera forgot to include this information when she filled out the Order. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment did, however, have the following language: The Stop Work Order issued in this case shall remain in effect until either (a) the Division issues an order releasing the Stop Work Order upon finding that the employer has come into compliance with the coverage requirements of the workers' compensation law and pays the total penalty in full, or (b) the Division issues an Order of Conditional Release from Stop Work Order pursuant to the employer coming into compliance with the coverage requirements of the workers' compensation law and entering into a payment agreement schedule for periodic payment of penalty. On February 7, 2007, Mr. Vazquez phoned Ms. Rivera asking why his penalty was that high, stating that his accountant could provide additional records. Ms. Rivera had telephone contact at least twice with Mr. Vazquez between February 7, and March 29, 2007. When she contacted him at the restaurant, a voice would answer, "La Paz Mexican Restaurant, how may I help you?" She asked Mr. Vazquez if the restaurant was actually operating, and told him that he could not open for business while a Stop Work Order was in effect. She was assured that the restaurant was not working. Mr. Vazquez also told her that more records would be produced. On March 29, 2007, however, Ms. Rivera had not received any new records, so she visited the restaurant and found that it was open for business in violation of the Stop Work Order. Because the restaurant is open seven days a week, Ms. Rivera assessed an additional penalty of $1,000.00 per day since the Stop Work Order had been issued. She thus issued a Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment for the sum of $110,240.30. The Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment referred to Stop Work Order Number 07-012-D3, stating that the Stop Work Order had been filed on January 12, 2007, and noting that the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was dated February 5, 2007, and the Order showed an issuance date of March 29, 2007. On the next day, March 30, 2007, Ms. Rivera received more business records, from which she could calculate a penalty without imputing the payroll. Ms. Rivera calculated the new penalty at $79,690.36. Before she could issue a new penalty order, however, Mr. Vazquez contacted her and said that his restaurant had been closed for several days while he was traveling. He subsequently provided documents to Ms. Rivera that showed that he was out of the country for nine days. While 76 days had elapsed between the date the Stop Work Order was issued and the date Ms. Rivera found the restaurant had been open, Ms. Rivera determined that she would assess the penalty for only 67 days of that period. This decision was based upon Mr. Vazquez's documentation and her giving him the benefit of the doubt in accepting his representation that he had been out of the country for nine days and not operating. She then re-calculated the penalty as being $70,060.36 and issued a Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to that effect. The Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment made reference to Stop Work Order Number 07-012-D3, and notes that the Stop Work Order was issued on January 12, 2007. The Third Amended Order has "February 5, 2007," in the line on the order for "issuance date." The entry for "issuance date" on the Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is incorrect and it should have been April 3, 2007, the date the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was issued. The penalty worksheet for the Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment shows that there was $25,793.55 in payroll for the relevant portions of 2005; $8,635.30 for relevant portions of 2006 during which times the restaurant had four employees. There was $1,370.21 in payroll for the relevant first 12 days of 2007, which was up until the time the Stop Work Order was issued. Ms. Rivera did not include the payroll for periods of time when the record showed the restaurant did not have four employees and her work papers so reflect. The payroll was calculated from 2005 forward because the business opened that year. On April 4, 2007, Mr. Vazquez brought his restaurant into compliance by reducing his staff to less than four employees and he entered into an agreement with the Department whereby he would pay down 10 percent of the penalty and agree to pay the remainder in 60 interest free monthly payments. Mr. Vazquez, in effect, does not contest the Division's position that he was required to carry workers' compensation coverage during the pertinent time periods and that he did not have such coverage. In actuality he disputes the amount of the penalty because he maintains that he did not receive the Stop Work Order until March 29, 2007. Mr. Vazquez is the president of the 2 Friends, Inc., Corporation. He speaks English and opined during his testimony that he reads 60 to 70 percent of English text. He knows people who are fluent in English and has people to whom he can show documents written in English if he does not understand any part of such.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Financial Services finding that the Petitioner, 2 Friends Inc., d/b/a/ La Paz Mexican Grill, has failed to secure required workers' compensation coverage for its employees in violation of Sections 440.10(1)(a) and 440.38(1), Florida Statutes (2007), and that a penalty against that entity be accessed in the amount of $70,060.36, and that said final order provide for an acceptable installment payment arrangement whereby the amount may be paid over a period of at least 60 months at no interest. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of July, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of July, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Leon M. Boyajan, II, Esquire Leon M. Boyajan, II, P.A. 2303 West Highway 44 Inverness, Florida 34453-3809 Thomas H. Duffy, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street, 6th Floor Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Honorable Alex Sinks Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Daniel Sumner, 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 violated chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 69L-6, by failing to maintain workers' compensation coverage for its employees, and if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement that employers in the State of Florida secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage for their employees. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Respondent, Door Depot of Palm Beach, Inc., is a Florida for-profit corporation engaged in the sale and installation of doors, which is encompassed within the construction industry.2/ Ms. Morris is Respondent's owner and sole corporate officer. Failure to Secure Workers' Compensation Coverage As a result of a public referral, Petitioner initiated an investigation to determine whether Respondent had the required workers' compensation coverage for its employees. Michelle Jimerson, a Compliance Investigator employed by Petitioner, researched Petitioner's Coverage and Compliance Automated System ("CCAS") internal database regarding workers' compensation coverage and compliance, and determined that Respondent did not have current workers' compensation coverage and had not previously secured coverage. Ms. Jimerson's research further revealed that Ms. Morris, as Respondent's sole corporate officer, had a current workers' compensation exemption covering herself, and that she had maintained such exemptions since August 2002. On May 11, 2011, Ms. Jimerson conducted an on-site visit to Respondent's place of business. At that time, Petitioner issued a Request for Business Records to Respondent, seeking copies of payroll documents; bank statements; business tax receipts; check stubs and check ledgers; names of subcontractors; records of payments or disbursements to subcontractors; contracts; and proof of workers' compensation coverage for, or exemptions held by, the subcontractors. Respondent produced the requested records. From a review of the records, Ms. Jimerson determined that Respondent had contracted with three subcontractors, Breeze Image, Inc.,3/ Mike Jacobs, and Ross Whitehouse, to provide construction industry services (specifically, door repair and installation work), between April 22, 2011, and May 10, 2011. Ms. Jimerson's review of Petitioner's CCAS database revealed that none of these subcontractors was exempt from the workers' compensation coverage requirement during the period in which they contracted with Respondent to provide construction industry services, that none had secured workers' compensation coverage for themselves, and that Respondent had not secured workers' compensation coverage for them during this period. Because Respondent came into compliance with chapter 440 during Petitioner's investigation and before initiation of this enforcement action, Petitioner did not issue a Stop-Work Order.4/ Nancy Morris testified on Respondent's behalf. She admitted that Respondent had not secured workers' compensation coverage for these subcontractors. She credibly testified that she had asked if they were exempt from the workers' compensation coverage requirement, that they had told her they were, and that she had believed them. Penalty Assessment On May 24, 2011, Petitioner issued to Respondent a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation, seeking copies of payroll documents; bank statements; business tax receipts; check stubs and check ledgers; names of subcontractors; records of payments or disbursements to subcontractors; contracts; and proof of workers' compensation coverage for, or exemptions held by, the subcontractors. Respondent produced the requested documents. Using these documents, Petitioner's Penalty Calculator, Teo Morel, calculated the penalty assessment for Respondent. Section 440.107(7)(d)1., establishes a formula for determining the penalty to be assessed against an employer who fails to secure workers' compensation as required by chapter 440. Specifically, the penalty is one and a half (1.5) times the amount the employer would have paid in premium when applying approved manual rates to the employer's payroll during periods for which it failed to secure the payment of workers' compensation within the preceding three-year period, or $1000, whichever is greater. Petitioner has adopted a penalty worksheet for calculating the penalty prescribed by section 440.107(7)(d)1. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.027. Ms. Morel used the worksheet in calculating the penalty to be assessed against Respondent. Specifically, Ms. Morel identified the subcontractors for which Respondent had not secured workers' compensation and identified the applicable construction industry classification NCCI Manual code for each (here, classification code 5102). For each subcontractor, she identified the periods of noncompliance for the preceding three-year period as required by section 440.107(7)(d)1., determined the subcontractor's gross payroll amount and divided that amount by 100, then multiplied this amount by the NCCI Manual rate applicable to the 5102 classification code. This calculation yielded the workers' compensation premium Respondent should have paid for each subcontractor, had Respondent complied with chapter 440. The premium amount was then multiplied by 1.5 to determine the total penalty amount to be assessed. Pursuant to the information Respondent provided, and performing the statutorily prescribed calculation, Petitioner initially calculated the total penalty to be assessed as $20,266.59. Respondent subsequently provided additional business records consisting of raw job worksite notes. These documents showed that the subcontractors were paid a total contract amount for each job. However, the notes did not indicate the cost of materials per contract, and Respondent was unable to provide records containing this information. Because the cost of materials for each contract was indeterminable, pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.035(1)(i), Petitioner assumed that the materials cost constituted 20 percent of each contract, deducted this amount from each subcontractor's gross payroll, and recalculated the premium amount. As a result, the total penalty assessment was reduced by 20 percent, to $16,213.30. Respondent disputes the amount of the amended penalty assessment on the basis that materials costs for each contract constituted more than 20 percent of each contract's amount. However, Ms. Morris was unable to provide any evidence substantiating the cost of materials for each contract. Ms. Morris credibly testified that if Respondent is required to pay the assessed penalty of $16,213.30, it likely will be forced to go out of business. Ms. Morris fully cooperated with Petitioner throughout its compliance investigation leading to this enforcement action against Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order determining that Respondent violated the requirement in chapter 440, Florida Statutes, to secure workers' compensation coverage; imposing a total penalty assessment of $16,213.30; and providing that Petitioner will execute with Respondent a Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty, pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.025, under which Respondent shall make a down payment to Petitioner of ten percent of the total assessed penalty amount, which is $1,621.33, and shall repay the remaining penalty in 60 consecutive monthly installments. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of January, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S Cathy M. Sellers Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of January, 2012.
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.
Findings Of Fact 12. The factual allegations in the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment issued on February 17 2009, and the Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on September 4, 2009, 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 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 Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment served in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 09-042-D7, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby finds that: 1. On February 17, 2009, 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. 09-042-D7 to ROYMO, INC. The Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of rights wherein ROYMO, 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. 2. On February 17, 2009, the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment was served via personal service on ROYMO, 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 February 25, 2009, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to ROYMO, INC. in Case No. 09-042-D7. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $61,692.98 against ROYMO, INC. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein ROYMO, 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. 4. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served on ROYMO, INC. by personal service on February 25, 2009. A copy of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit B” and incorporated herein by reference. 5. On March 10, 2009, ROYMO, INC. filed a timely Petition for a 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. 09- 1388. 6. On September 4, 2009, the Department issued a Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to ROYMO, INC. in Case No. 09-042-D7. The Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $29,911.26 against ROYMO, INC. The Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served on ROYMO, INC. through the Division of Administrative Hearings. A copy of the Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit C” and is incorporated herein by reference. 7. On November 6, 2009, ROYMO, INC. filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal in DOAH Case No. 09-1388. A copy of the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal filed by ROYMO, INC. is attached hereto as “Exhibit D.” 8. On November 9, 2009 Administrative Law Judge Daniel M. Kilbride entered an Order Closing File, relinquishing jurisdiction to the Department. A copy of the November 9, 2009 Order Closing File is attached hereto as “Exhibit E.”
