The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether the Respondent, Klenk Roofing, Inc. ("Klenk Roofing"), failed to abide by the coverage requirements of the Workers' Compensation Law, chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by not obtaining workers' compensation insurance for its employees and, if so, whether the Petitioner properly assessed a penalty against the Respondent pursuant to section 440.107.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: 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. Klenk Roofing is a corporation based in Daytona Beach. The Division of Corporations’ “Sunbiz” website indicates that Klenk Roofing was first incorporated on February 23, 2005, and remained an active corporation up to the date of the hearing. Klenk Roofing’s principal office is at 829 Pinewood Street in Daytona Beach. As the name indicates, Klenk Roofing’s primary business is the installation of new roofs and the repair of existing roofs. Klenk Roofing was actively engaged in roofing operations during the two-year audit period from July 24, 2012, through July 23, 2014. Kent Howe is a Department compliance investigator assigned to Volusia County. Mr. Howe testified that his job includes driving around the county conducting random compliance investigations of any construction sites he happens to see. On July 23, 2014, Mr. Howe was driving through a residential neighborhood when he saw a house under construction at 2027 Peninsula Drive in Daytona Beach. He saw a dumpster in the driveway with the name “Klenk Roofing” written on its side. Mr. Howe also saw a gray van with the name “Klenk Roofing” on the door. Mr. Howe saw three men working on the house. He spoke first with Vincent Ashton, who was collecting debris and placing it in the dumpster. Mr. Howe later spoke with Jonny Wheeler and Craig Saimes, both of whom were laying down adhesive tarpaper on the roof when Mr. Howe approached the site. All three men told Mr. Howe that they worked for Klenk Roofing and that the owner was Ronald Klenk. Mr. Ashton and Mr. Wheeler told Mr. Howe that they were each being paid $10 per hour. Mr. Saimes would not say how much he was being paid. After speaking with the three Klenk Roofing employees, Mr. Howe returned to his vehicle to perform computer research on Klenk Roofing. He first consulted the Sunbiz website for information about the company and its officers. His search confirmed that Klenk Roofing was an active Florida corporation and that Ronald Klenk was its registered agent. Ronald Klenk was listed as the president of the corporation and Kyle Klenk was listed as the vice president. Mr. Howe next checked the Department's Coverage and Compliance Automated System ("CCAS") database to determine whether Klenk Roofing had secured the payment of workers' compensation insurance coverage or had obtained an exemption from the requirements of chapter 440. CCAS is a database that Department investigators routinely consult during their investigations to check for compliance, exemptions, and other workers' compensation related items. CCAS revealed that Klenk Roofing had no active workers' compensation insurance coverage for its employees and that Ronald and Kyle Klenk had elected exemptions as officers of the corporation pursuant to section 440.05 and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.012. Mr. Howe’s next step was to telephone Ronald Klenk to verify the employment of the three workers at the jobsite and to inquire as to the status of Klenk Roofing's workers' compensation insurance coverage. Mr. Klenk verified that Klenk Roofing employed Mr. Wheeler, Mr. Ashton, and Mr. Saimes. Mr. Klenk also informed Mr. Howe that Klenk Roofing did not have workers' compensation insurance coverage for the three employees. Based on his jobsite interviews with the employees, his interview with Mr. Klenk, and his Sunbiz and CCAS computer searches, Mr. Howe concluded that as of July 23, 2014, Klenk Roofing had three employees working in the construction industry and that the company had failed to procure workers’ compensation coverage for these employees in violation of chapter 440. Mr. Howe consequently issued a Stop-Work Order that he personally served on Mr. Klenk on July 23, 2014. Also on July 23, 2014, Mr. Howe served Klenk Roofing with a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation, asking for documents pertaining to the identification of the employer, the employer's payroll, business accounts, disbursements, workers' compensation insurance coverage records, professional employer organization records, temporary labor service records, documentation of exemptions, documents relating to subcontractors, documents of subcontractors' workers compensation insurance coverage, and other business records to enable the Department to determine the appropriate penalty owed by Klenk Roofing. Anita Proano, penalty audit supervisor for the Department, was assigned to calculate the appropriate penalty to be assessed on Klenk Roofing. Penalties for workers' compensation insurance violations are based on doubling the amount of evaded insurance premiums over the two-year period preceding the Stop-Work Order, which, in this case was the period from July 24, 2012, through July 23, 2014. § 440.107(7)(d), Fla. Stat. At the time Ms. Proano was assigned, Klenk Roofing had not provided the Department with sufficient business records to enable Ms. Proano to determine the company’s actual gross payroll. Section 440.107(7)(e) provides that where an employer fails to provide business records sufficient to enable the Department to determine the employer’s actual payroll for the penalty period, the Department will impute the weekly payroll at the statewide average weekly wage as defined in section 440.12(2), multiplied by two.1/ 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 four-digit codes 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.” Ms. Proano applied NCCI Class Code 5551, titled “Roofing — All Kinds and Drivers,” which “applies to the installation of new roofs and the repair of existing roofs.” The corresponding rule provision is rule 69L-6.021(2)(uu). Ms. Proano used the approved manual rates corresponding to Class Code 5551 for the periods of non-compliance to calculate the penalty. On September 17, 2014, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in the amount of $214,335.58, based upon an imputation of wages for the employees known to the Department at that time. After Klenk Roofing provided further business records, the Department on December 16, 2014, was able to issue a Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in the amount of $87,159.20, based on a mixture of actual payroll information and imputation. The Department eventually received records sufficient to determine Klenk Roofing's payroll for the time period of July 24, 2012, through July 23, 2014. The additional records enabled Ms. Proano to calculate a Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in the amount of $19.818.04. The evidence produced at the hearing established that Ms. Proano utilized the correct class codes, average weekly wages, and manual rates in her calculation of the Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. The Department has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Klenk Roofing was in violation of the workers' compensation coverage requirements of chapter 440. Jonny Wheeler, Vincent Ashton, and Craig Saimes were employees of Klenk Roofing performing services in the construction industry without valid workers' compensation insurance coverage. The Department has also demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the penalty was correctly calculated by Ms. Proano, through the use of the approved manual rates, business records provided by Klenk Roofing, and the penalty calculation worksheet adopted by the Department in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.027. Klenk Roofing could point to no exemption, insurance policy, or employee leasing arrangement that would operate to lessen or extinguish the assessed penalty. At the hearing, Ronald Klenk testified he was unable to obtain workers’ compensation coverage during the penalty period because it was prohibitively expensive to carry coverage for fewer than four employees. He stated that the insurers demanded a minimum of $1,500 per week in premiums, which wiped out his profits when the payroll was low. Mr. Klenk presented a sympathetic picture of a small business squeezed by high premiums, but such equitable considerations have no effect on the operation of chapter 440 or the imposition of the penalty assessed pursuant thereto.