The Issue Whether Respondent timely filed a written request for an administrative hearing, and, if not, whether the doctrine of equitable tolling provides a defense to the applicable deadline for filing a petition for hearing.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with enforcing workers’ compensation coverage requirements in Florida, including the requirement that employers secure workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. See § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Following an investigation to determine whether Respondent had secured sufficient workers’ compensation insurance coverage, the Department served a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment on Respondent on September 10, 2015. The Department served an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on Respondent on October 15, 2015. The Department served a 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment (the “Penalty Assessment”) on Respondent on December 14, 2015. With the Penalty Assessment, the Department also provided Respondent a document entitled “Notice of Rights.” The Notice of Rights advised, in pertinent part: You have a right to administrative review of this action by the Department under sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. To obtain review, you must file a written petition requesting review. * * * You must file the petition for hearing so that it is received by the Department within twenty- one (21) days of your receipt of this agency action. The petition must be filed with Julie Jones, DFS Agency Clerk, Department of Financial Services, 612 Larson Building, 200 East Gaines Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399-0390. FAILURE TO FILE A PETITION WITHIN THE TWENTY- ONE (21) DAYS CONSTITUTES A WAIVER OF YOUR RIGHT TO ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OF THE AGENCY ACTION. Dale Russell, Compliance Investigator with the Department, personally served the Penalty Assessment along with the Notice of Rights on Respondent. As established by the Certificate of Service on the Penalty Assessment, as well as Mr. Russell’s testimony, Mr. Russell hand-delivered the documents to Respondent on December 14, 2015. Mr. Russell personally served the documents on Jose Fuentes, Respondent’s owner and general manager. Mr. Russell also reviewed with Mr. Fuentes the Notice of Rights. Mr. Russell discussed the import of the 21-day deadline to request a hearing to dispute the Penalty Assessment. Twenty-one days after December 14, 2015, is January 4, 2016. Respondent submitted to the Department a letter requesting review of the Penalty Assessment. Respondent’s letter is dated January 11, 2016. The Department received Respondent’s letter on January 12, 2016. At the final hearing, Mr. Fuentes testified regarding his handling of the Penalty Assessment and request for a hearing on behalf of Respondent. Mr. Fuentes acknowledged that he personally received the Penalty Assessment from Mr. Russell on December 14, 2015. Mr. Fuentes explained that his delay in submitting his letter to the Department was based on difficulties his family was experiencing at that time. His wife was facing surgery. Consequently, he was focused on her medical concerns, as well as caring for their three children. Unfortunately, he lost track of the time in which to file the petition. Based on the evidence set forth at the final hearing, the Department established that Respondent did not file its petition requesting administrative review with the Department within 21 days of Respondent’s receipt of the Penalty Assessment. Therefore, the legal issue to determine is whether Respondent’s petition should be dismissed as untimely filed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, enter a final order dismissing Respondent’s request for an administrative hearing as untimely filed. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of June, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of June, 2016.
The Issue The issue is whether the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment entered by Petitioner on July 15, 2009, and subsequently amended twice, should be upheld.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement of the Workers' Compensation Law that employers secure the payment of compensation for their employees who suffer work-related injuries. Respondent, on July 15, 2009, was operating in the construction industry as a for-profit corporation, with an active status. On July 15, 2009, Petitioner's investigator, John Wheeler, investigated Respondent for compliance with the Florida Workers' Compensation Law at 36 East Burgess Road, Pensacola, Florida 32504 (hereinafter "worksite") during a random inspection. On July 15, 2009, at the worksite, Petitioner's investigator interviewed and recorded the names of four individuals performing a roofing job as Benjamin H. Bell, Christopher T. Bell, Willie Lanier, and Curtis Jenkins. Utilizing the Scopes Manual published by the National Council on Compensation Insurance and adopted by Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.021 as guidance, Petitioner's investigator determined that roofing is within the construction industry and assigned the appropriate class code (5551) to the activities being performed at the worksite. Petitioner's investigator determined that both Benjamin and Christopher Bell were officers of Respondent corporation, and had hired Mr. Lanier and Mr. Jenkins to work the roofing job with them. Petitioner's investigator, using the Department of Financial Services' Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS), determined that while both Benjamin and Christopher Bell had valid Certificates of Election to be exempt from Florida Workers' Compensation Law, neither Mr. Lanier nor Mr. Jenkins had similar certificates of exemption. Using the CCAS, Petitioner's investigator was unable to locate proof of insurance securing the payment of workers' compensation coverage by Respondent that would cover Mr. Lanier or Mr. Jenkins for the job at issue. On July 15, 2009, Petitioner's investigator issued a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment to Petitioner for failure to meet the requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and the Florida Insurance Code. The Order required Respondent to cease all business operations and assessed a penalty equal to 1.5 times the amount the employer would have paid in premium when applying the approved manual rates to the employer's payroll during periods for which it failed to secure the payment of workers' compensation against Respondent for the preceding three-year period, pursuant to Subsection 440.107(7)(d), Florida Statutes. On July 15, 2009, Petitioner's investigator issued to Respondent a Division of Workers' Compensation Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation (hereinafter "Request"). Respondent responded to the Request and provided Petitioner's investigator with the requested records on July 21, 2009. On August 6, 2009, Petitioner issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessing a new penalty of $48,689.27 against Respondent, based on Respondent's business records. On November 20, 2009, Petitioner issued a Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment reducing Respondent's penalty to $10,492.94. Petitioner's investigator issued the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment after having learned from Respondent that many of the amounts considered for the penalty in the Amended Penalty Assessment should not be deemed payroll for uncovered or non-exempt workers. The roofing job at issue at 36 Burgess Road, resulted from a verbal contract entered into between Benjamin and Christopher Bell, on behalf of Respondent, and Larry Scapecchi, a Florida-certified roofing and general contractor. Respondent's president, Mr. Baehr, was not aware of the verbal contract entered into by Respondent's vice presidents, Benjamin and Christopher Bell, to perform the roofing job that gave rise to this proceeding. Mr. Baehr did not authorize the contract into which Benjamin and Christopher Bell entered. In his 30 years in the construction business, Mr. Baehr had never entered into a verbal contract to perform construction work. All of contracts for construction jobs were written. Benjamin and Christopher Bell, as officers of Respondent corporation, had real or apparent authority to enter into the contract for the roofing job, and Mr. Larry Scapecchi entered into the contract with them based upon his good-faith belief in their authority to contract on behalf of the corporation. Benjamin and Christopher Bell, on behalf of Respondent, allowed two workers, Willie Lanier and Curtis Jenkins, to be employed on the Burgess Road roofing job who were neither exempt from the requirements of Florida's Workers' Compensation Law nor covered by a policy of workers' compensation insurance for the work they were performing in Pensacola, Florida. In response to Petitioner's Request for Production of Documents, since no payroll information was supplied by Respondent to Petitioner for the two workers, Willie Lanier and Curtis Jenkins, their salary had to be imputed based upon the two days they were found to be performing roofing work at the worksite. The remainder of the salary used in calculating the penalty to be assessed was based upon the payroll records for non-exempt and non-covered employees from January 2007 until the date of the inspection, July 15, 2009. The premium due was calculated by multiplying one percent of the gross payroll times the approved manual rate which resulted in the amount of $6,995.28. The penalty was then determined by multiplying the amount of premium due by 1.5, resulting in the final penalty due of $10,492.92. Based upon the payroll records produced by Respondent in response to Petitioner's request, a penalty in the amount of $10,492.92 is due to Petitioner. This amount is $0.02 less than the amount calculated by Petitioner and may be the result of rounding errors.
