The Issue The issues are whether Respondent, Deck King Corp., failed to secure workers’ compensation coverage for its employees, and, if so, whether the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (“Department”) correctly calculated the penalty assessment imposed against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure the payment of workers’ compensation for the benefit of its employees. Respondent was a business providing services in the construction industry with its principal office located at 2200 Northwest 22nd Court, Miami, Florida 33142. On June 29, 2015, Marilyn Victores, the Department’s compliance investigator, observed Ivan Lopez Avila and Robert Jordan performing construction work on a job site at 150 South Hibiscus Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139. She learned from the individuals working that they were performing the job on behalf of Respondent, Deck King Corp. After gathering the information at the job site, Ms. Victores spoke with her supervisor, Ms. Scarlett Aldana, and an investigation was performed. The Division of Corporations’ website was consulted to determine, among other things, the identity of Respondent’s corporate officers. Mses. Victores and Aldana learned that Respondent had three corporate officers and directors listed, Derek Barnick, Thomas Barnick, and Fausto Lopez. They also learned that the corporation was “active.” Ms. Victores consulted the Department’s Coverage and Compliance Automated System (“CCAS”) for proof of workers’ compensation coverage and for any exemptions associated with Respondent. An exemption is a method whereby a corporate officer can be relieved of the responsibility of the requirements of chapter 440, Florida Statutes, pursuant to section 440.05. CCAS is the Department’s internal database that contains workers’ compensation insurance policy and exemption information. Insurance providers are required to report insurance coverage information to the Department which is then inputted into CCAS. Ms. Victores’ CCAS search revealed that Respondent did not have a workers’ compensation policy or an employee leasing policy. Additionally, she discovered that no active exemptions were associated with Respondent. Based upon the information she gathered, Ms. Victores issued and served Respondent with a Stop-Work Order on June 29, 2015. Ms. King simultaneously issued and served Respondent a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation (the “Request for Production”). The Request for Production sought documents to enable the Department to determine Respondent’s payroll for the time period of June 30, 2013, through June 29, 2015. In response to the Request for Production, Respondent provided the Department only bank statements. Ms. Eunika Jackson, a penalty auditor with the Department, was assigned to calculate the penalty to be assessed against Respondent. Ms. Jackson believed the business records produced by Respondent were insufficient to calculate a penalty for the entire audit period as they did not specify payroll or payments made to employees other than two specific checks, which were credited against the penalty ultimately assessed against Respondent. Based upon Ms. Jackson’s calculations, on October 9, 2015, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to Respondent which was served on Respondent on that date. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment imposed a penalty of $148,923.16. To make the penalty assessment determination, Ms. Jackson consulted the codes listed in the National Council on Compensation Insurance’s (NCCI) Scopes® Manual, which has been adopted by the Department 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. Based upon Ms. Victores’ description of the activities Respondent’s workers were performing and the descriptions listed in the NCCI Scopes® Manual, Ms. Jackson determined that the proper classification for employees of Respondent was 5403. Ms. Jackson then utilized the corresponding manual rates for that classification code and the related periods of the alleged non- compliance. Based upon the information provided to her by Mses. Victores and Aldana, Ms. Jackson utilized the appropriate methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)1. and rules 69L-6.027 and 69L-6.028, to determine the penalty of $148,923.16. The business records supplied by Respondent in response to the Department’s Request for Production consisted of two years’ worth of bank statements. No tax records, such as W-2s, W-4s, 1099s, or tax returns of Respondent, were provided to the Department to allow it to determine whether any of the workers were independent contractors, what salaries, if any, they were paid, or in any way to mitigate the penalty assessed by the Department. By not appearing at hearing or attempting to file any documents in explanation or mitigation of the penalty assessed against it, Respondent gave the Department nothing upon which to reach any conclusion of payroll other than through imputation. Using the Penalty Calculation Worksheet, Ms. Jackson determined the penalty to be assessed against Respondent. She imputed the income for Derek Barnick, Thomas Barnick, Ivan Lopez Avila, Robert Lopez, and Fausto Lopez, and used actual records provided by Respondent to determine the income of an individual identified only as “Mili” who received $105 in April 2014. Working through the calculations called for by the worksheet included the class code, period(s) of non-compliance, gross payroll, a divisor of 100 which was then multiplied by the approved manual rate, and then multiplied by two to calculate the penalty. The result was a penalty assessment of $148,923.16. By not appearing at hearing or offering any evidence to contradict the penalty assessed by the Department, Respondent waived its opportunity to prove the Department’s data used and calculations made were performed improperly. The Department properly determined the penalty using the worksheet prescribed by its statutes and rules.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order imposing a penalty of $148,923.16 against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of March, 2016, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of March, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Tabitha G. Harnage, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 (eServed) Deck King Corp. 2200 Northwest 22nd Court Miami, Florida 33142 Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact On November 7, 1994, Officer Borras stopped a vehicle owned and operated by the Petitioner, Dade Towing and Transportation. At such time the vehicle was being driven by an individual identified as Feliciano Villapando, Jr., and the route of the vehicle placed it on Weston Road in Broward County, Florida. Officer Borras weighed the vehicle on four scales in accordance with his Department training, and calculated the total gross vehicle weight at 157,700 pounds. Officer Borras determined that the vehicle was 77,700 pounds over its statutory weight maximum and issued a citation which assessed a penalty in the amount of $3,885.00. Petitioner's employees were present during the weighing procedure. The scales used to weigh the vehicle were certified as accurate by the Florida Department of Agriculture pursuant to a biannual inspection. No objection to the weighing procedure or the gross weight calculation of the vehicle has been raised by Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Transportation enter a final order denying Petitioner's request for a refund of the assessed penalty. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of January, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of January, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-1950 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner: 1. None submitted. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 5 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Murray M. Wadsworth, Jr. Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Cindy S. Price Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Carl Bundy Transportation Manager Dade Towing and Transportation 7320 Northwest 70th Street Miami, Florida 33166 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Thornton J. Williams General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Has Respondent failed to secure payment of workers' compensation for his employees, Section 440.107(2), Florida Statutes (2005), justifying the entry of a stop-work order, Subsection 440.107(7)(a), Florida Statutes (2005), and the entry of a financial penalty against Respondent, Subsection 440.107(7)(d), Florida Statutes (2005), as imputed, Subsection 440.107(7)(e), Florida Statutes (2005)?