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, assessing a penalty of $19,818.04 against Klenk Roofing, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of April, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 April, 2015.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Gulf Coast Site Prep, Inc., failed to comply with the coverage requirements of the Workers’ Compensation Law, chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by not obtaining workers’ compensation insurance for its employees, and, if so, what penalty should be assessed against Respondent pursuant to section 440.107, Florida Statutes (2014).1/
Findings Of Fact 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. Respondent, Gulf Coast Site Prep., Inc., is a Florida for-profit corporation organized on March 3, 2008. Respondent’s registered business address is 952 TR Miller Road, Defuniak Springs, Florida. Ashley Adams is Respondent’s President and Registered Agent. On March 27, 2015, the Department’s investigator-in- training, Jill Scogland, and lead investigator, Sharon Kelson, conducted a random workers’ compensation compliance check at Lot 34 in the Driftwood Estates residential subdivision in Santa Rosa Beach, Florida. Ms. Scogland observed two men on site. David Wayne Gibson was operating a front-end loader spreading dirt on site. Colby Smith was shoveling dirt on site. While Ms. Scogland was inspecting the site, a third man, Ashley Adams, arrived driving a dump truck with a load of dirt. Mr. Adams identified himself as the owner of Gulf Coast, and stated that he had an exemption from the requirement for workers’ compensation insurance and that he thought Mr. Gibson did as well. Mr. Adams advised Ms. Scogland that he hired both Mr. Gibson and Mr. Smith to work at the site.2/ At hearing, Respondent challenged the evidence supporting a finding that Respondent hired Mr. Gibson.3/ Specifically, Respondent argues that Ms. Scogland’s testimony that Mr. Adams told her he hired Mr. Gibson is unreliable because Ms. Scogland did not include that information in her field notes. Respondent claims that Ms. Scogland’s status as investigator-in-training on the date of the inspection is indicative of her unreliability. To the contrary, Ms. Scogland’s testimony regarding both the persons and events on the date of the inspection was clear and unequivocal. While Ms. Scogland admitted her field notes were not as detailed on the date in question as they are for more recent inspections, she was confident that her investigation of the facts was thorough. The fact that Ms. Scogland did not write down what Mr. Adams said does not render her testimony unreliable. The undersigned finds Ms. Scogland’s testimony to be clear and convincing. Ms. Scogland reviewed the Department of State, Division of Corporations’ online information and identified Mr. Gibson as President and Registered Agent of David Wayne Gibson Tractor Service, Inc. According to Ms. Scogland, the online records indicated the corporation had been administratively dissolved in September 2013. Ms. Scogland next accessed the Department’s Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) and determined that Mr. Gibson had obtained a workers’ compensation coverage exemption for himself, but the exemption had expired on February 15, 2015. The information contained in CCAS is information on new policies, cancellations, etc., reported to the Department by insurance agencies as required by administrative rule. Next, Ms. Scogland accessed the Division of Corporations’ website, verified Gulf Coast as an active corporation, and identified Mr. Adams as the sole officer of Gulf Coast. Ms. Scogland then accessed CCAS and determined that, although Gulf Coast did not have workers’ compensation coverage, Mr. Adams had an active exemption effective from February 12, 2014 through February 12, 2016. Mr. Adams had a prior exemption that expired on April 14, 2013, but had no valid exemption in place between April 14, 2013 and February 12, 2014. After contacting her supervisor, Michelle Lloyd, Ms. Scogland served Mr. Adams, on behalf of Gulf Coast, with a site-specific Stop-Work Order for failure to ensure workers’ compensation coverage for its employees. Ms. Scogland also served Mr. Adams with a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation. The request was for Gulf Coast’s payroll, account, and disbursement records, as well as records identifying its subcontractors, payments thereto, and workers’ compensation coverage thereof, from March 28, 2013 through March 27, 2015 (the penalty period).4/ Mr. Adams did not provide any records to the Department in response to the records request. The Department’s penalty auditor, Eunika Jackson, was assigned to calculate the penalty to be assessed against Gulf Coast for failure to secure workers’ compensation insurance during the penalty period. The penalty to be assessed against an employer for failure to secure workers’ compensation coverage is two times the amount the employer would have paid in workers’ compensation insurance premiums when applying approved manual rates to the employer’s payroll during the penalty period. § 440.107(7)(d), Fla. Stat. Ms. Jackson consulted the Scopes Manual, which is published by the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI), and identified class code 6217--Excavation and Drivers-- as the appropriate construction class code for the work being performed at the worksite. Respondent contests the assignment of class code 6217 to Mr. Adams, who was driving a dump truck and delivering a load of dirt to the site. Respondent admits that Mr. Gibson’s operation of the front-end loader was properly classified as Excavation and Drivers. NCCI Scopes Manual provides the following with regard to classification code 6217: Includes burrowing, filling or backfilling. * * * Code 6217 is applied to specialist contractors engaged in general excavation including ditch digging, burrowing, filling or backfilling provided such operations are not otherwise classified in the manual. The operations involve the removal of earth, small boulders and rocks by power shovels, trench diggers or bulldozers and piling it at the jobsite for backfill. The material may also be removed by dump trucks for fill in some other area. Code 6217 includes excavation in connection with building foundations, swimming pools, landscape gardening and waterproofing operations. * * * This classification also is applied to specialist contractors engaged in grading land and landfilling, provided these operations are not otherwise classified in this manual. This classification includes ditch digging, burrowing, filling or backfilling, and operations such as scraping, cutting, piling or pushing the earth to rearrange the terrain. These operations utilize equipment such as bulldozers, motor graders and carryalls. [emphasis supplied]. Mr. Adams’ operation of the dump truck falls squarely within the definition of Excavation and Drivers. The material in the dump truck was fill for the site under excavation, a purpose which is directly addressed in the manual under code 6217. Under Respondent’s interpretation, fill removed from the site by a dump truck would be an excavation activity, but would no longer be excavation when the dump truck arrived at another site (or at another location on the same site) with the fill. That interpretation is illogical. No evidence was introduced to support a finding