The Issue Whether the Respondent, Steve Mundine Construction, Inc., timely challenged the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment and, if not, whether pursuant to the doctrine of equitable tolling Respondent’s untimely filed challenge should be accepted.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of enforcing and assuring employers meet the requirements of chapter 440, Florida Statutes. The law in Florida requires employers to maintain appropriate workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. At all times material to this case, the Respondent was doing business in Florida and was subject to the requirements of the law. On May 6, 2015, Stephanie Scarton, an investigator employed by the Petitioner, stopped at one of the Respondent’s construction sites and initiated an investigation as to whether the Respondent maintained appropriate workers’ compensation for the two employees found at the job site. After determining that the requisite documentation for workers’ compensation coverage was not produced, Ms. Scarton issued a Stop-Work Order (Petitioner’s Exhibit A). The Stop- Work Order advised the Respondent that he, Steven Mundine, d/b/a, Steve Mundine Construction, Inc., was in violation of Florida law by “failing to obtain coverage that meets the requirements of chapter 440, F.S., and the Insurance Code.” Petitioner’s Exhibit A included a Notice of Rights that provided, in part: You have a right to administrative review of this action by the Department under sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. * * * FAILURE TO FILE A PETITION WITHIN THETWENTY-ONE (21) DAYS CONSTITUTES A WAIVER OF YOUR RIGHT TO ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OF THEAGENCY ACTION. [Emphasis in original] In response to the Stop-Work Order, the Respondent met with Cathy Nunez on May 7, 2016, and executed an Agreed Order of Conditional Release from Stop-Work Order (Petitioner’s Exhibit B). In addition to signing the agreed order, the Respondent submitted an affidavit that provided: I Steve Mundine have terminated Bill Busch and Karl G. Kerr. I am no longer conducting business as Steve Mundine Const. Inc. I have opened a new company Paradigm Building, LLC but will not work til we applied and received exemptions. Including Richard Hans. Under the terms of the Agreed Order of Conditional Release from Stop-Work Order the Respondent represented that he would remit periodic payments of the remaining penalty amount pursuant to a Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty with the Department or pay the remaining penalty amount in full within 28 days after the service of the Stop-Work Order. As a condition of receiving the conditional release the Respondent remitted $1,000.00 toward the penalty amount. In order to assist the Petitioner with the accurate calculation of the penalty that would be due, the Respondent was advised that he needed to submit records. When the Respondent asked Cathy Nunez if he needed to retain a lawyer, she did not tell him that he did not need a lawyer. She advised him that a lawyer was not required to produce the records that were needed to make the penalty calculation. The Respondent did produce records to the Petitioner and in turn an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment (Petitioner’s Exhibit C) was completed that advised the Respondent that he owed a total penalty of $63,837.82. Cathy Nunez hand-delivered the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to the Respondent on July 24, 2015. Included was a second Notice of Rights that advised the Respondent of his right to challenge the assessment. Additionally, the Respondent was advised that a petition to seek administrative review of the action had to be filed within twenty-one days. After considering additional records submitted by the Respondent, the Petitioner prepared a Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment (Petitioner’s Exhibit D) to itemize the revised amount owed by the Respondent. The Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment ordered the Respondent to pay a total penalty of $47,006.28. Stephanie Scarton delivered the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to the Respondent on December 22, 2015. At the same time (December 22, 2015), Ms. Scarton presented the Respondent with a Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty (Petitioner’s Exhibit E). The payment agreement acknowledged that the Respondent had previously remitted $1,000.00 toward his penalty and allowed for the remaining $46,006.28 to be repaid over the course of 60 monthly payments. The Respondent did not agree to sign the payment agreement. Accordingly, a blank agreement was left with the Respondent, not the one providing for the payments previously described. On December 22, 2015, the Respondent disagreed with the repayment amount and believed the penalty had been incorrectly calculated. On December 22, 2015, the Respondent knew he had a limited amount of time to challenge the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. On December 22, 2015, Ms. Scarton hand-delivered to the Respondent the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment including a Notice of Rights. The only documents not left with the Respondent on December 22, 2015, were copies of the payment agreement signed by Ms. Scarton. On December 22, 2015, the Notice of Rights provided to the Respondent was identical to the Notice of Rights previously provided to him. Before leaving the Respondent on December 22, 2015, Ms. Scarton reminded the Respondent he had a limited amount of time to file a petition seeking administrative review of the agency action. The Petitioner did not misrepresent the procedural requirements to challenge the agency action, did not lull the Respondent into a false sense of security or inaction, and did not advise the Respondent as to whether he should retain a lawyer in connection with an administrative review of the penalty assessment. The weight of the credible evidence supports the finding that when the Respondent eventually filed a petition to challenge the agency action, it was beyond the 21 days allowed by law.