Findings Of Fact Michael Robinson is an investigator for Petitioner's Bureau of Compliance. His duties include job site visits to determine whether individuals on the site are employees, by whom those persons are employed and whether the employer has secured the payment of workers' compensation by obtaining necessary insurance coverage. Some site visits are made on a random basis. That was the case here. On August 11, 2005, Mr. Robinson went to an address in Lake City, Florida, referred to as 223 NW Sylvi Drive. There he observed three individuals laying sod in the yard of the private residence located at the address. Respondent, a fourth individual, was transporting sod from a trailer to the yard using equipment described as a Bobcat. The sod had been cut in squares and the squares were being matched and placed on the ground in the yard, where it was stepped on to secure it in the ground in a checker board pattern. Approximately three-quarters of the yard had sod placed. Mr. Robinson considered the activities on the site as involving a construction industry, with a classification, according to the National Council on Compensation, Inc. (NCCI), as class code 0042, landscape gardening and drivers, as reflected in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.021(1)(a). The NCCI classification codes for job descriptions were adopted by the rule. Mr. Robinson observed a permit board erected in the front yard of the property. There was no evidence that he saw which would indicate anyone was living in the home. The garage door was open. There was nothing in the garage. No blinds were on the windows. No evidence of any kind was observed that would indicate the house had been occupied. Altogether four persons were working at the site. Mr. Robinson interviewed each individual. After introducing himself, Mr. Robinson explained to Respondent the reason for the site visit and determined that Respondent was the employer for the other individuals, in addition to working on the job. Respondent told Mr. Robinson that he was a sub-contractor working for Earth Scapes, and had been hired to lay new sod in the yard. Respondent described his position as that of a sole proprietor. Respondent identified two of the other individuals as being his step-sons and the remaining individual was a family friend. Respondent explained that the basis for compensating the other employees was that Respondent "gave them running around money on Friday's." The other individuals indicated that they worked for Respondent part-time when he needed their help. To verify Respondent's statement that he was a sub- contractor assigned to the job, Mr. Robinson contacted the owner of Earth Scapes, who agreed with Respondent's recount of his assignment at the job location. Mr. Robinson was told Earth Scapes is a nursery that lays new sod and plants trees. Mr. Robinson inquired of Mr. Curry concerning workers' compensation coverage for the three employees. The answer was that Respondent did not have workers' compensation coverage through an insurance policy or through a leasing company or temporary labor service. Research into coverage and compliance through a Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) data base available to Petitioner did not reveal any information concerning Respondent and his business at 1259 SW County Road, 252-B, Lake City, Florida, that would relate to workers' compensation coverage. A similar search of a data base maintained by Petitioner in association with exemptions from the requirement to obtain workers' compensation coverage did not reveal any exemption for Respondent from the need for workers' compensation coverage. Having discovered the activity on the construction site in which work was done without workers' compensation coverage, Mr. Robinson discussed his findings with Robert Lambert, Petitioner's district supervisor in the Bureau of Compliance. Following that conversation Mr. Lambert authorized Mr. Robinson to issue a stop-work order to Respondent. A stop- work order was prepared on August 11, 2005. The stop-work order was served on Respondent on that date. The basis for its entry was the failure to secure payment of workers' compensation in violation of Section 440.107(2), Florida Statutes (2005), by failing to obtain coverage that would meet the requirements set forth in Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and provisions of the Florida Insurance Code (the Insurance Code). On that same date, an Order of Penalty Assessment was served on Respondent under authority set for in Section 440.107(7)(d), Florida Statutes (2005). The Order of Penalty Assessment also reminded Respondent that the penalty might be amended based upon other information obtained, including the production of business records held by Respondent. These orders advised Respondent that he had the right to contest material facts in the stop-work order by filing a written petition for hearing under Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes (2005). On August 11, 2005, by a written document, Mr. Robinson requested production of business records maintained by Respondent that would assist in the calculation of a penalty assessment for the period August 11, 2002, through August 11, 2005, as contemplated by Section 440.107(7), Florida Statutes. The written request for production reminded Respondent that he must produce those records within five business days after receipt, to allow examination and copying, and that the failure to do so by quality of information sufficient to allow the determination of the payroll for the period in question, would allow the Petitioner to impute weekly payroll for the three employees and Respondent pursuant to the information derived using Section 440.12(2), Florida Statutes (2005), multiplied by 1.5. The document served on Respondent set out the various categories of information requested for production. These categories comport with Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L- 6.015. Respondent did not honor this request at any time.2/ Mr. Robinson not only provided the list of categories of information sought for production, he explained the categories found on the list to Respondent. Examples of information sought and explained included timesheets, time cards, payroll check stubs, check ledgers, income tax returns that would reflect the amount of remuneration paid or payable to each employee. On September 1, 2005, Mr. Robinson served Respondent with an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment that set forth an assessed penalty of $121,039.00, by imputation under Subsection 440.107(7)(d) and (e), Florida Statutes (2005), and by resort to Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.028. That rule allows the imputation of payroll calculations after 15 business days following receipt by the employer of a written request to produce business records and the method will not be set aside after 45 days from receipt. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment reminded Respondent that the stop-work order would remain in effect unless that order was released by Petitioner's further order. The necessary steps to set aside the stop-work order depended on obtaining coverage under the workers' compensation law and the payment of the penalty assessment. The approach for serving the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was by certified mail return receipt requested. The receipt was returned following service. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment provided the Respondent with the opportunity to dispute the material facts associated with the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment under procedures found in Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes (2005). As indicated, Respondent took advantage of the right to contest matters leading to the final hearing. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment as set forth in Petitioner's Exhibit number six also reflects a worksheet that applies to the overall period in question. It demonstrates the calculations imputed related to Respondent, Tony Joe Brown, Collin Grimes, and Josh Grimes, persons on the job site when the random inspection took place on August 11, 2005. The calculations in the matrix for all parts, were in relation to the four workers under class code 0042, without the benefit of actual information provided by Respondent. The job class codes are derived from the Scopes Manual, an insurance industry publication.