that typical operation of a dump truck in preconstruction was classified by a different code in the Scopes Manual. It is found that Ms. Jackson properly applied the Scopes Manual in assigning code 6217 to the work being performed by Mr. Adams on the site. Having no payroll records from Gulf Coast, Ms. Jackson had to impute the statewide average weekly wage as Respondent’s payroll for Mr. Adams and his subcontractor, Mr. Gibson. The average weekly wages were calculated based on the Workers’ Compensation and Employers Liability approved rate manual also published by NCCI and adopted by the Department by administrative rule. Ms. Jackson calculated a penalty of two times the workers’ compensation insurance premiums that would have applied to the purchase of insurance for Mr. Adams and Mr. Gibson during periods of non-compliance during the penalty. The period of non-compliance for Mr. Adams was April 15, 2013 to February 11, 2014, during which time his exemption had lapsed. The period of non-compliance for Mr. Gibson was February 16, 2015 to March 27, 2015, during which his exemption had expired. § 440.107(7)(e), Fla. Stat. Utilizing the penalty calculation worksheet adopted by Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.027, Ms. Scogland calculated a penalty of $12,181.42. On May 20, 2015, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment against Gulf Coast in the amount of $12,181.42. The Department correctly calculated the penalty based on the statutory formulas and adopted rules governing workers’ compensation insurance.
Recommendation Having considered 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 upholding the Stop-Work Order and Amended Penalty Assessment against Respondent, Gulf Coast Site Prep., Inc., for its failure to secure and maintain required workers’ compensation insurance for its employees. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of January, 2016, 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 14th day of January, 2016.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent complied with coverage requirements of the workers' compensation law, Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. A determination of whether Respondent functioned as an employer is a preliminary issue to be resolved.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency of state government currently responsible for enforcing the requirement of Section 440.107, Florida Statutes, that employers secure the payment of compensation for their employees. Respondent works in the construction industry as a house framer. Petitioner's investigator received a report of a violation of the workers' compensation law on May 21, 2002. When the investigator arrived at the construction site located at 8225 Southwest 103rd Street Road, Ocala, Florida, he observed four men, including Respondent, installing trusses at a residence under construction. Respondent was identified by the other men as the person for whom they were working on the job. All four men told the investigator that they were employees of Dove Enterprises (DOVE). Upon further investigation, the owner of DOVE and also the general contractor of record, Steven Slocumb, stated to the investigator that DOVE operated as the subcontractor for Triple Crown Homes. Slocumb further stated that DOVE, through Slocumb, in turn subcontracted the work to Respondent on a piece rate or square foot basis. Respondent, according to Slocumb, in turn hired the other three men. When Petitioner's investigator returned to the construction site, the four men were gone. None of the four men had an exemption from coverage requirements of the workers' compensation law and none of them had workers' compensation insurance. Consequently, the investigator determined that Respondent was an employer both of himself and the three other workers and that all four were unprotected by workers' compensation insurance. On June 27, 2002, the investigator issued the Stop Work and Penalty Assessment Order at issue in this proceeding. The Order levied the minimum penalty under Section 440.107, Florida Statutes, of $1,100.00. Slocumb and Respondent appeared at the final hearing. Respondent's position was that he and the other three men were employees of DOVE. None of the men produced documentation of such an employment relationship. Rather, documentation presented shows that DOVE paid Respondent for equipment rental. Additionally, payments to Respondent from DOVE for the jobs in question did not include adjustments for employment taxes that would have applied had Respondent been an employee. Respondent's testimony is not credited. Slocumb confirmed the facts determined by the investigator. Slocumb's testimony was candid, direct and creditable.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order confirming the Stop Work and Penalty Assessment Order at issue in this proceeding. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of July, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of July, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Lawrence Simon 1683 Southeast 160th Terrace Oklawaha, Florida 33379 David C. Hawkins, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Workers' Compensation 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Lower Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
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 Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (“Petitioner” or “Department”) properly issued a Stop-Work Order and Penalty Assessment against Respondent, Barber Custom Builders, Inc. (“Respondent” or “Barber”) for failing to obtain workers' compensation insurance that meets the requirements of chapter 440, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On January 31, 2014, the parties filed a Joint Pre- hearing Stipulation, by which the parties stipulated to the facts set forth in the following paragraphs 2 through 12. Those facts are accepted and adopted by the undersigned. The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure the payment of workers’ compensation for the benefit of their employees and corporate officers. Respondent, a Florida corporation, was engaged in business operations in the construction industry in the State of Florida from June 6, 2010 through June 5, 2013. Respondent received a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment from the Department on June 5, 2013. The Department had a legal basis to issue and serve Stop-Work Order 13-273-1A on Respondent. Respondent contests the validity of the Department’s Stop-Work Order as a charging document. Respondent received a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation from the Department on June 5, 2013. Respondent received an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment from the Department on June 17, 2013. Respondent executed a Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty and was issued an Order of Conditional Release from Stop-Work Order on August 6, 2013. Respondent received a 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment from the Department on September 25, 2013. Respondent employed more than four non-exempt employees during the periods of June 10, 2010 through June 30, 2010; July 2, 2010 through December 31, 2010; January 14, 2011 through December 29, 2011; January 30, 2012 through December 16, 2012; and January 4, 201[3] through June 5, 2013. Respondent was an “employer” as defined in chapter 440. All of the individuals listed on the Penalty Worksheet of the [2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment], except Buffie Barber and Linda Barber, were “employees” in the State of Florida (as that term is defined in section 440.02(15)(a), Florida Statutes), of Respondent during the periods of non- compliance listed on the penalty worksheets. In addition to the foregoing, in their March 12, 2014, Joint Stipulations and Status Report, the parties stipulated to the facts set forth in the following paragraphs 14 and 15. Those facts are accepted and adopted by the undersigned. Based on business records received from Respondent, the Department has recalculated the assessed penalty. The penalty has been reduced from $36,387.03 to $2,272.31. The 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is calculated correctly, if the manual rates were properly adopted by rule. A review of the stipulated 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment reveals assessed penalties for employees engaged in work described as class code 5403 (carpentry - NOC) and class code 8810 (clerical office employees - NOC). Given the stipulations of the parties, further findings are unnecessary.