Recommendation Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order that adopts the Stop-Work Order and Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessing a penalty of $10,492.92. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of December, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 9th day of December, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Timothy L. Newhall, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 John Baehr Carolina Realty and Development Company, Inc. 608 Sheppard Drive Pensacola, Florida 32507 Honorable Alex Sink Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 Benjamin Diamond, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by failing to secure the payment of workers' compensation, as alleged in the Stop-Work Order and 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and, if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement that employers in the State of Florida secure the payment of workers' compensation for their employees and corporate officers. Respondent, Shriji Krupa, Inc., is a Florida corporation engaged in business operations as a gas station (self-service and convenience-retail) in the State of Florida. Mr. Hemant Parikh, one of Respondent's corporate officers, testified that, on November 20, 2012, Respondent was inspected by Petitioner's Compliance Investigator, Mike Fuller. Mr. Fuller advised Mr. Parikh that Respondent needed to close the store. According to Mr. Hemant Parikh, at the time of inspection, Respondent had two corporate officers and four additional employees. Mr. Parikh explained that, at the time of inspection, Respondent had two store locations with three employees working at each locale. Mr. Shrikant Parikh, another corporate officer, testified that, at the time of inspection, Respondent was operating under the mistaken belief that its corporate officers were exempt from workers' compensation coverage. Pursuant to the record evidence, on November 28, 2012, Mr. Fuller served a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment on Respondent. Pursuant to the Stop-Work Order, Respondent was ordered to cease all business operations for all worksites in the state based on the following: Failure to secure the payment of workers' compensation in violation of sections 440.10(1), 440.38(1), and 440.107(2) F.S., by: failing to obtain coverage that meets the requirements of Chapter 440, F.S., and the Insurance Code. After receiving the Stop-Work Order, on that same date, Respondent obtained workers' compensation coverage with an effective date of November 29, 2012. Respondent has maintained appropriate coverage to date. Following the Stop-Work Order, Respondent submitted various records for Petitioner's review.2/ Petitioner's sole witness was Ms. Lynne Murcia. Ms. Murcia works in Petitioner's Bureau of Compliance wherein she calculates penalties for those employers found in violation of the workers' compensation laws. Ms. Murcia performs approximately 200 penalty calculations per year. Ms. Murcia first became involved with Respondent in January 2013, when she received an assignment to perform a penalty calculation. Ms. Murcia reviewed all records previously submitted by Respondent. From the records received, Ms. Murcia was able to determine that Respondent employed four or more employees on a regular basis. Ms. Murcia explained that "employees" include corporate officers that have not elected to be exempt from workers' compensation. After conducting a search within the Florida Division of Corporations, Ms. Murcia was able to determine that no exemptions existed for Respondent's corporate officers. Ms. Murcia further conducted a proof of coverage search via Petitioner's Coverage and Compliance Automated System ("CCAS"), which is a database that contains all insurance coverage and exemptions for each employer throughout the State of Florida. The search revealed that Respondent possessed appropriate coverage from November 29, 2012, to the present; however, no prior coverage was indicated. Ms. Murcia conducted a penalty assessment for the non- compliance period of November 29, 2009, through November 28, 2012. From the records submitted by Respondent, Ms. Murcia correctly identified Respondent's employees and gross wages paid during the penalty period. All of the individuals listed on the Penalty Worksheet of the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, dated August 27, 2014, were "employees" (as that term is defined in section 440.02(15)(a), Florida Statutes) of Respondent during the period of noncompliance listed on the penalty worksheet. From a description of the Respondent's business operations, Ms. Murcia determined Respondent's classification code. She explained that classification codes are established by the National Council of Compensation Insurance ("NCCI"). A classification code is a four-digit code number that is assigned to a specific group of tasks, duties, and responsibilities for a specific grouping of business. Ms. Murcia further testified that the classification codes are associated with a manual rate which is the actual dollar amount of risk associated with a particular code.3/ The manual rates are also established by NCCI. Class Code 8061, used on the penalty worksheet attached to the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and as defined by the NCCI Scopes Manual, is the correct occupational classification for Respondent. From the assigned classification code number, 8061, Ms. Murcia calculated the appropriate manual rate for the penalty period. The manual rates used on the penalty worksheet attached to the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment are the correct manual rates. The total penalty of $21,205.19 is the correct penalty for the employees listed on the penalty worksheet attached to the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, enter a final order determining that Respondent Shriji Krupa, Inc., violated the requirement in chapter 440, Florida Statutes, to secure workers' compensation coverage, and imposing a total penalty assessment of $21,205.19. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S TODD P. RESAVAGE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of October, 2014.
The Issue Whether David Cooper’s Construction, Inc. (“Respondent”), failed to secure the payment of workers’ compensation insurance coverage for its employees; and, if so, whether the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (“Petitioner” or “Department”), correctly calculated the penalty to be assessed against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with enforcing the statutory requirement that employers in Florida secure workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. See § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Respondent is a Florida corporation engaged in the business of residential construction in Port St. Joe, Florida. At all times relevant hereto, Carl Woodall was a workers’ compensation compliance investigator employed by the Department. Employers may comply with the workers’ compensation coverage requirement by obtaining a workers’ compensation insurance policy or an employee leasing agreement. Corporate officers and members of limited liability companies can elect an exemption from workers’ compensation coverage. See § 440.05, Fla. Stat. On August 12, 2016, Mr. Woodall made an unannounced, random inspection of a worksite at 2912 Garrison Avenue in Port St. Joe, Florida. Mr. Woodall observed two men on the roof of an existing structure at that address who appeared to be framing an addition to the structure. At Mr. Woodall’s request, the two men identified themselves as David Cooper and Macon Stewart. Mr. Cooper identified himself as Respondent’s owner and stated that Mr. Stewart was working for him. Mr. Cooper informed Mr. Woodall that he paid Mr. Stewart by check at the rate of $10 per hour. While at the worksite, Mr. Woodall checked the Coverage and Compliance Automated System (“CCAS”) database, which tracks workers’ compensation insurance coverage and exemption data for employers in Florida. Mr. Woodall’s search of CCAS revealed that Respondent did not have a workers’ compensation insurance policy to cover its employees nor an employee leasing agreement. The search also revealed that Mr. Stewart did not have an active workers’ compensation exemption. Mr. Woodall personally served Mr. Cooper with a Stop-Work Order (“SWO”) and Order of Penalty Assessment on August 12, 2016. Respondent complied with the SWO by making a $1,000 down payment toward the penalty assessment (which had yet to be calculated) and agreeing not to allow Mr. Stewart to work for Respondent until such time as Mr. Stewart obtained an exemption. The Order of Penalty Assessment includes a Request for Production of Business Records (“Request”) which could be used to calculate the amount of the penalty. In response to the Request, Mr. Cooper provided the Department with billing statements, handwritten time sheets, and certificates of exemption for certain employees. Lynne Murcia is a Department penalty auditor. She is tasked with reviewing business records provided by employers and calculating penalties for employers who have been notified they are in violation of workers’ compensation coverage requirements. Ms. Murcia was assigned to calculate the penalty to be assessed against Respondent. Ms. Murcia began by reviewing Respondent’s business records for the audit period, which is the two-year period immediately preceding the date of the SWO. See § 440.107(7)(d), Fla. Stat. The audit period in this case is from February 1, 2015, through January 31, 2017. The Department’s penalty is based on the employer’s payroll to employees during any periods during the audit period in which the employer did not provide workers’ compensation insurance coverage for its employees (“the period of non-compliance”). In this case, the period of non-compliance is the same as the audit period. An employer’s payroll is the amount of wages or other compensation made to employees during the period of non-compliance. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.035. Transactions that are considered payroll include direct payment for services rendered, as well as outstanding loans, reimbursements, bonuses, and profit-sharing. Id. Based upon the records received from Respondent, Ms. Murcia identified Respondent’s employees during the period of non-compliance as Joseph Turner, Linda Cooper, and Macon Stewart.2 Compensation paid to those employees during the period of non- compliance was as follows: Joseph Turner, $11,740; Linda Cooper, $2,178; and Macon Stewart, $60. Thus, Respondent’s gross payroll for the period of non-compliance was $13,978. Next, Ms. Murcia consulted the Scopes Manual published by the National Council on Compensation Insurance (“NCCI”) to assign a class code to each employee. The class codes correspond with the type of work performed by an employee and establish the manual rate for workers’ compensation insurance for that type of work. Based upon Mr. Woodall’s observations of the work being performed at the worksite, Ms. Murcia assigned NCCI class code 5645, Carpentry, to Mr. Stewart. 