Recommendation Upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered keeping the stop-work order in effect pending Respondent's proof that he has obtained necessary workers' compensation coverage and the payment of the Amended Penalty Assessment in the amount of $121,039.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of June, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June, 2006.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by failing to secure payment of workers’ compensation coverage, as alleged in the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment; and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Jurisdiction The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement of chapter 440 that employers in Florida secure workers’ compensation coverage for their employees and corporate officers, pursuant to section 440.107. Patrick Hoffman was the owner and sole corporate officer for American. At all times material to this proceeding, American sold materials for window screens, patio sliding doors, screws, and spline screening; and it provided window and screen installation services. Investigation On June 29, 2016, the Department commenced an investigation following the observation of Patrick Hoffman and Timothy Barnett (also known as Adam Barnett) performing window installation services at a residential property. Kent Howe, an investigator in the Department’s compliance division, conducted an investigation regarding American’s operation of its business without proper workers’ compensation coverage. On June 29, 2016, Mr. Howe personally served a Stop-Work Order requiring American to cease all business operations and Order of Penalty Assessment on Mr. Hoffman. On June 29, 2016, Mr. Howe also served Mr. Hoffman with a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Calculation, requesting records to enable the Department to calculate the appropriate penalty for the period of June 30, 2014, through June 29, 2016. On June 30, 2016, the Department issued a conditional release from the Stop-Work Order. The conditional release required Respondent to pay $1,000, and agree to pay the penalty assessment within 28 days after the penalty calculation. American paid the $1,000 payment but it disputed the calculated penalty amount. An employer is required to maintain workers’ compensation coverage for employees unless there is an exemption from coverage. In the construction industry, a company must maintain coverage if it employs one or more persons. In the non-construction industry, a company is required to maintain coverage if it employs three or more persons. A contractor serving as a corporate officer in the construction industry may obtain an exemption from coverage requirements. See § 440.05, Fla. Stat. A contractor must demonstrate compliance with the workers’ compensation requirements or produce a copy of an employee leasing agreement or exemption for each employee. If an employee is a subcontractor without their own workers’ compensation coverage or an exemption, the individual is considered an employee of the contractor. American did not dispute that Timothy Barnett and Roger Wilson were employees of the company. American also did not dispute that it did not have workers’ compensation coverage for the employees as required by chapter 440. As a corporate officer, Mr. Hoffman elected to be exempted from workers’ compensation coverage. Penalty Calculation The Department assigned Eunika Jackson, a Department penalty auditor, to calculate the appropriate penalty for American. Ms. Jackson conducts penalty audits for construction and non-construction employers. Ms. Jackson testified that workers’ compensation coverage penalties are calculated based on a statutory formula in which the auditor calculates two-times the amount of the insurance premium the employer would have paid for each employee over the two-year period preceding the Stop-Work Order. The two-year period is commonly referred to as the look-back period. The penalty calculation is based on the employer’s payroll, the classification code for the industry of operation during the audit period, and the manual rate assigned to that classification code. To determine the appropriate code, the auditor uses the classification code in the Scopes® Manual, which has been adopted by Petitioner through Florida Administrative Code Rules 69L-6.021 and 69L-6.031. Ms. Jackson used business records Mr. Hoffman provided to determine the appropriate industry code and the penalty amount for each employee. Ms. Jackson reviewed bank statements to determine the gross payroll paid to Mr. Wilson and Mr. Barnett during the two-year non-compliance period. The records demonstrated that Roger Wilson received payment during the period of June 30, 2014, through December 31, 2015. Timothy (Adam) Barnett received payment during the period of January 1, 2015, through June 29, 2016. Ms. Jackson determined that American operated in the construction industry and initially assigned each employee a classification code of 5102. On August 11, 2016, the Department issued the Amended Order that assessed a total penalty of $10,785.04. The Amended Order was personally served on Mr. Hoffman on August 16, 2016. In response to the Amended Order, Respondent disputed the classification code assigned to Mr. Wilson. Mr. Hoffman testified that Mr. Wilson did not perform construction work, but rather worked as a retail employee selling merchandise in the store front. Mr. Hoffman further testified that contractors purchased items at American for use in their businesses. Mr. Hoffman’s description of Mr. Wilson’s job responsibilities and description of merchandise sold at American clearly demonstrates that Mr. Wilson did not perform construction work. Ms. Jackson correctly determined that the classification code 8018, which applies to retail and wholesale salespersons, was the appropriate code for Mr. Wilson. The classification code change resulted in a manual rate reduction and a reduced assessment applied to Mr. Wilson. On November 18, 2016, the Department filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Order of Penalty Assessment, which the undersigned granted. The Second Amended Order reduced the penalty assessment to $6,818.00. During the hearing, American continued to dispute the calculation of the penalty for Mr. Hoffman because he maintained an exemption as a corporate officer. The Department ultimately agreed to remove Mr. Hoffman from the penalty assessment worksheet and reduced the penalty assessment to $6,764.96. At hearing, there was no dispute regarding the penalty assessment related to Mr. Barnett. However, Respondent argued in the post-hearing statement for the first time that Timothy