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation enter a final order assessing a penalty of $2,272.31 against Respondent, Barber Custom Builders, Inc., for its failure to secure and maintain required workers’ compensation insurance for its employees. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY 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 April, 2014.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Doherty Home Repair, Inc., failed to obtain workers’ compensation coverage that meets the requirements of chapter 440, Florida statutes (2017); and, if so, whether the penalty assessed in the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was properly calculated.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence and stipulated facts, the undersigned makes the following Findings of Fact: Respondent was actively involved in business operations in the state of Florida during the period of January 22, 2014, through January 21, 2016, inclusively. Respondent received the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment from the Department on January 21, 2016. Respondent received the Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation from the Department on February 10, 2016. Respondent was an "employer," as defined in chapter 440, throughout the penalty period. Respondent received the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment from the Department on March 10, 2016. Respondent received the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment from the Department on July 5, 2016. All of the individuals listed on the penalty worksheet of the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment were "employees" of Respondent during the periods of noncompliance listed on the penalty worksheet of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. None of the individuals listed on the penalty worksheet of the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment had a valid Florida workers’ compensation coverage exemption at any time during the periods of noncompliance listed on the penalty worksheet of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. Respondent did not secure the payment of workers’ compensation insurance coverage, nor have others secured the payment of workers’ compensation insurance coverage, for any of the individuals named on the penalty worksheet of the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment during the periods of noncompliance listed on the penalty worksheet of the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. None of the individuals listed on the penalty worksheet of the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment were "independent contractors" hired by Respondent for any portion of the periods of noncompliance listed on the penalty worksheet. Wages or salaries were paid by Respondent to its employees listed on the penalty worksheet of the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, whether continuously or not, during the corresponding periods of noncompliance listed on the penalty worksheet of the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. The Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation was served on Respondent on April 2, 2016. Respondent failed to provide all of the required business records for the period requested in the Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation. The employees on the penalty worksheet of the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment are classified under the correct class codes, as defined by the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc. ("NCCI"), "Scopes® Manual." The approved manual rates used on the penalty worksheet of the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, as defined by the NCCI Scopes® Manual, are the correct manual rates for the corresponding periods of noncompliance listed on the penalty worksheets. Doherty Home Repair, Inc., is Respondent’s correct legal name. The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility to investigate and enforce the workers’ compensation insurance coverage laws in the state under chapter 440 and to ensure that employers secure workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Respondent is a private company providing general construction and home repair services. It maintained its primary business records on a computer during the relevant time periods. Ryan Doherty testified that his work computers were stolen during a "break in" at his office. 2/ However, he had possession of the computers containing most of his business records, for one to one and one-half months after the date the original Stop-Work Order was issued. Respondent did provide 2014 tax and other business records to the Department for purposes of (1) investigating alleged violations of the workers’ compensation insurance coverage laws and (2) calculating a penalty. Byron Fichs Active Electric3/ was included in the records provided by Respondent as an employee, for purposes of a penalty calculation. The period of noncompliance was January 23, 2014, through December 31, 2014. Pet. Ex. 6, p. 19. Gross payroll for the audit period for Byron Fichs Active Electric was determined based upon records provided by Respondent and totaled $4,342.27. Pet. Ex. 6, p. 19. Information contained in Respondent’s U.S. Income Tax Return for 2014 indicated that Respondent paid a total of $640,100.00 in labor-related expenses for 2014. Pet. Ex. 10, p. 62. That amount was broken down into essentially two categories in 2014--Subcontractors and Specific employees. Subcontractors: $535,980.00 of the labor-related expenses was for sub-contractors. Pet. Ex. 10, p. 62. Specific Employees: $104,120.00 of the total labor- expenses ($640,100.00) was attributable to specific employees. Pet. Ex. 10, p. 66, Overflow Statement. However, only $503,674.364/ was included by the Department as Gross Payroll for subcontractors in 2014 on the worksheet for purposes of a penalty calculation. Pet. Ex. 6, p. 19. Tax records for 2014 indicated payments totaling $104,120.00 were made to Seth Anthony, Shawn Bronson, Joseph Horucth, Mark Lucas, John Concepcion, Jordan Beene, James Stift, and Jerry Brunnell. Pet. Ex. 10, p. 66. Due to the payments indicated on the tax and business records, the individuals listed above were included as employees for purposes of penalty calculation. Pet. Ex. 6, p. 19. The amounts in the 2014 tax records were prorated to determine gross payroll for each individual for purposes of penalty calculation. The period of noncompliance for each person was January 23, 2014, through December 31, 2014. Pet. Ex. 6, p. 19. Mr. Doherty was listed as an employee for purposes of penalty calculation. The gross wage attributed to Mr. Doherty in 2014 was based upon the average weekly wage ("AWW"), since the records based on income were more than the AWW. Pet. Ex. 6, p. 19. Mr. Doherty’s period of noncompliance during the year 2014 was April 19, 2014, through December 31, 2014. Pet. Ex. 6, p. 19. Significantly, payroll for the remainder of the penalty audit period (January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015, and January 1, 2016, through January 21, 2016) was imputed by the Department because it properly determined that Respondent did not provide adequate business records to determine Respondent’s actual payroll.5/ Pet. Ex. 6, pp. 19-20. The four employees that were found working on the job site on the day