2 Ms. Murcia initially identified additional employees whose wages were included in the Second and Third Amended Orders of Penalty Assessment. For purposes of this Recommended Order, the relevant payroll is that identified in the Fourth Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. Based on Ms. Cooper’s description of her job duties, Ms. Murcia assigned NCCI class code 8810, Clerical, to Ms. Cooper. Respondent’s records did not identify the type of work performed by Mr. Turner. When the business records do not identify the type of work performed by an employee, the Department must apply to the employee the highest manual rate associated with any employee’s activities based on the investigator’s personal observation of work activities. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.035(4). Ms. Murcia assigned class code 5645, Carpentry, to Mr. Turner because that class code corresponds with a higher manual rate than 8810, Clerical. Using the gross payroll to each employee, multiplied by the applicable manual rate, Respondent would have paid $1,897.51 in workers’ compensation insurance premiums to cover its employees during the period of non-compliance (“the avoided premium”). The statutory penalty to be assessed is twice the avoided premium. See § 440.107(7)(d)1., Fla. Stat. Ms. Murcia calculated the penalty to be assessed as $3,795. Ms. Murcia applied the correct approved manual rates and correctly utilized the methodology specified in section 440.107(7) and Florida Administrative Code Rules 69L-6.027 and 69L-6.035 to determine the penalty to be imposed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, finding that David Cooper’s Construction, Inc., violated the workers’ compensation insurance statute and assessing a penalty of $3,795. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of January, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of January, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: David Cooper David Cooper’s Construction, Inc. 2449 Hayes Avenue Port St. Joe, Florida 32456 Diane Wint, Agency Clerk Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Service Room 612.14, Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 Rean Knopke, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent violated Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by failing to obtain workers' compensation insurance, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
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 as required by Section 440.107, Florida Statutes (2008). Respondent is a Florida Corporation that engages in the painting business. Abner Gonzalez is Respondent's President. Painting is a workplace operation that satisfies the criteria of the term "construction industry" as set forth in the Basic Manual of the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc. (NCCI). On May 15, 2009, Petitioner's investigator, Allen DiMaria conducted an investigation at the intersection of Normandy Boulevard and Guardian Drive in Jacksonville, Florida. Mr. DiMaria observed one worker on a ladder and another worker on the ground painting a block and masonry entrance to a development. The workers at the site identified themselves to Mr. DiMaria as Abner Gonzalez and César Silvestre. Mr. Gonzalez stated that Respondent had a contract to paint the wall and that he and Mr. Silvestre were Respondent's employees. Mr. Gonzalez stated that, as a corporate officer, he had an exemption for workers' compensation. Mr. Gonzalez admitted that Respondent had not secured workers' compensation for Mr. Silvestre. Mr. DiMaria was able to confirm that Mr. Gonzalez had a current valid construction exemption, specifically for painting. However, Mr. Gonzalez did not have a painting exemption for the entirety of the prior three years. On May 15, 2009, Mr. DiMaria issued and personally served on Respondent a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment for failure to comply with statutory requirements. Mr. DiMaria also issued Respondent a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation. Because Respondent did not promptly provide Petitioner with the requested business records, Petitioner's staff imputed Respondent's payroll and calculated the penalty as the average weekly wage rate multiplied by 1.5. pursuant to Section 440.107, Florida Statutes. Petitioner then issued the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in the amount of $26,180.24 on June 11, 2009. Respondent subsequently provided Petitioner with business records. The records included Respondent's bank statements for the prior three years and Respondent's 2007 Employer's Quarterly Federal Tax Returns. The records also showed that Respondent provided employment without workers' compensation insurance to persons other than Mr. Gonzalez and Mr. Silvestre during the prior three years. On June 26, 2009, Petitioner issued the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment based upon Respondent's business records in the amount of $7,641.14. The Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, showing the reduced penalty, was served on Respondent by certified mail.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent issue a final order affirming the Stop-Work Order and Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in the amount of $7,641.14. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of October, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of October, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Paige Billings Shoemaker, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 Abner Gonzales 1924 Firefly Drive Green Cove Springs, Florida 32043 Tracy Beal, Agency Clerk Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 Benjamin Diamond, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307 Honorable Alex Sink Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether Respondent violated chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2016), by failing to secure payment of workers’ compensation coverage, as alleged in the Stop-Work Order (“SWO”) and Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment (“Third AOPA”); and, if so, whether Petitioner correctly calculated the proposed penalty assessment against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence admitted at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: Background The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement of the Workers' Compensation Law that employers secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage for their employees and corporate officers. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. The Department is the agency responsible for conducting random inspections of jobsites and investigating complaints concerning potential violations of workers’ compensation rules. Gregg Construction is a corporation engaged in business in the State of Florida. Gregg Construction has been operating as a business since November 9, 2007. William Gregg is the owner of Gregg Construction and its sole employee. The address of record for Gregg Construction is 166 Big White Oak Lane, Crawfordville, Florida 32327. On June 15, 2017, the Department’s investigator, Lewis Johnson, conducted a routine visit to a jobsite to conduct a compliance investigation. Mr. Johnson observed Mr. Gregg use a table saw, measure, and cut a piece of wood. Mr. Johnson then observed Mr. Gregg nail the wood to the exterior wall of the home at the jobsite. After Mr. Johnson inquired about the work Mr. Gregg was performing, Mr. Gregg ultimately told Mr. Johnson that he was working as a subcontractor for Respondent. Based on Mr. Johnson’s observations, Mr. Gregg was performing construction-related work at the job site. Mr. Johnson then conducted a search of the Department’s Coverage and Compliance Automated System (“CCAS”), which revealed that Respondent did not have active workers’ compensation coverage for Mr. Gregg. Based on the results of his investigation, on May 10, 2017, Mr. Johnson issued a SWO to Respondent for failure to maintain workers’ compensation coverage for its employees. On May 10, 2017, Mr. Johnson hand-served a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculations (“Records Request”) on Respondent. The Records Request directed Respondent to produce business records for the time period of May 10, 2015, through May 11, 2017. While Respondent provided tax returns, it did not provide sufficient business records to the Department. Penalty Assessment To calculate the penalty assessment, the Department uses a two-year auditing period looking back from the date of the SWO, May 10, 2017, also known as the look-back period. Generally, the Department uses business records to calculate the penalty assessment. If the employer does not produce records sufficient to determine payroll for employees, the Department uses imputed payroll to assess the penalty as required by section 440.107(7)(e) and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.028. Eunika Jackson, a Department penalty auditor, was assigned to calculate the penalty assessment for Respondent. Based upon Mr. Johnson’s observations at the jobsite on May 10, 2017, Ms. Jackson assigned National Council on Compensation Insurance (“NCCI”) classification code 5645 to calculate the penalty. Classification code 5645 applies to work involving carpentry. Ms. Jackson applied the approved manual rates for classification 5645 for the work Mr. Johnson observed Mr. Gregg perform. The application of the rates was utilized by the methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)1. and rule 69L- 6.027 to determine the penalty assessment. The manual rate applied in this case was $15.91 for the period of May 11, 2015, through December 31, 2017; and $16.92 for the period of January 1, 2016, through June 10, 2017. The statewide average weekly wage, effective January 1, 2017, was used to calculate the penalty assessment. Mr. Johnson discovered that Mr. Gregg previously held an exemption, which expired on April 26, 2013. Although Mr. Gregg currently has an exemption, his exemption was not in effect during the audit period. On June 6, 2017, the Department issued its first AOPA that ordered Respondent to pay a penalty of $46,087.72, pursuant to section 440.107(7)(d). On August 1, 2017, Petitioner issued the Second AOPA based upon records submitted by Respondent, which reduced the penalty assessment to $14,752.62. After this matter was referred to the Division, on January 23, 2018, Petitioner filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Order of Penalty Assessment and issued the Third AOPA based upon records submitted by Respondent. Based on the Department’s calculation, the record demonstrates that the penalty assessment, based on records provided by Respondent, would be $9,785.50.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, enter a final order finding the following: that Respondent failed to secure and maintain workers’ compensation coverage for Mr. Gregg; and that Respondent shall pay a penalty of $9,785.50.1/ DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of March, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of March, 2018.