Barnett had an exemption. There was no evidence to support Respondent’s assertion. Therefore, Ms. Jackson correctly included payment to Mr. Barnett as payroll for purposes of calculating the penalty. Regarding Mr. Wilson, Mr. Hoffman argued that Mr. Wilson had an exemption from workers’ compensation coverage when he began working for American.1/ However, Mr. Hoffman could not produce a copy of the exemption and Mr. Wilson was not present at the hearing for testimony. Ms. Jackson conducted research using the Coverage Compliance Automated System (“CCAS”), a database used by the Department to maintain information regarding workers’ compensation policies, employee leasing plans, and exemptions for employees. Ms. Jackson found no record of an exemption for Mr. Wilson in CCAS. While Ms. Jackson did not exhaust all efforts to locate an exemption for Mr. Wilson, it was American’s burden to produce evidence of an exemption. Mr. Hoffman’s testimony with nothing more was insufficient to demonstrate that Mr. Wilson had an exemption and as such, Ms. Jackson appropriately included payments to Mr. Wilson as payroll to calculate the penalty. The calculation of the penalty for Mr. Wilson in the amount of $2,784.58 is correct. However, the penalty calculation for Mr. Barnett is incorrect. The amount should be $3,872.27. Therefore, the amount of the penalty should be reduced to $6,656.85. Ultimate Findings of Fact American was actively involved in business operations within the construction industry during the audit period of June 30, 2014, through June 29, 2016. Based upon the description of American’s business and the duties performed, Mr. Wilson was properly classified with a code 8018. Ms. Jackson used the correct manual rates and methodology to determine the appropriate penalty.
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, American Aluminum Concepts, Inc., violated the requirement in chapter 440, by failing to secure workers’ compensation coverage for its employees; and Imposing a total penalty assessment of $6,656.85. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of December, 2016, 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 16th day of December, 2016.
The Issue The issues are whether, under section 440.107, Florida Statutes, Petitioner may calculate a penalty assessment for a failure to secure the payment of workers' compensation for one day as though the failure persisted over two years and whether Petitioner may calculate a penalty assessment based on double the statewide average weekly wage (AWW) when the lone uncovered employee earned $10 per hour.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was incorporated in 2008 by Ineido Soler, Sr., and his son, Ineido Soler, Jr. Since the corporation began operations, the wife of Mr. Soler, Jr., Idalmis Pedrero, has served as the office manager of this family-owned company. At all material times, Respondent has contracted with a personnel leasing company to handle employee matters, such as securing the payment of workers' compensation. Ms. Pedrero's responsibilities include informing the employee leasing company of new hires, so the company can obtain workers' compensation coverage, which typically starts the day following notification. On the afternoon of November 22, 2015, Mr. Soler, Jr., telephoned his wife and told her that he and his father had hired, at the rate of $10 per hour, a new employee, Geony Borrego Lee, who would start work the following morning. Customarily, Ms. Pedrero would immediately inform the employee leasing company. However, Ms. Pedrero was working at home because, six days earlier, she had delivered a baby by caesarian section, and she was still recuperating and tending to her newborn. A fatigued Ms. Pedrero did not notify the employee leasing company that day of the new hire. Late the next morning, Ms. Pedrero was awakened by a call from her husband, who asked her if she had faxed the necessary information to the employee leasing company. Ms. Pedrero admitted that she had not done so, but would do so right away. She faxed the information immediately, so that the employee leasing company could add Mr. Lee to the workers' compensation policy, effective the next day, November 24. Uncovered for November 23, Mr. Lee joined three other employees of Respondent and performed roofing work at a worksite. Late in the afternoon of November 23, one of Petitioner's investigators conducted a random inspection of Respondent's worksite and determined that Respondent had secured the payment of workers' compensation for the three other employees, but not for Mr. Lee. The investigator issued an SWO on the day of the inspection, November 23. The SWO contains three parts. First, the SWO orders Respondent to cease work anywhere in the state of Florida. Second, the SWO includes an Order of Penalty Assessment, which does not contain a specific penalty, but instead sets forth the formula by which Petitioner determines the amount of the penalty to assess. Tracking the statute discussed below, the formula included in the SWO is two times the premium that the employer would have paid when applying approved manual rates to the employer's payroll "during periods for which it has failed to secure the payment of compensation within the preceding 2-year period." Third, the SWO includes a Notice of Rights, which advises Respondent that it may request a chapter 120 hearing. On November 24, Petitioner released the SWO after Respondent had secured the payment of workers' compensation for Mr. Lee. On November 25, the investigator hand delivered to Respondent a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation (Request). The Request covers November 24, 2013, through November 23, 2015, and demands records in eight categories: identification of employer, occupational licenses, payroll documents, account documents, disbursements, contracts for work, identification of subcontractors, and documentation of subcontractors' workers' compensation coverage. The Request identifies "payroll documents" as: all documents that reflect the payroll of the employer . . . including . . . time sheets, time cards, attendance records, earning records, check stubs and payroll summaries for both individual employees and aggregate records; [and] federal income tax documents and other documents reflecting the . . . remuneration paid or payable to each employee . . . . The Request adds: The employer may present for consideration in lieu of the requested records, proof of compliance with F.S. 440 by a workers' compensation policy or coverage through employee leasing for all periods of this request where such coverage existed. If the proof of compliance is verified by the Department the requested records for that time