the Stop-Work Order was issued, as well as Mr. Doherty, a corporate officer, were included by the Department as employees for purposes of imputing payroll and calculating the penalty for the remainder of the audit period, January 1, 2015, through January 21, 2016. Pet. Ex. 6, p. 19. The four employees are identified in Respondent’s business records as Dave Mason, Dan, Erick, and Joe. Pet. Ex. 6, p. 19. Based upon the records provided for the period of January 23, 2014, through December 31, 2014, and the imputed payroll established for the period of January 1, 2015, through January 21, 2016, a penalty of $244,964.44 was calculated. Pet. Ex. 6, p. 19. As a result, a 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was issued assessing a total penalty of $244,964.44. Pet. Ex. 6, pp. 16-17. After the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was issued, Respondent provided the Department with a "massive" amount of additional business records. The actual date of delivery of these additional records to the Department was not clear. Nonetheless, it was clear that it was on a date after the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was issued. These business records, despite being voluminous, were incomplete, and the Department’s penalty auditor, if required, would have been unable to calculate or recalculate a penalty based on the records delivered by Respondent after the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was issued. A large amount of timesheets for various workers were also received after the issuance of the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, but again they were incomplete; and there were no wages associated with any of the timesheets, no hourly rates were stated, and no total amount paid to the employees for the week was listed.6/
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, enter a final order finding that Respondent, Doherty Home Repair, Inc., violated the workers’ compensation laws by failing to secure and maintain required workers’ compensation insurance for its employees, and impose a penalty of $244,964.44. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of December, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE 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 December, 2017.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether the Respondent, George Washington Beatty, III, failed to abide by the coverage requirements of the Workers' Compensation Law, chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by not obtaining workers' compensation insurance for himself and/or his employees, and, if so, whether the Petitioner properly assessed a penalty against the Respondent pursuant to section 440.107, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: 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. George Washington Beatty, III, is a sole proprietor who works as a painter and general construction handyman in the vicinity of Panama City. The types of work performed by Mr. Beatty are properly considered construction industry work. Mr. Beatty’s business is not incorporated. He has no regular employees other than himself. His Form 1099-MISC tax forms indicate that he was actively engaged in performing construction work during the two-year audit period from September 9, 2012, through September 8, 2014. Carl Woodall is a Department compliance investigator based in Panama City. On September 8, 2014, Mr. Woodall drove up to 1803 New Hampshire Avenue in Lynn Haven, a vacant house where he saw a “for sale” sign and indications of work being performed on the house: the garage door was open and contained a great deal of painting materials such as drop cloths and paint buckets. A work van and a pickup truck were parked in the driveway. Mr. Woodall testified that as he walked up to the front door, he could see someone inside on a ladder, painting the ceiling. As Mr. Woodall started to go in the front door, he was met by Mr. Beatty on his way out the door. Mr. Woodall introduced himself and gave Mr. Beatty his business card. Mr. Woodall asked him the name of his business and Mr. Beatty stated that he did not know what Mr. Woodall was talking about. Mr. Beatty then told Mr. Woodall that he worked for Brush Stroke Painting but that he was not working this job for Brush Stroke. Mr. Beatty told Mr. Woodall that he was helping out a friend. Mr. Woodall asked whether Mr. Beatty had workers’ compensation insurance coverage, and Mr. Beatty again stated that he did not know what Mr. Woodall was talking about. He was just there helping out his friend, the owner of the house. Mr. Woodall asked Mr. Beatty to give him the owner’s name and phone number. Mr. Beatty went out to his van to retrieve the information. While Mr. Beatty was out of the house, Mr. Woodall took the opportunity to speak with the three other men working in the house. The first man, whom Mr. Woodall approached, was immediately hostile. He said that he was not working for anyone, that he was just helping someone out. He walked out of the house and never returned while Mr. Woodall was there. Mr. Woodall walked into the kitchen and spoke to a man who was on a ladder, painting. The man identified himself as Dennis Deal and stated that he was working for Mr. Beatty for eight dollars an hour in cash. He told Mr. Woodall that he helped out sometimes when Mr. Beatty needed help. Before Mr. Woodall could speak to the third person, Mr. Beatty came back into the house with the owner’s contact information. Mr. Beatty continued to deny that he was paying anyone to work in the house. With Mr. Beatty present, Mr. Woodall spoke with the third man, Michael Leneave, who stated that Mr. Beatty was paying him ten dollars an hour in cash. Mr. Woodall then took Mr. Beatty over to Mr. Deal, who reiterated that Mr. Beatty was paying him eight dollars an hour. Mr. Beatty responded that he could not believe the men were saying that because he had never told them a price. Mr. Woodall asked Mr. Beatty to identify the man who left the house, and Mr. Beatty told him it was Tommy Mahone. Mr. Beatty stated that Mr. Mahone had a bad temper and probably left to get a beer. After speaking with Mr. Beatty and the other men, Mr. Woodall phoned Brian Daffin (Mr. Daffin), the owner of the house. Mr. Woodall knew Mr. Daffin as the owner of an insurance company in Panama City. Mr. Daffin told Mr. Woodall that Mr. Beatty was painting his house, but was evasive as to other matters. Mr. Woodall stated that as the owner of an insurance company, Mr. Daffin was surely familiar with workers’ compensation insurance requirements and that he needed a straight answer as to whether Mr. Daffin had hired Mr. Beatty to paint the house. Mr. Daffin stated that he did not want to get Mr. Beatty in trouble, but finally conceded that he had hired Mr. Beatty to paint the house. Of the other three men, Mr. Daffin was familiar only with Mr. Mahone. He told Mr. Woodall that he had hired Mr. Beatty alone and did not know the details of Mr. Beatty’s arrangements with the other three men. At the hearing, Mr. Beatty testified that he was asked by Mr. Daffin to help him paint his house as a favor. Mr. Beatty had met Mr. Daffin through James Daffin, Mr. Daffin’s father and Mr. Beatty’s friend. No one was ever paid for anything. Mr. Beatty stated that he took the lead in speaking to Mr. Woodall because he was the only one of the four men in the house who was sober. He told Mr. Woodall that he was in charge because Mr. Daffin had asked him to oversee the work. None of the three men alleged to have been working for Mr. Beatty testified at the hearing. Mr. Daffin did not testify. Mr. Beatty’s testimony is thus the only direct evidence of the working arrangement, if any, which obtained between Mr. Beatty and the three other men present at the house on September 8, 2014. The only evidence to the contrary was Mr. Woodall’s hearsay testimony regarding his conversations with the three men and with Mr. Daffin. Mr. Woodall checked the Department's Coverage and Compliance Automated