The Issue Whether KP Roofing Masters, LLC ("Respondent"), failed to secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage for its employees, and if so, whether the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation ("Department"), correctly calculated the penalty imposed against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with enforcing the requirement of chapter 440 that employers in Florida secure workers' compensation coverage for their employees. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Respondent was a business providing services in the construction industry. Its principal office is located at 7100 Northwest 12th Street, Suite 210, Miami, Florida 33126. The Investigation. On September 26, 2014, the Department's compliance investigator, Cabrera, observed two individuals performing roofing work on a house in Coral Gables, Florida. Investigator Cabrera interviewed the individuals, identified as Rodolfo Moscoso and Jairo Alvarado. Both men informed Cabrera that they worked for Respondent. Cabrera then checked the permit board located at the jobsite and confirmed that Respondent pulled the permit for the roofing work. After gathering the information at the jobsite, Cabrera consulted the Division of Corporations’ website to determine, inter alia, the identity of Respondent's corporate officers. Cabrera found that Jorge Cappelleti ("Cappelleti") was Respondent's sole corporate officer. Cabrera then consulted the Department's Coverage and Compliance Automated System ("CCAS") for proof of workers' compensation coverage and for exemptions associated with Respondent. An exemption is a method in which a corporate officer can exempt himself from the requirements of chapter 440. See § 440.05, Fla. Stat. (2014). CCAS is the Department's internal database that contains workers' compensation insurance policy information and exemption information. Insurance providers are required to report coverage and cancellation information, which is then input into CCAS. Cabrera's CCAS search revealed that Respondent did not have a workers' compensation policy or an employee leasing policy. Cabrera additionally discovered that Cappelleti had a valid exemption. Cabrera then called Cappelleti who confirmed that the two men at the jobsite were his employees and that the employees were not covered by workers' compensation insurance. Based on the information gathered, on September 26, 2014, Cabrera issued Respondent a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment. On September 29, 2014, Cabrera served Respondent with the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment. Cabrera simultaneously served Respondent with the Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation ("BRR"). The BRR requested documents that would enable the Department to determine Respondent's payroll for the time period of September 27, 2012, through September 26, 2014. In response to the BRR, Respondent ultimately provided the Department with bank statements, check details, a general ledger, and other records. Penalty Calculation. In October 2014, the Department assigned Penalty Auditor Ruzzo to calculate the penalty assessed against Respondent. Ruzzo reviewed the business records produced by Respondent and properly identified the amount of gross payroll paid to Respondent's employees on which workers' compensation premiums had not been paid. Ruzzo researched Respondent and Respondent's subcontractors to determine those periods when they were not compliant with chapter 440 during the audit period. Ruzzo determined that Respondent was not compliant for the period of September 27, 2012, through September 26, 2014. However, Respondent's corporate officer was not included in the penalty for the periods in which he had an exemption. Additionally, Respondent's compliant subcontractors were not included in the penalty. The business records ultimately produced by Respondent were sufficient for Ruzzo to calculate a penalty for the entire audit period, except for September 26, 2014. For that day, Ruzzo imputed the payroll. On June 2, 2015, based on Ruzzo's calculations, the Department issued a 4th Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to Respondent. On September 1, 2015, the 4th Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served on Respondent. The 4th Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a penalty of $68,525.42. For the penalty assessment calculation, Ruzzo consulted the classification codes listed in the Scopes® Manual, which has been adopted by the Department of Financial Services through Florida Administrative Code Rules 69L-6.021 and 69L-6.031. Classification codes are assigned to various occupations to assist in the calculation of workers' compensation insurance premiums. Ruzzo assigned the class codes based on information provided to him by Cappelleti. Ruzzo then utilized the corresponding approved manual rates for those classification codes and the related periods of non-compliance. Ruzzo applied the correct approved manual rates and correctly utilized the methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)l. and rules 69L-6.027 and 69L-6.028 to determine the penalty. The Penalty Associated With Subcontractor Emerald. Respondent only disputes the portion of the penalty associated with its subcontractor, Emerald, in the amount of $8,434.86 for the period of non-compliance from January 1, 2014, through April 8, 2014. Section 440.10(1) provides in relevant part: In case a contractor sublets any part or parts of his or her contract work to a subcontractor or subcontractors, all of the employees of such contractor and subcontractor or subcontractors engaged on such contract work shall be deemed to be employed in one and the same business or establishment, and the contractor shall be liable for, and shall secure, the payment of compensation to all such employees, except to employees of a subcontractor who has secured such payment. A contractor shall require a subcontractor to provide evidence of workers’ compensation insurance. A subcontractor who is a corporation and has an officer who elects to be exempt as permitted under this chapter shall provide a copy of his or her certificate of exemption to the contractor. Noticeably absent from the statute is the time period within which this evidence of coverage must be provided to the contractor or the nature of the required evidence. Rule 69L-6.032(1) provides: In order for a contractor who is not securing the payment of compensation pursuant to Section 440.38(1)(a), F.S. to satisfy its obligation to obtain evidence of workers’ compensation insurance or a Certificate of Election to Be Exempt from a subcontractor pursuant to Section 440.10(1)(c), F.S., such contractor shall obtain and provide to the Department, when requested, the evidence specified in subsections (2), (3), (4) or (5) herein. (Emphasis added). Rule 69L-6.032 sets forth the contractor requirements for obtaining evidence that the subcontractor possesses workers' compensation insurance. If a subcontractor is a client company of a leasing company, such as Emerald, rule 69L-6.032(3) specifies that the evidence shall be a Certificate of Liability Insurance ("Certificate"). According to the deposition testimony of Cappelleti (Exhibit 11, offered into evidence by the Department), when Emerald began providing services to Respondent in January 2014, Emerald represented that its workers were covered by a policy through an employee leasing company. In fact, a Certificate, obtained by Respondent sometime before it was requested by the Department, indicates that Emerald had coverage for the period of January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014. This period encompasses the period of time for which the Department now seeks to penalize Respondent. Although Respondent obtained proof of coverage from Emerald, this occurred after Emerald was paid by Respondent for work occurring between January 1, 2014, and April 8, 2014. Ruzzo checked the CCAS and found that the Certificate for Emerald was inaccurate. Emerald apparently did not join the leasing company insurance policy until April 9, 2014. Although a contractor does not have a duty to further investigate when presented with what appears to be a valid Certificate, Ruzzo's calculations penalized Respondent for the period of non-compliance of Emerald because Respondent did not seek the proof of coverage until after Emerald's workers were already on the job for Respondent. The Department has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent employed Mr. Moscoso and Mr. Alvarado on September 26, 2014; that Respondent was engaged in the construction industry in Florida during the period of September 27, 2012, to September 26, 2014; and that Respondent failed to carry workers' compensation insurance to cover its employees as required by Florida's Workers' Compensation Law from September 27, 2012, to September 26, 2014. The Department has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Ruzzo correctly utilized the methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)l. However, the Department failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that a penalty for Emerald's period of non-compliance, in the amount of $8,434.86, should be included in the total penalty assessment of $68,525.42.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, enter a final order determining that Respondent, KP Roofing Masters, LLC, violated the requirement in chapter 440, Florida Statutes, to secure workers' compensation coverage, and imposing upon it a total penalty assessment of $60,090.56. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of March, 2016.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, properly assessed a penalty of $90,590.42 against Petitioner, S.A.C., LLC.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure payment of workers' compensation for the benefit of their employees pursuant to Section 440.107, Florida Statutes. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Petitioner, S.A.C., LLC, was a corporation domiciled in Florida. S.A.C.'s 2007 Limited Liability Company Annual Report lists its principal place of business as 626 Lafayette Court, Sarasota, Florida, 34236, and its mailing address as Post Office Box 49075, Sarasota, Florida 34230. At all times relevant to this proceeding, William R. Suzor was the president and managing member of S.A.C. Collen Wharton is an Insurance Analyst II with the Department. In this position, Ms. Wharton conducts inspections to ensure that employers are in compliance with the law. On June 20, 2007, Ms. Wharton conducted a compliance check at 2111 South Osprey Avenue in Sarasota, Florida. During the compliance check, Ms. Wharton observed three males working at that location. The three men were framing a single-family house that was under construction. This type of work is carpentry, which is considered construction. During the compliance check, Ms. Wharton asked David Crawford, one of the men working at the site, who was their employer. Mr. Crawford told Ms. Wharton that he and the other two men worked for S.A.C., but were paid by a leasing company. Mr. Crawford told Ms. Wharton that the company was owned by Mr. Suzor and, in response to Ms. Wharton's inquiry, he gave her Mr. Suzor's telephone number. In addition to Mr. Crawford, the other workers at the site were identified as Terry Jenkins and Frank Orduno. By checking the records the Department maintains in a computerized database, Ms. Wharton determined that S.A.C. did not carry workers' compensation insurance, but had coverage on its employees through Employee Leasing Solutions, an employee leasing company. She also determined, by consulting the Department's database, that none of the men had a workers' compensation exemption. Ms. Wharton telephoned Employee Leasing Solutions, which advised her that two of the workers at the site, Mr. Crawford and Mr. Jenkins, were on the roster of employees that the company maintained. The company advised her that the other worker, Mr. Orduno, was not on its roster of employees. This information was verified by an employee list that the leasing company provided to Ms. Wharton. On June 20, 2007, after determining that one worker at the work site had no workers' compensation coverage, Mr. Wharton prepared a Stop-Work Order. She then telephoned Mr. Suzor, told him that he had one worker at the site who did not have workers' compensation coverage and requested that he come to the work site. During the conversation, Mr. Suzor advised Ms. Wharton that Mr. Crawford was in charge at the work site, that she could give the Stop-Work Order to Mr. Crawford, and that he (Mr. Suzor) would meet her the following day. Ms. Wharton, after she telephoned Mr. Suzor, she conferred with her supervisor and then issued Stop-Work Order No. 07-125-D3, posting it at the work site and serving it on Mr. Crawford. On June 21, 2007, Mr. Suzor met with Ms. Wharton at her office. During that meeting, Ms. Wharton served a copy of Stop-Work Order No. 07-125-D3 on Mr. Suzor. She also served him with a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation ("Request for Business Records"). The Request for Business Records listed specific records that Mr. Suzor/S.A.C. should provide to the Department so that the Department could determine the workers who S.A.C. paid during the period of June 19, 2004, through June 20, 2007. The Request for Business Records notes that the requested records must be produced within five business days of receipt. According to the Request for Business Records, if no records are provided or the records provided are insufficient to enable the Department to determine the payroll for the time period requested for the calculation of the penalty in Subsection 440.107(7)(d), Florida Statutes, "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 1.5." S.A.C. did not respond to the Department's Request for Business Records. On July 17, 2007, the Department had received no records from S.A.C. Without any records, Ms. Wharton had no information from which she could determine an accurate assessment of S.A.C.'s payroll for the previous three years. Therefore, Ms. Wharton calculated the penalty based on an imputed payroll. In her calculations, Ms. Wharton assumed that Mr. Orduno worked from June 21, 2004, through June 20, 2007, and that he was paid 1.5 times the state-wide average weekly wage for the class code assigned to the work he performed for each year or portion of the year. The Department then applied the statutory formula set out in Subsection 440.107(7)(d), Florida Statutes. Based on that calculation, the Department correctly calculated S.A.C.'s penalty assessment as $90,590.42, as specified in the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment dated July 17, 2007. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment reflecting the correct penalty amount was served on S.A.C.'s attorney, John Myers, Esquire, by hand-delivery, on July 17, 2007.3/ On July 21, 2007, S.A.C., through its former counsel, filed a Petition for Hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, enter a final order which affirms the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued July 17, 2007, assessing a penalty of $90,590.42, and the Stop-Work Order issued to Petitioner, S.A.C., LLC, on June 20, 2007. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of March, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 25th day of March, 2008.
The Issue Whether Royal Roofing and Restoration, Inc. (Respondent or Royal Roofing), failed to secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage for its employees; and, if so, whether the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (Petitioner or Department), correctly calculated the penalty to be assessed against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with enforcing the requirement of chapter 440, that Florida employers secure workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Respondent is a Florida for-profit corporation organized on July 28, 2015, and engaged in the business of roofing and storm damage restoration. The company was formed, and initially conducted business, in Tallahassee, Florida, but expanded to the Panama City area in 2016. Traci Fisher is Respondent’s President and Registered Agent, with a mailing address of 1004 Kenilworth, Tallahassee, Florida 32312. DOAH Case No. 17-0879 On May 4, 2016, Department Compliance Investigator Jesse Holman, conducted a routine workers’ compensation compliance inspection at 374 Brown Place in Crestview, Florida. Mr. Holman observed four men removing shingles from the roof of a residential structure at that address. Mr. Holman first interviewed a worker who identified himself as Dustin Hansel and reported that he and the other three workers on site were a new crew for Respondent, the permit for the job had not yet been pulled, and the workers were not aware of the rate of pay for the job. Mr. Hansel telephoned Respondent’s sales manager, Dillon Robinson, who then spoke directly with Mr. Holman via telephone. Mr. Robinson informed Mr. Holman that Respondent obtained workers’ compensation coverage through Payroll Management Inc. (PMI), an employee-leasing company. Mr. Holman identified the three remaining workers at the jobsite as Milton Trice, Winston Perrotta, and Kerrigan Ireland. Mr. Holman contacted PMI and secured a copy of Respondent’s then-active employee roster. None of the workers at the jobsite, including Mr. Hansel, were included on Respondent’s employee roster. Upon inquiry, Mr. Holman was informed that PMI had no pending employee applications for Respondent. Mr. Holman consulted the Department’s Coverage Compliance Automated System (CCAS) and found Respondent had no workers’ compensation insurance policy and no active exemptions. During Mr. Holman’s onsite investigation, the workers left the jobsite. Mr. Holman could not immediately reach Ms. Fisher, but did speak with her husband, Tim Fisher. Mr. Fisher informed Mr. Holman that the crew was on their way to the PMI Fort Walton office to be enrolled on Respondent’s employee roster. On May 5, 2016, based on his investigation, and after consultation with his supervisor, Mr. Holman issued Respondent Stop-Work Order (SWO) 16-148-1A, along with a Business Records Request (BRR) for records covering the audit period of July 27, 2015 through May 4, 2016. Later that day, Mr. Holman spoke to Ms. Fisher, who informed him the crew did not have permission to begin the work on that date, as she had not yet pulled the permit for the reroof. Ms. Fisher further explained that the crewmembers had been instructed to complete applications with PMI prior to departing Tallahassee for Crestview. Ms. Fisher confirmed the crewmembers were completing applications at PMI Fort Walton that same day. Mr. Holman met with Ms. Fisher the following day and personally served SWO 16-148-1A. Ms. Fisher delivered to Mr. Holman an updated employee roster from PMI which included Mr. Hansel, Mr. Perrotta, and