period will not be required. The Request warns: If the employer fails to provide the required business records sufficient to enable the . . . Division of Workers' Compensation to determine the employer's payroll for the period requested for the calculation of the penalty provided in section 440.107(7)(d), F.S., the imputed weekly payroll for each employee shall be the statewide average weekly wage as defined in section 440.12(2), F.S., multiplied by 2. The Department shall impute the employer's payroll at any time after ten, but before the expiration of twenty eight business days after receipt by the employer of [the Request]. (FAC 69L-6.028) . . . . On December 11, 2015, Respondent provided the following documents to Petitioner: itemized invoices, including for workers' compensation premiums, from the employee leasing company to Respondent and checks confirming payment, but the invoices and checks are from December 2011; an employee leasing agreement signed by Respondent on August 1, 2014, and signed by the employee leasing company on August 5, 2014; an employee leasing application for Mr. Lee dated November 23, 2015, showing his date of birth as November 20, 1996, his hourly pay as $10, and his hire date as November 23, 2015; and an employee census dated December 1, 2015, showing, for each employee, a date of hire and, if applicable, date of termination. Partially compliant with the Request, this production omitted any documentation of workers' compensation coverage prior to August 1, 2014, and any documentation of payroll except for Mr. Lee's rate of pay. On December 14, 2015, Respondent filed with Petitioner its request for a chapter 120 hearing. On December 30, 2016, Petitioner issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment (Amended Assessment), which proposes to assess a penalty of $63,434.48. On the same date, Petitioner transmitted the file to DOAH. Petitioner issued a Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on February 16, 2016, which is mentioned in, but not attached to, the Prehearing Stipulation that was filed on April 26, 2016, but the second amended assessment reportedly leaves the assessed penalty unchanged from the Amended Assessment. In determining the penalty assessment, Petitioner assigned class code 5551 from the National Council on Compensation Insurance because Mr. Lee was performing roofing work; determined that the entire two-year period covered in the Request was applicable; identified the AWW as $841.57 based on information provided by the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity for all employers subject to the Florida Reemployment Assistance Program Law, sections 443.01 et seq., Florida Statutes, for the four calendar quarters ending June 30, 2014; applied the appropriate manual rates for class code 5551 to $841.57, doubled, and divided the result by 100--all of which yielded a result of $31,717.24, which, doubled, results in a total penalty assessment of $63,434.48. There is no dispute that the classification code for Mr. Lee is code 5551, the AWW is $841.57, and the manual rates are 18.03 as of July 1, 2013, 18.62 as of January 1, 2014, and 17.48 as of January 1, 2015. Because Petitioner determined that Respondent had failed to provide sufficient evidence of its payroll, Petitioner calculated the penalty assessment by using the AWW of $841.57, doubled, instead of Mr. Lee's actual rate of $10 per hour. Petitioner's calculations are mathematically correct. For the 5.27 weeks of 2013, the penalty assessment is $3198.58 based on multiplying the AWW, doubled, by the manual rate of 18.03 divided by 100 multiplied by 2 and multiplied by 5.27. For the 52 weeks of 2014, the penalty assessment is $32,593.67 based on multiplying the AWW, doubled, by the manual rate of 18.62 divided by 100 multiplied by 2 and multiplied by 52. For the 46.44 weeks of 2015, the penalty assessment is $27,326.48 based on multiplying the AWW, doubled, by the manual rate of 17.48 divided by 100 multiplied by 2 and multiplied by 46.44. Adding these sums yields a total penalty assessment of $63,118.73, which approximates Petitioner's penalty assessment calculation of $63,434.48. (Mistranscription of difficult-to- read manual rates or a different rule for handling partial weeks may account for the small difference.) Respondent challenges two factors in the imputation formula: the two-year period of noncompliance for Mr. Lee instead of one day's noncompliance and the AWW, doubled, instead of Mr. Lee's $10 per hour rate of pay. Underscoring the differences between the two-year period of noncompliance and double the AWW and the actual period of noncompliance and Mr. Lee's real pay rate, at the start of the two-year period, Mr. Lee was three days past his 16th birthday and residing in Cuba, and Mr. Lee continues to earn $10 per hour as of the date of the hearing. The impact of Petitioner's use of the two-year period of noncompliance and double the AWW is significant. If the calculation were based on a single day, rather than two years, the assessed penalty would be less than the statutory minimum of $1000, which is described below, even if double the AWW were used. One day is 0.14 weeks, so the penalty assessment would be $82.38 based on multiplying the AWW, doubled, by the manual rate of 17.48 divided by 100 multiplied by 2 and multiplied by 0.14. If the calculation were based on the entire two years, rather than a single day, the assessed penalty would be about one-quarter of the proposed assessed penalty, if Mr. Lee's actual weekly rate of pay were used instead of double the AWW. Substituting $400 for twice the AWW in the calculations set forth in paragraph 15 above, the penalty would be $760.14 for 2013, $7746.92 for 2014, and $6494.17 for 2015 for a total of $15,001.23. Explaining why Petitioner treated one day of noncompliance as two years of noncompliance, one of Petitioner's witnesses referred to Mr. Lee as a "placeholder" because the real focus of the imputation formula is the employer. The same witness characterized the imputation formula as a "legal fiction," implying that the formula obviously and, in this case, dramatically departs from the much-smaller penalty that would result from calculating exactly how much premium that Respondent avoided by not covering the modestly paid Mr. Lee on his first day of work. Regardless of how Petitioner characterizes the imputation formula, the statutory mandate, as discussed below, is to determine the "periods" during which Respondent failed to secure workers' compensation insurance within the two-year period covered by the Request. The focus is necessarily on the employee found by the investigator to be uncovered and any other uncovered employees. Petitioner must calculate