System ("CCAS") database to determine whether Mr. Beatty had secured the payment of workers' compensation insurance coverage or had obtained an exemption from the requirements of chapter 440. CCAS is a database that Department investigators routinely consult during their investigations to check for compliance, exemptions, and other workers' compensation related items. CCAS revealed that Mr. Beatty had no exemption or workers' compensation insurance coverage for himself or any employees. There was no evidence that Mr. Beatty used an employee leasing service. Based on his jobsite interviews with the alleged employees and Mr. Beatty, his telephone conversation with Mr. Daffin, and his CCAS computer search, Mr. Woodall concluded that as of September 8, 2014, Mr. Beatty had three employees working in the construction industry and that he had failed to procure workers’ compensation coverage for himself and these employees in violation of chapter 440. Mr. Woodall consequently issued a Stop-Work Order that he personally served on Mr. Beatty on September 8, 2014. Also on September 8, 2014, Mr. Woodall served Mr. Beatty with a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation, asking for payroll and accounting records to enable the Department to determine Mr. Beatty’s payroll and an appropriate penalty for the period from September 9, 2012, through September 8, 2014. Mr. Beatty provided the Department with no documents in response to the Request for Production. On September 24, 2014, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment that assessed a total penalty of $141,790.96. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served on Mr. Beatty via hand-delivery on October 16, 2014. Anita Proano, penalty audit supervisor for the Department, later performed her own calculation of the penalty as a check on the work of the penalty calculator. Ms. Proano testified as to the process of penalty calculation. Penalties for workers' compensation insurance violations are based on doubling the amount of evaded insurance premiums over the two- year period preceding the Stop-Work Order, which in this case was the period from September 9, 2012, through September 8, 2014. § 440.107(7)(d), Fla. Stat. Because Mr. Beatty initially provided no payroll records for himself or the three men alleged to have worked for him on September 8, 2014, the penalty calculator lacked sufficient business records to determine an actual gross payroll on that date. Section 440.107(7)(e) provides that where an employer fails to provide business records sufficient to enable the Department to determine the employer’s actual payroll for the penalty period, the Department will impute the weekly payroll at the statewide average weekly wage as defined in section 440.12(2), multiplied by two.1/ 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 four-digit codes 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." Ms. Proano testified that the penalty calculator correctly applied NCCI Class Code 5474, titled “Painting NOC & Shop Operations, Drivers,” which is defined in part as “the general painting classification. It contemplates exterior and interior painting of residential or commercial structures that are constructed of wood, concrete, stone or a combination thereof regardless of height.” The corresponding rule provision is rule 69L-6.021(2)(jj). The penalty calculator used the approved manual rates corresponding to Class Code 5474 for the periods of non-compliance to calculate the penalty. Subsequent to issuance of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, Mr. Beatty submitted to the Department, IRS Wage and Income Transcripts for the tax years of 2011, 2012, and 2013, but not for tax year 2014. These Transcripts consisted of Form 1099-MISC forms completed by the business entities for which Mr. Beatty had performed work during the referenced tax years. The Department used the Transcripts to calculate the penalty for the 2012 and 2013 portions of the penalty period and imputed Mr. Beatty’s gross payroll for the 2014 portion pursuant to the procedures required by section 440.107(7)(e) and rule 69L-6.028. On August 25, 2015, the Department issued a Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in the amount of $58,363.88, based on the mixture of actual payroll information and imputation referenced above. At the final hearing convened on November 3, 2015, Mr. Beatty stated that he now had the Wage and Income Transcript for tax year 2014 and would provide it to the Department. At the close of hearing, the undersigned suggested, and the Department agreed, that the proceeding should be stayed to give the Department an opportunity to review the new records and recalculate the proposed penalty assessment. On December 21, 2015, the Department issued a Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in the amount of $9,356.52. Ms. Proano herself calculated this penalty. The Third Amended Order assessed a total penalty of $9,199.98 for work performed by Mr. Beatty during the penalty period, based on the Wage and Income Transcripts that Mr. Beatty submitted. The Third Amended Order assessed a total penalty of $156.54 for work performed by Messrs. Mahone, Deal, and Leneave on September 8, 2014. This penalty was imputed and limited to the single day on which Mr. Woodall observed the men working at the house in Lynn Haven. Mr. Beatty’s records indicated no payments to any employee, during the penalty period or otherwise. The evidence produced at the hearing established that Ms. Proano utilized the correct class codes, average weekly wages, and manual rates in her calculation of the Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. The Department has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Beatty was in violation of the workers' compensation coverage requirements of chapter 440. The Department has also demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the penalty was correctly calculated through the use of the approved manual rates, business records provided by Mr. Beatty, and the penalty calculation worksheet adopted by the Department in rule 69L-6.027. However, the Department did not demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that Tommy Mahone, Dennis Deal, and Michael Leneave were employees of Mr. Beatty on September 8, 2014. There is direct evidence that Mr. Woodall saw the men working in the house, but the only evidence as to whether or how they were being paid are the hearsay statements of the three men as relayed by Mr. Woodall. The men were not available for cross-examination; their purported statements to Mr. Woodall could not be tested in an adversarial fashion. Mr. Beatty’s testimony that the men were not working for him and that he was merely supervising their work as a favor to Mr. Daffin is the only sworn, admissible evidence before this tribunal on that point. Mr. Beatty was adamant in maintaining that he did not hire the men, and his testimony raises sufficient ambiguity in the mind of the factfinder to preclude a finding that Messrs. Mahone, Deal, and Leneave were his employees. Mr. Beatty could point to no exemption or insurance policy that would operate to lessen or extinguish the assessed penalty as to his own work. The Department has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent was engaged in the construction industry in Florida during the period of September 9, 2012, through September 8, 2014, and that Respondent failed to carry workers’ compensation insurance for himself as required by Florida’s Workers’ Compensation Law from September 9, 2012, through September 8, 2014. The penalty proposed by the Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment should be reduced to $9,199.98, the amount sought to be imposed on Mr. Beatty himself.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, assessing a penalty of $9,199.98 against George Washington Beatty, III. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of July, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 6th day of July, 2016.