Recommendation Based upon 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 the Respondent’s request for administrative review of the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was not timely filed. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of May, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH 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 27th day of May, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Christopher Ivey Miller, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) John Laurance Reid, Esquire Dickens Reid PLLC 517 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Young J. Kwon, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Michael Joseph Gordon, Esquire Florida Department of Financial Services Workers Compensation Compliance 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact 14. The factual allegations contained in the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment issued on June 14, 2008, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on July 21, 2008, and the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on August 20, 2008, 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 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 for Specific Worksite Only and Order of Penalty Assessment and the Amended Orders of Penalty Assessment served in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 08-185-D1, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby finds that: 1. On July 14, 2008, 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. 08-185-D1 to F. PALHANO CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION (hereinafter “F. PALHANO”.). The Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein F. PALHANO 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 July 14, 2008, the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment was served by personal service on F. PALHANO. 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 July 21, 2008, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in Case No. 08-185-D1 to F. PALHANO. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $24,758.10 against F. PALHANO. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein F. PALHANO. 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, On August 11, 2008, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served on F. PALHANO by personal service. A copy of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit B” and incorporated herein by reference. 5. On August 13, 2008, F. PALHANO filed a petition for administrative review with the Department. . | 6. On August 20, 2008, the Department issued a Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment 1 in Case No. 08- 185-D1 to F. PALHANO. The Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $25,846.54 against F. PALHANO. The Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein F. PALHANO was advised that . any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, F lorida Statutes. 7. On August 21, 2008, the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served on F. PALHANO. by personal service. A copy of the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit C” and incorporated herein by reference. 8. On August 26, 2008, the employer entered into a Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty, in which the employer agreed to pay its penalty to the Department in set installments. The employer was granted an Order of Conditional Release From Stop-Work Order, which notified the employer that should the employer become delinquent on the Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty, the Stop-Work Order would be reinstated. 9. The petition for administrative review was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings on September 5, 2008, and the matter was assigned DOAH Case No. 08- 4396. 10. On February 5, 2009, the Administrative Law Judge issued an Order Granting Continuance, requiring the parties to advise the Administrative Law Judge of the case’s status no later than February 13, 2009. 11. The parties did not advise the Administrative Law Judge of the case’s status on or before February 13, 2009. On March 5, 2009, the Administrative Law Judge issued an Order Closing File, dismissing the case and closing its file at the Division of Administrative Hearings. A copy of the Order Closing File is attached hereto as “Exhibit D” and incorporated herein by reference. 12. On June 3, 2009, the Department reinstated the Stop-Work Order issued to F. PALHANO for failure to make timely payments on the Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty. The last payment made by F. PALHANO was on January 5, 2009, leaving an outstanding balance of $21,696.78. 13. On July 27, 2009, F. PALHANO filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Petition for Formal Hearing with the Division of Administrative Hearings. A copy of the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Petition for Formal Hearing is attached hereto as “Exhibit E” and incorporated herein by reference.