a penalty based on how long the employee found by the investigator on his inspection has been uncovered, determining how many other employees, if any, in the preceding two years have been uncovered, and calculating a penalty based on how long they were uncovered. There is evidence of one or two gaps in coverage during the relevant two years, but Petitioner has failed to prove such gaps by clear and convincing evidence. One of Petitioner's witnesses testified to a gap of one month "probably" from late January to late February 2015. This witness relied on Petitioner Exhibit 2, but it is completely illegible. Ms. Pedrero testified that Respondent had workers' compensation coverage since 2011, except for a gap, which she thought had occurred prior to August 2014, which is the start date of the current policy. This conflicting evidence does not establish by clear and convincing evidence any gap, and, even if a gap had been proved, no evidence establishes the number of uncovered employees, if any, during such a gap, nor would such a gap justify enlarging the period of noncompliance for Mr. Lee. Ms. Pedrero testified that her mother-in-law, Teresa Marquez cleaned the office and warehouse on an occasional basis, last having worked sometime in 2015. Respondent never secured workers' compensation coverage for Ms. Marquez, but she did no roofing work and appears to have been a casual worker, so her periods of employment during the two-year period covered by the Request would not constitute additional periods for which Respondent failed to secure workers' compensation insurance. Based on the foregoing, Petitioner has proved by clear and convincing evidence only a single day of noncompliance, November 23, concerning one employee, Mr. Lee, within the relevant two-year period for the purpose of calculating the penalty assessment. Likewise, Petitioner has proved by clear and convincing evidence a rate of pay of only $10 per hour for the purpose of calculating the penalty assessment. At no time has Respondent provided payroll records of all its employees for November 23, 2015. Respondent Exhibit E covers payroll for Respondent's employees for a two-week period commencing shortly after November 23, 2015. But the evidence establishes that Mr. Lee's rate of pay was $80 for the day, which, as discussed below, rebuts the statutory presumption of double the AWW.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order determining that Respondent has failed to secure the payment of workers' compensation for one employee for one day within the two-year period covered by the Request and imposing an administrative penalty of $1000. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of July, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of July, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Jonathan Anthony Martin, Esquire Trevor S. Suter, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 (eServed) Daniel R. Vega, Esquire Robert Paul Washington, Esquire Taylor Espino Vega & Touron, P.A. 2555 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 220 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 (eServed) Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 (eServed)
The Issue Whether the Respondent, Steve Mundine Construction, Inc., timely challenged the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment and, if not, whether pursuant to the doctrine of equitable tolling Respondent’s untimely filed challenge should be accepted.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of enforcing and assuring employers meet the requirements of chapter 440, Florida Statutes. The law in Florida requires employers to maintain appropriate workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. At all times material to this case, the Respondent was doing business in Florida and was subject to the requirements of the law. On May 6, 2015, Stephanie Scarton, an investigator employed by the Petitioner, stopped at one of the Respondent’s construction sites and initiated an investigation as to whether the Respondent maintained appropriate workers’ compensation for the two employees found at the job site. After determining that the requisite documentation for workers’ compensation coverage was not produced, Ms. Scarton issued a Stop-Work Order (Petitioner’s Exhibit A). The Stop- Work Order advised the Respondent that he, Steven Mundine, d/b/a, Steve Mundine Construction, Inc., was in violation of Florida law by “failing to obtain coverage that meets the requirements of chapter 440, F.S., and the Insurance Code.” Petitioner’s Exhibit A included a Notice of Rights that provided, in part: You have a right to administrative review of this action by the Department under sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. * * * FAILURE TO FILE A PETITION WITHIN THETWENTY-ONE (21) DAYS CONSTITUTES A WAIVER OF YOUR RIGHT TO ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OF THEAGENCY ACTION. [Emphasis in original] In response to the Stop-Work Order, the Respondent met with Cathy Nunez on May 7, 2016, and executed an Agreed Order of Conditional Release from Stop-Work Order (Petitioner’s Exhibit B). In addition to signing the agreed order, the Respondent submitted an affidavit that provided: I Steve Mundine have terminated Bill Busch and Karl G. Kerr. I am no longer conducting business as Steve Mundine Const. Inc. I have opened a new company Paradigm Building, LLC but will not work til we applied and received exemptions. Including Richard Hans. Under the terms of the Agreed Order of Conditional Release from Stop-Work Order the Respondent represented that he would remit periodic payments of the remaining penalty amount pursuant to a Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty with the Department or pay the remaining penalty amount in full within 28 days after the service of the Stop-Work Order. As a condition of receiving the conditional release the Respondent remitted $1,000.00 toward the penalty amount. In order to assist the Petitioner with the accurate calculation of the penalty that would be due, the Respondent was advised that he needed to submit records. When the Respondent asked Cathy Nunez if he needed to retain a lawyer, she did not tell him that he did not need a lawyer. She advised him that a lawyer was not required to produce the records that were needed to make the penalty calculation. The Respondent did produce records to the Petitioner and in turn an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment (Petitioner’s Exhibit C) was completed that advised the Respondent that he owed a total penalty of $63,837.82. Cathy Nunez hand-delivered the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to the Respondent on July 24, 2015. Included