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)
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Elite Restoration and Construction, LLC (Respondent), violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes,1/ by failing to secure the payment of workers’ compensation, as alleged in the Stop-Work Order and Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment; and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty.
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 their employees and corporate officers. Respondent is an active Florida corporation that was formed on August 28, 2009, with a principal address of 7185 West Village Drive, Homosassa, Florida 34446. Respondent was engaged in business operations in the state of Florida during the entire period of November 2, 2014, to November 1, 2016. Brian Johnson (Respondent’s owner or Mr. Johnson) is Respondent's sole shareholder, owning 100 percent of the stock. The Department's investigator, Michael Robinson, commenced a random worksite compliance investigation on November 1, 2016, at a gas station at 970 Atlantic Boulevard, Jacksonville, Florida 32225. He observed Respondent's owner, Mr. Johnson, and three others, Tim Neeld, Derrick Windier, and James Ingash, painting a metal canopy covering the gas pumps. Mr. Johnson told the investigator that his company, Elite Restoration & Construction, LLC, was a subcontractor for Aluminum Plus of DeLand, Florida. By searching the Division's Coverage and Compliance Automated System, the investigator determined that Brian Johnson obtained a workers' compensation exemption on October 12, 2016, or 20 days prior to the investigation, and further determined that an employee leasing contract previously held by Respondent terminated on January 15, 2015, which is more than nine months prior to the investigation. Mr. Johnson confirmed that Respondent had an exemption for himself, effective October 12, 2016, but did not have any workers' compensation insurance for its employees. On November 1, 2016, after consulting with a supervisor, the Department's investigator issued the Stop-Work Order, which was posted at Respondent's worksite and personally served upon Respondent’s owner. On the same day, the investigator also personally served the Request for Production, which requested business records to determine Respondent's payroll during the two-year penalty period proscribed by section 440.107(7)(d)1., which in this case is from November 2, 2014, to November 1, 2016. The Request for Production explicitly states that the requested records must be provided within 10 business days from receipt of the request. Respondent obtained an Agreed Order of Conditional Release from the Stop-Work Order on November 8, 2016, by terminating the three workers observed during the compliance investigation who did not have workers’ compensation coverage and paying the Department a $1,000 down payment toward the penalty that would be calculated in this case. Respondent produced business records for penalty calculation on November 17, 2016, and February 28, 2017, which is beyond the 10-day time period required by the Request for Production.2/ The Department's penalty auditor, Lynne Murcia, used those records to calculate a $21,475.30 penalty for failing to comply with the workers' compensation insurance requirements of chapter 440. On April 20, 2017, when Respondent’s owner came to the Department’s Jacksonville office, he was personally served with the Amended Penalty and advised of his right to seek administrative review of the Stop-Work Order and Amended Penalty. Mr. Johnson filed a petition for hearing on behalf of Respondent on May 5, 2017, stating that the penalty calculated was wrong because it included income earned in states other than Florida. Respondent produced additional business records on May 17, August 21, and August 31, 2017, for the purpose of demonstrating that a portion of his company’s payroll was derived from work completed at worksites outside of Florida, and arguing that the out-of-state payroll should not be included in the penalty calculation. The invoices showed $182,056.78 in total income, consisting of $77,268 from 14 jobs in Florida, and $104,788.60 for 14 jobs outside of the State of Florida. Upon initial review, the Department’s auditor declined to make any adjustments because the invoices did not provide information showing earnings of specific employees for jobs outside of Florida. Thereafter, Mr. Johnson produced additional records that allowed the Department’s auditor to trace out-of-state employment to transactions in Respondent’s general ledger. The Department's auditor reviewed Respondent's additional records and removed out-of-state payroll and per diem payments. In accordance with that review, the Department issued the 2nd Amended Penalty which reduced the penalty to $16,671.14. The 2nd Amended Penalty also reduced the 2016 payroll attributed to Respondent's owner. Respondent was an "employer" in the state of Florida, as that term is defined in section 440.02(16), from November 2, 2014, to November 1, 2016. Respondent did not secure the payment of workers' compensation insurance coverage, nor have others secured the payment of workers' compensation insurance coverage for the employees listed on the penalty worksheet of the 2nd Amended Penalty during the periods of noncompliance listed on the penalty worksheet. None of the employees listed on the penalty worksheet of the 2nd Amended Penalty had a valid Florida workers' compensation coverage exemption during the periods of noncompliance listed on the penalty worksheet. In the past, Respondent had an employee leasing contract with Southeast Personnel Leasing, Inc. That contract was terminated on January 15, 2015, due to the leasing company’s concerns about out-of-state employment that would not be covered by the leasing company's workers' compensation insurance. None of the employees listed on the penalty worksheet of the 2nd Amended Penalty were "independent contractors" as that term is defined in section 440.02(15)(d)1. None of the employees listed on the penalty worksheet of the 2nd Amended Penalty were employees of a temporary labor company. Employees on the penalty worksheet of the 2nd Amended Penalty are correctly classified under Class Code 5474, painting, as defined in the "Scopes Manual" published by the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc. (NCCI), and adopted in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.021(2)(jj). The approved manual rates used in the penalty worksheet of the 2nd Amended Penalty, as defined by the NCCI Scopes Manual and adopted by the Office of Insurance Regulation, are the correct manual rates for the corresponding periods of noncompliance listed on the penalty worksheet. In calculating the 2nd Amended Penalty, the Department’s auditor used the worksheet required by rule 69L-6.027, along with Respondent’s bank statements, check images, general ledger, and tax returns filed with the