Mr. Ireland; a letter documenting Mr. Trice was not employed by Respondent; and a $1000 check as downpayment on the penalty. Respondent initially submitted business records in response to the BRR on May 23 and 25, 2017. DOAH Case No. 17-1558 On June 8, 2016, Mr. Holman conducted a random workers’ compensation compliance inspection at 532 Rising Star Drive in Crestview. The single-family home at that address was undergoing renovations and Mr. Holman observed three men on the roof removing shingles. None of the men on the roof spoke English, but a fourth man, who identified himself as Jose Manuel Mejia, appeared and stated he worked for Respondent, and that all the workers onsite were paid through PMI at a rate of $10.00 per hour. Mr. Mejia admitted that one of the worker’s onsite, Emelio Lopez, was not enrolled with PMI and explained that Mr. Mejia brought him to the worksite that day because he knew Mr. Lopez to be a good worker. The remaining workers onsite were identified as Juan Mencho and Ramon Gonzalez, both from Atlanta, Georgia. Mr. Mejia produced some PMI paystubs for himself and Mr. Mencho. Mr. Mejia stated that he and his crews also received reimbursement checks directly from Respondent for gas, rentals, materials, and the like. Mr. Holman contacted PMI, who produced Respondent’s then-active employee roster. Mr. Mejia and Mr. Mencho were on the roster, but neither Mr. Gonzalez nor Mr. Lopez was included. Mr. Holman next contacted Ms. Fisher, who identified Mr. Mejia as a subcontractor, but was not familiar with any of the other men Mr. Holman encountered at the worksite. Mr. Holman consulted via telephone with his supervisor, who instructed him to issue an SWO to Respondent for failing to secure workers’ compensation coverage for its employees. Mr. Holman issued SWO 16-198-1A by posting the worksite on June 8, 2016. Department Facilitator Don Hurst, personally served Ms. Fisher with SWO 16-198-1A in Tallahassee that same day. SWO 16-148-1A Penalty Calculation1/ Department Penalty Auditor Eunika Jackson, was assigned to calculate the penalties associated with the SWOs issued to Respondent. On June 8, 2016, Ms. Jackson began calculating the penalty associated with SWO 16-148-1A. Ms. Jackson reviewed the documents submitted by Respondent in response to the BRR. The documents included Respondent’s Wells Fargo bank statements, check images, and PMI payroll register for the audit period.2/ Based on a review of the records, Ms. Jackson identified the following individuals as Respondent’s employees because they received direct payment from Respondent at times during the audit period: David Rosinsky, Dylan Robinson, Jarod Bell, Tommy Miller, and David Shields. Ms. Jackson determined periods of non-compliance for these employees based on the dates they received payments from Respondent and were not covered for workers’ compensation via PMI employment roster, separate policy, or corporate officer exemption. Ms. Jackson deemed payments to each of the individuals as gross payroll for purposes of calculating the penalty. Based upon Ms. Fisher’s deposition testimony, Ms. Jackson assigned National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) class code 5551, Roofing, to Mr. Miller; NCCI class code 5474, Painting, to Mr. Rosinsky; NCCI class code 8742, Sales, to Mr. Bell and Mr. Robinson; and NCCI class code 8810, clerical office employee, to Mr. Shields. Utilizing the statutory formula for penalty calculation, Ms. Jackson calculated a total penalty of $191.28 associated with these five “employees.” Ms. Jackson next calculated the penalty for Dustin Hansel, Kerrigan Ireland, Milton Trice, and Winston Perrotta, the workers identified at the jobsite as employees on May 4, 2016. The Department maintains that the business records submitted by Respondent were insufficient to determine Respondent’s payroll to these “employees,” thus, Ms. Jackson used the statutory formula to impute payroll to these workers. Ms. Jackson calculated a penalty of $14,970.12 against Respondent for failure to secure payment of workers’ compensation insurance for each of these four “employees” during the audit period. The total penalty associated with these four “employees” is $59,880.48. Ms. Jackson calculated a total penalty of $60,072.96 to be imposed against Respondent in connection with SWO 16-148- 1A. Business Records In compliance with the Department’s BRR, Respondent submitted additional business records on several occasions-- March 21, May 3 and 31, June 7, and August 15 and 24, 2017--in order to establish its complete payroll for the audit period. While the Department admits that the final documents submitted do establish Respondent’s complete payroll, the Department did not issue amended penalty assessment based on those records in either case. The Department maintains Respondent did not timely submit records, pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.028(4), which allows an employer 20 business days after service of the first amended order of penalty assessment to submit sufficient records to establish payroll. All business records submitted by Respondent were admitted in evidence and included as part of the record. The undersigned is not limited to the record before the Department at the time the amended penalty assessments were imposed, but must determine a recommendation in a de novo proceeding. The undersigned has relied upon the complete record in arriving at the decision in this case. Penalty Calculation for Ireland, Trice, and Perrotta For purposes of workers’ compensation insurance coverage, an “employee” is “any person who receives remuneration from an employer” for work or services performed under a contract. § 440.02(15)(a), Fla. Stat. Respondent did not issue a single check to Mr. Ireland, Mr. Trice, or Mr. Perrotta during the audit period. Mr. Ireland, Mr. Trice, and Mr. Perrotta are not included on any PMI leasing roster included in the record for the audit period. The uncontroverted evidence, including the credible and unrefuted testimony of each person with knowledge, established that Mr. Ireland, Mr. Trice, and Mr. Perrotta were newly hired for the job in Crestview on May 4, 2016, and began working that day prior to submitting applications at PMI, despite Ms. Fisher’s directions otherwise. Petitioner did not prove that either Mr. Ireland, Mr. Trice, or Mr. Perrotta was Respondent’s employee at any time during the audit period. Petitioner did not correctly calculate the penalty of $44,911.26 against Respondent for failure to secure workers’ compensation insurance for Mr. Ireland, Mr. Trice, and Mr. Perrotta during the audit period. Penalty Calculation for Hansel Ms. Fisher testified that Mr. Hansel has owned several businesses with which Respondent has conducted business over the years. Originally, Mr. Hansel owned a dumpster rental business, now owned by his father. Mr. Hansel also owned an independent landscaping company with which Respondent occasionally transacted business. When Respondent expanded business into the Panama City area, Ms. Fisher hired Mr. Hansel as a crew chief to supervise new crews in the area. The job on May 4, 2016, was his first roofing job. A review of Respondent’s records reveals Respondent issued the following checks to Mr. Hansel during the audit period: December 4, 2015, in the amount of $360, $300 of which was for “dumpster rental” and the remaining $60 for “sod”; May 4, 2016, in the amount of $200 for “sod repair”; May 6, 2016, in the amount of $925 as reimbursement for travel expenses; May 9, 2016, in the amount of $1,011.50 (with no memo); and May 21, 2016, in the amount of $100 for “7845 Preservation.” Mr. Hansel was included on Respondent’s PMI leasing roster beginning on May 13, 2016. Petitioner proved that Mr. Hansel was Respondent’s employee at times during the audit period. Petitioner did not prove that Respondent’s records were insufficient to determine payroll to Mr. Hansel during the audit period, which would have required an imputed penalty. Petitioner did not correctly calculate the penalty of $14,970.42 against Respondent for failure to secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage for Mr. Hansel during the audit period. Sod repair by Mr. Hansel is a service performed for Respondent during the audit period. Reimbursement of travel expenses is specifically included in the definition of payroll for purposes of calculating the penalty. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L- 6.035(1)(f) (“Expense reimbursements, including reimbursements for travel” are included as remuneration to employees “to the extent that the employer’s business records and receipts do not confirm that the expense incurred as a valid business expense.”). Dumpster rental is neither work performed on behalf of, nor service provided to, Respondent during the audit period. The correct uninsured payroll amount attributable to Mr. Hansel is $2,296.50. Petitioner correctly applied NCCI class code 5551, Roofing, to work performed by Mr. Hansel based on the observation of Mr. Holman at the worksite on May 4, 2016. With respect to Mr. Hansel’s services for sod and sod repair, Petitioner did not correctly apply NCCI class code 5551. Petitioner did not introduce competent substantial evidence of the applicable NCCI class code and premium amount for landscaping services performed during the audit period.3/ Uninsured payroll attributable to Mr. Hansel for roofing services during the audit period is $2,036.50. The approved manual rate for workers’ compensation insurance for NCCI class code 5551 during the period of non- compliance--May 9 and 21, 2016--is $18.60. The premium amount Respondent would have paid to provide workers’ compensation insurance for Mr. Hansel is $378.79 (One percent of Mr. Hansel’s gross payroll during the non-compliance period--$20.36--multiplied by $18.60). The penalty for Respondent’s failure to secure worker’s compensation coverage insurance for Mr. Hansel during the period of non-compliance is calculated as two times the amount Respondent would have paid in premium for the non- compliance period. The correct penalty for Respondent’s failure to maintain workers’ compensation coverage for Mr. Hansel during the period of non-compliance is $757.58. Penalty Calculation for Salesmen Independent contractors not engaged in the construction industry are not employees for purposes of enforcing workers’ compensation insurance requirements. See § 440.02(15)(d)1., Fla. Stat. Sales is a non-construction industry occupation. The Department calculated a penalty associated with payroll attributable to the following persons identified by Ms. Fisher as independent salesmen: Dylan Robinson, Kevin Miller, Marc Medley, Mike Rucker, Colby Fisher, David Jones, Jarod Bell, Matt Flynn, and Todd Zulauf. Section 440.02(15)(d)1. provides that an individual may be an independent contractor, rather than an employee, as follows: In order to meet the definition of independent contractor, at least four of the following criteria must be met: The independent contractor maintains a separate business with his or her own work facility, truck, equipment, materials, or similar accommodations; The independent contractor holds or has applied for a federal employer identification number, unless the independent contractor is a sole proprietor who is not required to obtain a federal employer identification number under state or federal regulations; The independent contractor receives compensation for services rendered or work performed and such compensation is paid to a business rather than to an individual; The independent contractor holds one or more bank accounts in the name of the business entity for purposes of paying business expenses or other expenses related to services rendered or work performed for compensation; The independent contractor performs work or is able to perform work for any entity in addition to or besides the employer at his or her own election without the necessity of completing an employment application or process; or The independent contractor receives compensation for work or services rendered on a competitive-bid basis or completion of a task or a set of tasks as defined by a contractual agreement, unless such contractual agreement expressly states that an employment relationship exists. If four of the criteria listed in sub- subparagraph a. do not exist, an individual may still be presumed to be an independent contractor and not an employee based on full consideration of the nature of the individual situation with regard to satisfying any of the following conditions: The independent contractor performs or agrees to perform specific services or work for a specific amount of money and controls the means of performing the services or work. The independent contractor incurs the principal expenses related to the service or work that he or she performs or agrees to perform. The independent contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of the work or services that he or she performs or agrees to perform. The independent contractor receives compensation for work or services performed for a commission or on a per-job basis and not on any other basis. The independent contractor may realize a profit or suffer a loss in connection with performing work or services. The independent contractor has continuing or recurring business liabilities or obligations. The success or failure of the independent contractor’s business depends on the relationship of business receipts to expenditures. Ms. Fisher testified that each of the above-named salesmen sold roofing jobs for her at various times during the audit period on a commission-only basis. The contractors inspect homeowner roofs, draft schematics, use their own equipment (e.g., drones), incur all of their own expenses, and handle the insurance filing for the homeowner’s insurance to pay on the claim. Ms. Fisher further testified that each of the salesmen also sells for other roofing contractors in the Tallahassee area. She pays the salesmen on a per-job basis. Ms. Fisher does not compensate the salesmen for the time involved in inspecting a roof, preparing schematics, or making the sale. Nor does Ms. Fisher reimburse the salesmen for travel to sales jobsites. Ms. Fisher’s testimony was credible, persuasive, and uncontroverted. Respondent introduced in evidence four “Independent Contractor Checklists” allegedly completed by Mr. Robinson, Mr. Medley, Mr. Fisher, and Mr. Flynn. Each form checklist follows the format of section 440.02(15)(d)1., listing the criteria set forth in subparagraphs a. and b. The forms indicate that they each meet all the criteria listed in subparagraph b.: they perform, or agree to perform services for a specific amount of money and control the means of performing the service; they incur the principal expenses related to the service performed; they are responsible for satisfactory completion of the services performed; they receive compensation for the services performed on a per-job or commission basis; they may realize a profit or suffer a loss in connection with performing the services; they have continuing and recurring business liabilities or obligations; and the success or failure of their business depends on the relationship of business receipts to expenditures.4/ In its Proposed Recommended Order, Petitioner conceded the nine men identified by Respondent as independent sales contractors “would not be considered employees of Respondent” because the “salesmen would seem to meet the majority of [the] requirements [of section 440.02(15)(d)1.b.].” Respondent issued Dylan Robinson, Mark Medley, Colby Fisher, Matt Flynn, Kevin Miller, Mike Rucker, Jarod Bell, David Jones, and Todd Zulauf an IRS FORM 1099-MISC for income paid during the 2016 tax year. Respondent did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the above-named salesmen were Respondent’s employees during the audit period. For SWO 16-148-1A, Respondent did not correctly calculate the penalty because Respondent included a penalty associated with Petitioner’s failure to provide workers’ compensation insurance coverage for Dylan Robinson and Jarod Bell. Penalty in the amount of $20.70 associated with Dylan Robinson and Jarod Bell should not be included in the total penalty. The correct penalty amount for SWO 16-148-1A, based on records submitted by Respondent on or before March 20, 2016, is $929.16. Draft Revised Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment The additional records submitted by Respondent revealed payments made to persons during the audit period who were not included in the Department’s Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. The Department and Respondent disagreed at hearing whether the payments qualified as payroll. At hearing, Petitioner submitted a draft revised second amended penalty calculation for SWO 16-148-1A based on all records received from Respondent. The revised penalty is in the amount of $61,453.50. Ms. Jackson populated the spreadsheet with the name of every individual to whom a check was written on Respondent’s business bank account during the audit period, removing only those payments to individuals and entities which, to Petitioner’s knowledge, were not Respondent’s employees. Respondent’s calculations in the revised penalty suffer from some of the same errors as in the second amended penalty calculation--they include individuals Petitioner did not prove were Respondent’s employees, as well as payments which were not uninsured payroll. For the reasons explained herein, Petitioner did not prove that salesmen David Jones, Dylan Robinson, Jarod Bell, Kevin Miller, Mark Medley, Matt Flynn, Mike Rucker, Tim Fischer, and Colby Fisher were Respondent’s employees during the audit period. Respondent did not accurately calculate the penalty associated with those persons. Respondent made payments to David Shields during the audit period, which the Department argues should be included as payroll. The Department included payments to Mr. Shields in its draft revised second amended order of penalty assessment and assigned NCCI class code “8810” for clerical work. Mr. Shields is a licensed professional roofing contractor who acts as “qualifier” for Respondent’s business. A qualifier is a licensed professional who certifies plans for permit applications submitted by another business. Respondent pays Mr. Shields a flat fee per permit application qualified by him. The record evidence does not support a finding that Mr. Shields provides clerical services to Respondent. Mr. Shields provides some sort of professional services to Respondent, and is likely an independent contractor providing his own materials and supplies, maintaining his own business accounts, and liable for his own business success. Assuming Mr. Shields were Respondent’s employee, the Department introduced no evidence of an appropriate NCCI class code for Mr. Shields’ services. The Department did not prove that payments to Mr. Shields should be included as Respondent’s uninsured payroll during