was a second Notice of Rights that advised the Respondent of his right to challenge the assessment. Additionally, the Respondent was advised that a petition to seek administrative review of the action had to be filed within twenty-one days. After considering additional records submitted by the Respondent, the Petitioner prepared a Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment (Petitioner’s Exhibit D) to itemize the revised amount owed by the Respondent. The Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment ordered the Respondent to pay a total penalty of $47,006.28. Stephanie Scarton delivered the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to the Respondent on December 22, 2015. At the same time (December 22, 2015), Ms. Scarton presented the Respondent with a Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty (Petitioner’s Exhibit E). The payment agreement acknowledged that the Respondent had previously remitted $1,000.00 toward his penalty and allowed for the remaining $46,006.28 to be repaid over the course of 60 monthly payments. The Respondent did not agree to sign the payment agreement. Accordingly, a blank agreement was left with the Respondent, not the one providing for the payments previously described. On December 22, 2015, the Respondent disagreed with the repayment amount and believed the penalty had been incorrectly calculated. On December 22, 2015, the Respondent knew he had a limited amount of time to challenge the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. On December 22, 2015, Ms. Scarton hand-delivered to the Respondent the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment including a Notice of Rights. The only documents not left with the Respondent on December 22, 2015, were copies of the payment agreement signed by Ms. Scarton. On December 22, 2015, the Notice of Rights provided to the Respondent was identical to the Notice of Rights previously provided to him. Before leaving the Respondent on December 22, 2015, Ms. Scarton reminded the Respondent he had a limited amount of time to file a petition seeking administrative review of the agency action. The Petitioner did not misrepresent the procedural requirements to challenge the agency action, did not lull the Respondent into a false sense of security or inaction, and did not advise the Respondent as to whether he should retain a lawyer in connection with an administrative review of the penalty assessment. The weight of the credible evidence supports the finding that when the Respondent eventually filed a petition to challenge the agency action, it was beyond the 21 days allowed by law.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, enter a final order determining the Respondent’s request for administrative review of the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was not timely filed. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of May, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of May, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Christopher Ivey Miller, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) John Laurance Reid, Esquire Dickens Reid PLLC 517 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Young J. Kwon, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Michael Joseph Gordon, Esquire Florida Department of Financial Services Workers Compensation Compliance 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact 12. The factual allegations in the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment issued on February 17 2009, and the Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on September 4, 2009, which are fully incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted as the Department’s Findings of Fact in this case.
Conclusions THIS PROCEEDING came on for final agency action and Alex Sink, Chief Financial Officer of the State of Florida, or her designee, having considered the record in this case, including the Stop- Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment and the Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment served in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 09-042-D7, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby finds that: 1. On February 17, 2009, the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (hereinafter “Department”) issued a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 09-042-D7 to ROYMO, INC. The Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of rights wherein ROYMO, INC. was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. 2. On February 17, 2009, the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment was served via personal service on ROYMO, INC. A copy of the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit A” and incorporated herein by reference. 3. On February 25, 2009, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to ROYMO, INC. in Case No. 09-042-D7. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $61,692.98 against ROYMO, INC. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein ROYMO, INC. was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. 4. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served on ROYMO, INC. by personal service on February 25, 2009. A copy of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit B” and incorporated herein by reference. 5. On March 10, 2009, ROYMO, INC. filed a timely Petition for a formal administrative hearing in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. The Petition was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned Case No. 09- 1388. 6. On September 4, 2009, the Department issued a Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to ROYMO, INC. in Case No. 09-042-D7. The Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $29,911.26 against ROYMO, INC. The Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served on ROYMO, INC. through the Division of Administrative Hearings. A copy of the Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit C” and is incorporated herein by reference. 7. On November 6, 2009, ROYMO, INC. filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal in DOAH Case No. 09-1388. A copy of the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal filed by ROYMO, INC. is attached hereto as “Exhibit D.” 8. On November 9, 2009 Administrative Law Judge Daniel M. Kilbride entered an Order Closing File, relinquishing jurisdiction to the Department. A copy of the November 9, 2009 Order Closing File is attached hereto as “Exhibit E.”
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent should be assessed a penalty for an alleged failure to obtain workers’ compensation, as charged in a Stop-Work Order and Amended Order of Penalty Assessment.