Internal Revenue Service. The auditor capped Respondent’s owner’s pay for that portion of 2014 falling within the penalty period because his salary and dividend totaling $73,484 in 2014 exceeded the statewide average of $862.51 per week or $44,850.52 per year. She also adjusted the period of noncompliance for Mr. Johnson, pursuant to rule 69L-6.028(2), because he obtained an exemption from Florida’s Workers’ Compensation Law on October 12, 2016. The auditor explained that she used Respondent’s tax returns for 2014 and 2015 because she believed they were the most reliable indication of salaries and wages, officer compensation, and payroll for outside services and subcontractors. She further explained that she used Respondent’s tax returns and general ledger as the most accurate sources for determining payroll for 2016. The auditor’s explanation is reasonable and credited. Mr. Johnson questioned the auditor’s method of determining payroll and offered alternative methods using spreadsheets he created to identify what he called “member draws” and other summaries. The invoices provided by Respondent to the Department, however, do not match the summaries; and Respondent’s method of determining payroll, when compared to the method utilized by the Department, is not accurate or reliable. The auditor’s method reflected in the 2nd Amended Penalty appropriately applied approved manual rates corresponding to Class Code 5474, painting, to determine the evaded workers’ compensation insurance premium. Then, the evaded premium was properly multiplied by two in accordance with section 440.107(7)(d)1.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order, consistent with this Recommended Order, upholding the Stop-Work Order and imposing the penalty set forth in the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment against Elite Restoration and Construction, LLC. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of February, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of February, 2018.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner properly issued a Stop Work Order (SWO) and Second Amended Penalty Assessment against Respondent for failing to obtain workers' compensation insurance that meets the requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Division is a component of the Department of Financial Services. It is responsible for enforcing the workers' compensation coverage requirements pursuant to Section 440.107, Florida Statutes. Nobel is a corporation operating as a moving business in Florida. Nobel was incorporated in 2004 and has been operating with an active status since its inception. Yaniv Dalei is the sole owner and president of Nobel. On June 9, 2009, Petitioner's investigator, Cesar Tolentino, visited 18255 Northeast 4th Court, North Miami, Florida ("business site"), after being referred to the location to investigate Respondent for compliance with the Florida Workers' Compensation Law. At the business site, Petitioner's investigator spoke to the manager, and saw the bookkeeper and the receptionist during the visit. Respondent was not at the business site, but was out of the country in Panama when Tolentino visited. Respondent spoke to Tolentino by telephone. Respondent informed Tolentino that he had five employees and that he "was in the process of obtaining workers' compensation insurance." While at the business site, Tolentino, used the Department of Financial Services' Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS), and confirmed Respondent lacked insurance for the payment of workers' compensation coverage. Additionally, Petitioner's investigator verified through the CCAS that Nobel had not secured an employee leasing company to secure workers' compensation insurance for its employees as well as found that no exemptions from workers' compensation had been issued in connection with Nobel. Petitioner's investigator also performed a National Council on Compensation Insurance search on Nobel while at the business site. The search revealed that Nobel's employees had not had workers' compensation insurance in the past. On June 9, 2009, Petitioner's investigator issued a SWO and posted it at the business site. The SWO required Respondent to cease all business operations. On June 10, 2009, Respondent obtained a certificate of insurance for workers' compensation coverage with the effective date being the same. The policy was issued by One-Stop Insurance Agency. Respondent provided the certificate to Tolentino upon receipt. On June 12, 2009, Petitioner's investigator issued to Respondent a Division of Workers' Compensation Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation ("Request"). Soon thereafter, Respondent responded to the Request and provided Petitioner's investigator with the requested records. Petitioner's investigator forwarded the documents to Jorge Pinera, Petitioner's penalty calculator, for review. On or about July 17, 2009, Petitioner issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessing a penalty of $74,794.38 against Respondent. On August 10, 2009, Respondent entered into a payment agreement with the Division. Respondent provided the Division a $7,480.00 cashier's check and agreed to pay the remainder of the assessed penalty in monthly installments. As a result, Petitioner issued an Order of Conditional Release for Nobel to operate. On March 3, 2010, Respondent supplied an employee list with position descriptions to Petitioner. After reviewing the document, Petitioner changed some employee class codes to indicate a lower rate for some occupations and recalculated the penalty amount owed with the new class codes. For the recalculation, Petitioner's penalty calculator, Russell Gray, used the following calculation from the penalty worksheet: (a) Respondent's total gross payroll from June 10, 2006, through June 9, 2009, was $1,010,001.32; (b) the total workers' compensation premium that Respondent should have paid for its employees during the relevant time period was $45,483.96; and (c) the premium was multiplied by the statutory factor of 1.5 resulting in a penalty assessment in the amount of $68,224.81. The new calculation superseded the Amended Order and a Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was issued March 3, 2010, reducing Respondent's penalty to $68,224.81.1 During the hearing, Respondent admitted not having workers' compensation coverage for his employees. He said, "Yes, you're right I needed to have workers' compensation but as I said . . . I never knew that I needed to have workers' compensation . . . I'm here to ask for forgiveness."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, issue a final order affirming the Stop Work Order and Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in the amount of $68,224.81. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of April, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. McKINNEY 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 20th day of April, 2010.