the audit period. Respondent paid Susan Swain a total of $258 during the audit period for clerical work. Ms. Fisher maintained Ms. Swain’s work was casual at first, and the payments reflect a time when she worked on-again, off-again, handling the paperwork for restoration insurance claims. Later, Ms. Swain came to work for Respondent full-time and was added to the PMI leasing roster. Section 440.02(15)(d)5. provides that a person “whose employment is both casual and not in the course of the trade, business, profession or occupation of the employer” is not an employee. The statute defines “casual” employment as work that is anticipated to be completed in 10 working days or less and at a total labor cost of less than $500. See § 440.02(5), Fla. Stat. In its Proposed Recommended Order, the Department argues Ms. Swain’s wages should be included as payroll because the “testimony regarding Ms. Swain does not suggest that she was employed for less than 10 days[.]” However, it was the Department’s burden to prove that Ms. Swain was a statutory employee. The Department did not prove that Ms. Swain’s wages should be included within Respondent’s uninsured payroll. The largest portion of the penalty assessed by the Department, as well as in the draft revised second amended penalty assessment, against Respondent is in connection with various roofers who were employed by Respondent at times during the audit period. Each of the roofers was included on Respondent’s PMI leasing roster, but received checks directly from Respondent in addition to PMI payroll checks. The Department included all the direct payments to those roofers as payroll for purposes of calculating a penalty in this case. As Ms. Fisher explained, the company bids a reroof on a per job basis--usually a per square foot price. Ms. Fisher adds each roofing contractor’s name to the PMI leasing roster to ensure that each roofer is covered by workers’ compensation insurance for the duration of the job. When the job is completed (which is a matter of just a few days), the contractor reports to Ms. Fisher what amount of the contract price was spent on materials, supplies, or other non-labor costs. Ms. Fisher cuts a check to the contractor for that amount and authorizes PMI to issue payroll checks for the “labor cost” (the difference between the contract price and the non-labor costs). Ms. Fisher refers to this process as “back-charging” the contractors for their materials, maintenance, tools, and other non-labor costs. The Department is correct that the direct payments are payroll to the roofing contractors. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.035(1)(b) and (h) (remuneration includes “payments, including cash payments, made to employees by or on behalf of the employer” and “payments or allowances made by or on behalf of the employer for tools or equipment used by employees in their work or operations for the employer.”). The Department would be correct to include these payments in the penalty calculation if they represented uninsured payroll. However, the evidence supports a finding that the direct payments to the roofing contractors were made for the same jobs on which Respondent secured workers’ compensation coverage through PMI. The roofing contractors were covered for workers’ compensation throughout the job, even though they may have received partial payment for the job outside of the PMI payroll checks.5/ The direct payments were not for separate reroofs on which the roofers were not otherwise insured. The Department did not correctly calculate penalties associated with the following roofing contractors: Donald Tontigh, Joseph Howard, Keith Mills, Aaron Kilpatrick, Gustavo Tobias, Jose Mejia, and Tommy Miller. Ms. Fisher also received cash payments from Respondent during the audit period. These payments were made in addition to her payroll through PMI. Ms. Fisher described these payments as “cash tickets,” which were paid outside of her PMI payroll to reimburse her for investments made in the company. For purposes of calculating the penalty in this case, these “cash tickets” are clearly payroll, as that term is to be calculated pursuant to rule 69L-6.035. Similar to the issue with the roofing contractors, the question is whether the payments represent uninsured payroll. Ms. Fisher did not hold a corporate officer exemption at any time relevant hereto. Ms. Fisher testified that she was covered through PMI payroll leasing. In contrast to the roofing contractors, Ms. Fisher’s direct payments do not directly coincide with any particular job or specific time frame during which Ms. Fisher was covered for workers’ compensation insurance through PMI. The evidence was insufficient to determine that the amounts were insured payroll. The Department properly calculated a penalty associated with payroll attributable to Ms. Fisher. Respondent made one payment of $75 to Donald Martin during the audit period. The Department calculated a penalty of $27.90 associated with this payment to Mr. Martin. Ms. Fisher explained that Mr. Martin was a down-on-his-luck guy who came by the office one day complaining that Mr. Hansel owed him some money. Ms. Fisher offered to put him on a roofing crew and wrote him the $75 check to help him out. Ms. Fisher’s testimony was both credible and unrefuted. Mr. Martin was never hired by Respondent, put on any roofing crew, or added to the PMI leasing roster. Mr. Martin was not Respondent’s employee because he did not receive remuneration for the “performance of any work or service while engaged in any employment under any appointment or contract for hire” with Respondent. § 440.02(15)(a), Fla. Stat. Cale Dierking works for Respondent full-time in a clerical position. During the audit period, Respondent paid Mr. Dierking directly by check for $1,306.14. This payment was made outside of Mr. Dierking’s PMI payroll checks. Ms. Fisher testified that she paid Mr. Dierking directly on one occasion when “PMI’s payroll got stuck in Memphis, I believe it was a snow-in situation where payroll checks didn’t come.” Rather than ask her employee to go without a timely paycheck, she advanced his payroll. Ms. Fisher’s testimony was both credible and unrefuted. The payment to Mr. Dierking is clearly payroll. However, Mr. Dierking was covered for workers’ compensation through PMI for the period during which the check was issued. Thus, there is no evidence that it was uninsured payroll. The Department did not correctly calculate a penalty associated with payments to Mr. Dierking. The correct penalty to be assessed against Respondent for failure to secure workers’ compensation coverage for its employees during the audit period in connection with SWO 16-148- 1A is $770.60. Penalty Calculation for SWO 16-198-1A Ms. Jackson calculated a total penalty against Respondent in connection with SWO 16-198-1A in the amount of $19,115.84, as reflected in the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. The Department correctly imputed penalty against Respondent in the amount of $91.68 each for uninsured payroll to Mr. Gonzalez and Mr. Lopez. The evidence supported a finding that these workers were Respondent’s statutory employees on June 8, 2016, and were not enrolled on the PMI leasing roster. The Department did not correctly calculate the penalty associated with salesmen Dylan Robinson, Jarod Bell, Kevin Miller, Mark Medley, Matt Flynn, and Todd Zulauf. The Department did not correctly calculate the penalty associated with roofing contractors Abraham Martinez- Antonio, Edwin Kinsey, Dustin Hansel, Efrian Molina-Agustin, Jose Mejia, Joseph Howard, Keith Mills, Samuel Pedro, and Tommy Miller. The Department did not correctly calculate the penalty against Respondent associated with Mr. Shields, Respondent’s qualifier. Based on a review of Respondent’s complete “untimely” records, the Department discovered direct payments made to additional employees not included on the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. Respondent made a direct payment to Ethan Burch in the amount of $602.50 during the audit period. Ethan Burch is one of Respondent’s full-time clerical employees. The evidence is insufficient to determine whether the payment of $602.50 was insured or uninsured payroll. As such, the Department did not prove it correctly calculated the penalty associated with Mr. Burch. Respondent also made a direct payment to Chelsea Hansel in the amount of $965 during the audit period. Ms. Hansel is another clerical employee. Ms. Hansel’s PMI enrollment was delayed due to some background investigation. Respondent paid Ms. Hansel for work she completed prior to enrollment. The direct payment to Ms. Hansel constitutes uninsured payroll. The Department correctly calculated the penalty associated with the payment to Chelsea Hansel. The correct penalty amount to be imposed against Respondent for failure to secure payment of workers’ compensation coverage for its employees (Gonzalez, Lopez, and Chelsea Hansel) during the audit period in connection with SWO 16-198-1A is $187.80.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, finding that Royal Roofing and Restoration, Inc., violated the workers’ compensation insurance law and, in DOAH Case No. 17-0879, assessing a penalty of $770.60; and in DOAH Case No. 17-1558, assessing a penalty of $187.80. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of January, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of January, 2018.
The Issue 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.