Findings Of Fact On March 3, 2015, Kirk Glover, an investigator employed by the Petitioner, observed two men who appeared to him to be installing soffits on a home at 8905 Dove Valley Way in the Champions Gate residential development near Davenport, Florida (the worksite). The two men were the Respondent, Lee Roy Lamond Sizemore, and his son, Chris Sizemore. The investigator asked the Respondent for the name of his company. The Respondent answered that he had not established his company, which was to be named “Lee’s Screen and Repairs.” The investigator then asked the Respondent if he had workers’ compensation coverage or an exemption or exclusion from the requirement to have coverage. The Respondent answered, no. The investigator verified this information and concluded that the Respondent was in violation. The investigator asked the Respondent to provide business records to facilitate the computation of the appropriate penalty. In response, the Respondent provided all the records he had for 2015, which consisted of bank statements on a personal account he shared with his wife, and their joint income tax returns for 2013 and 2014. The bank statements did not reflect any business activity. The 2014 tax return indicated that the Respondent was self-employed in construction but had no income for that year. The 2013 tax return indicated that the Respondent was self-employed selling and installing pool enclosures and had gross income of $6,264 that year. Based on the information provided by the Respondent, the Petitioner calculated a penalty of $11,121.16. The calculated penalty included $1,633.84 for the Respondent for the period from July 1 to December 31, 2013, based on the tax return for 2013. It also included $4,743.66 each for the Respondent and his son for the period from January 1 to March 3, 2015; those amounts were based on income imputed to them because the records provided for that period were deemed insufficient. The Respondent did not dispute the penalty calculation, assuming that workers’ compensation coverage was required and that penalties were owed. However, the evidence was not clear and convincing that coverage was required for either the Respondent or his son in 2015. The Respondent testified that he was in the process of establishing his business under the name of Lee’s Screen and Repairs on March 3, 2015. Up to and including that day, he was self-employed, but there was no clear and convincing evidence that he or his son had worked or had any income in 2015. The Respondent testified that his son had been released from prison in 2014, was not employed, and needed money. The Respondent brought his son to the worksite on March 3, 2015, hoping that the contractor on the job would hire him and his son to do soffit and fascia work. He had not yet seen the contractor when the Petitioner’s investigator arrived, and neither he nor his son had any agreement with the contractor to begin work or be paid. There was no clear and convincing evidence that there was any agreement by anyone to pay either the Respondent or his son for any work on March 3, 2015, or at any other time in 2015. The Petitioner did not contradict the Respondent’s testimony. In this case, the absence of business records for 2015 is evidence that no business was conducted that year, consistent with the Respondent’s testimony, and does not support the imputation of income and assessment of a penalty for 2015.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, enter a final order imposing a penalty against the Respondent in the amount of $1,633.84 for 2013, but no penalty for 2014 or 2015. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of November, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 20th day of November, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: Trevor S. Suter, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Lee Roy Sizemore 9728 Piney Port Circle Orlando, Florida 32825 Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact 10. The factual allegations contained in the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment issued on February 17, 2009, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on May 19, 2009, and the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on June 5, 2009, which are fully incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted as the Department’s Findings of Fact in this case.
Findings Of Fact 11. The factual allegations contained in the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment issued on March 12, 2009, and the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued March 30, 2009, which are fully incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted as the Department’s Findings of Fact in this case.
Conclusions THIS PROCEEDING came on for final agency action and Alex Sink, Chief Financial Officer of the State of Florida, or her designee, having considered the record in this case, including the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment and the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment served in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 09-075-1A, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby finds that: 1. On March 12, 2009, the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (hereinafter “Department”) issued a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 09-075-1A to REGIONAL CONCRETE, INC. The Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein REGIONAL CONCRETE, INC. was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. 2. On March 12, 2009, the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment was served by personal service on REGIONAL CONCRETE, INC. A copy of the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit A” and incorporated herein by reference. 3. On March 30, 2009, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to REGIONAL CONCRETE, IN C. in Case No. 09-075-1A. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $122,034.51 against REGIONAL CONCRETE, INC. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein REGIONAL CONCRETE, INC. was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty- one (21) days of receipt of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. 4. On April 1, 2009, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served by certified mail on REGIONAL CONCRETE, INC. A copy of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit B” and incorporated herein by reference. 5. On April 20, 2009, REGIONAL CONCRETE, INC. filed a petition requesting a formal administrative hearing with the Department. The Department forwarded the petition to the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 8, 2009, and the matter was assigned DOAH Case No. 09-3046. 6. On July 24, 2009, the Department served its discovery requests on REGIONAL CONCRETE, INC., which included interrogatories, requests for admissions, and requests for production. Responses or objections to the discovery were required to be served on the Department within thirty days. REGIONAL CONCRETE, INC. failed to respond to the discovery requests within thirty days. 7. On August 28, 2009, the Department filed a Motion to Compel Discovery. The Honorable P. Michael Ruff, the Administrative Law Judge, entered an Order on Motion to Compel on September 15, 2009, which required REGIONAL CONCRETE, INC. to serve responses to the requests for admission, interrogatories, and requests for production no later than September 18, 2009. 8. On September 25, 2009, the parties filed a Joint Response to Order Granting Continuance wherein the parties agreed REGIONAL CONCRETE, INC. would submit to the Department responses to the discovery requests by October 23, 2009. Since conferring on the Joint Response to Order Granting Continuance, the Department has made several unsuccessful attempts to reach REGIONAL CONCRETE, INC. 9. On November 3, 2009, the Department filed a Motion to Deem Matters Admitted and to Relinquish Jurisdiction Pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(i), Florida Statutes, with the Division of Administrative Hearings after REGIONAL CONCRETE, INC. failed to respond to the discovery request by. October 23, 2009. A hearing on the motion was held on November 20, 2009, during which several’ unsuccessful attempts were made to contact REGIONAL CONCRETE, INC. The Department also attempted to contact REGIONAL CONCRETE, INC. by telephone after the hearing on the motion, but was unsuccessful. After the hearing on the motion, the Honorable James H. Peterson, III, the Administrative Law Judge, entered an Order to Show Cause which ordered REGIONAL CONCRETE, INC. to show good cause within seven days as to why the Motion to Deem Matters Admitted and to Relinquish Jurisdiction Pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(@, Florida Statutes, should not be granted. A copy of the Order to Show Cause is attached hereto as “Exhibit C” and incorporated herein by reference. 10. On December 3, 2009, the Honorable James H. Peterson, II, entered an Order Closing File deeming the admissions contained in the discovery requests admitted. The Order Closing File further concluded that there were no disputed issues of material fact and relinquished jurisdiction of the matter to the Department for final disposition. A copy of the Order Closing File is attached hereto as “Exhibit D” and incorporated herein by reference.
