The Issue The issue in the case is whether Moonlight General Contractors, Inc. (Respondent), should be assessed a penalty for an alleged failure to comply with the workers' compensation requirements referenced herein, and, if so, in what amount.
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to section 440.107, Florida Statutes (2015),1/ the Petitioner is the state agency charged with enforcing compliance with Florida’s workers’ compensation requirements. At all times material to this case, the Respondent was a business providing services in the construction industry with a main office located at 1900 18th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, Florida. On April 1, 2015, Kent Howe, employed by the Petitioner as a Compliance Investigator, observed two men working on a roof of a residential structure located at 2513 Anastasia Drive South, Daytona, Florida (the “subject property”.) Mr. Howe specifically observed that a portion of the roof structure was exposed and that the individuals were working on the roof trusses. Mr. Howe testified that the men identified themselves as “Milan Kreal” and “Svatopluk Vavra” and that they identified the Respondent as their employer. Mr. Howe accessed corporate records maintained online by the Department of State, Division of Corporations, and identified Abbey Khdair as the sole corporate officer for the Respondent. Mr. Howe accessed the Petitioner’s Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) to determine whether the Respondent was in compliance with applicable workers’ compensation requirements. CCAS is a database maintained by the Petitioner that contains workers’ compensation coverage information provided to the Petitioner by insurance providers. Pursuant to section 440.05, corporate officers can be exempted from workers’ compensation coverage requirements. Mr. Howe determined through CCAS that Mr. Khdair had an active exemption for himself as the corporate officer, but the two individuals working on the subject property had no workers’ compensation coverage. Mr. Howe contacted Mr. Khdair, who told Mr. Howe that the two men were employed through an employee leasing company identified as “Skilled Resources.” Personnel employed through licensed employee leasing companies can have workers’ compensation coverage arranged through the leasing companies. Mr. Howe contacted Skilled Resources and determined that, although on occasion the Respondent had obtained employees from Skilled Resources, the individuals working on the subject property had not been supplied to the Respondent by Skilled Resources. Mr. Howe thereafter issued a Stop-Work Order and posted it at the jobsite. On April 2, 2015, the Stop-Work Order was personally served on Mr. Khdair, along with a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation for the period from April 2, 2013, through April 1, 2014 (the “audit period”). On that same date, Mr. Khdair paid a $1,000 penalty down payment towards the penalty assessment, in order to obtain a release from the Stop-Work Order and allow the subject property roof to be secured from potential inclement weather. By letter dated April 10, 2015, Mr. Khdair advised the Petitioner that, prior to April 1, 2015, the Respondent and the property owner had entered into a contract to perform work related to “a new gable roof, electrical, plumbing, and HVAC work.” Mr. Khdair wrote that he obtained the building permit for the project and that the property owner was to hire additional subcontractors to work under the permit Mr. Khdair had obtained. Mr. Khdair wrote that he “inadvertently” referred Mr. Howe to Skilled Resources when Mr. Howe contacted him on April 1, 2015, and that the property owner had hired the workers without Mr. Khdair’s knowledge or consent. Mr. Khdair wrote that, prior to Mr. Howe’s telephone call, Mr. Khdair was unaware that there were any people working at the subject location, other than those who were to have obtained their own sub-permits in relation to the project. On April 10, 2015, Mr. Khdair also submitted a letter purporting to be from the property owner stating that the owner had personally hired Mr. Vavra and “Guy Ackerly” to work on the roof. Neither of the two individuals observed by Mr. Howe working at subject property on April 1, 2015, identified himself as “Guy Ackerly.” The task of calculating the penalty assessment was assigned to Eunika Jackson, employed by the Petitioner as a Penalty Auditor. The Respondent failed to provide any business records to the Petitioner. Accordingly, Ms. Jackson calculated the penalty assessment pursuant to section 440.107(7)(e), which provides that in the absence of business records sufficient to determine payroll, the Petitioner is required to impute wages for the employees working without workers’ compensation coverage. As the corporate officer, Mr. Khdair had obtained an exemption from the coverage requirements. The National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) assigns classification codes for various occupations related to levels of risk presented by the specific tasks performed by an employee. The codes are used to establish rates charged for workers’ compensation coverage and are relevant for determining the penalty assessed for violations of workers’ compensation requirements. For purposes of enforcing compliance with Florida’s workers’ compensation requirements, the Petitioner has adopted the NCCI codes through Florida Administrative Code Rules 69L- 6.021. Ms. Jackson correctly determined that NCCI Code 5551 is applicable in this case. NCCI Code 5551 (titled “Roofing-All Kinds & Drivers”) specifically applies to “the installation of new roofs and the repair of existing roofs” and includes “the installation and/or repair of joists, trusses, rafters, roof decks, sheathing, and all types of roofing materials.” In determining the penalty assessment, Ms. Jackson calculated the penalty based on the Respondent having three employees without workers’ compensation coverage. Ms. Jackson applied the procedures set forth in section 440.107(7)(d) and rules 69L-6.027 and 69L-6.028, and determined that the penalty assessment was $192,425.94, which reflects a penalty of $64,141.98 for each of the three individuals. Although Ms. Jackson’s calculation of the penalty was procedurally correct, the evidence establishes only that there were two individuals working on the roof of the subject property.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation enter a Final Order against the Respondent imposing a penalty assessment in the amount of $128,283.96, as set forth herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of October, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of October, 2015.
The Issue Whether Royal Roofing and Restoration, Inc. (Respondent or Royal Roofing), failed to secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage for its employees; and, if so, whether the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (Petitioner or Department), correctly calculated the penalty to be assessed against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with enforcing the requirement of chapter 440, that Florida employers secure workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Respondent is a Florida for-profit corporation organized on July 28, 2015, and engaged in the business of roofing and storm damage restoration. The company was formed, and initially conducted business, in Tallahassee, Florida, but expanded to the Panama City area in 2016. Traci Fisher is Respondent’s President and Registered Agent, with a mailing address of 1004 Kenilworth, Tallahassee, Florida 32312. DOAH Case No. 17-0879 On May 4, 2016, Department Compliance Investigator Jesse Holman, conducted a routine workers’ compensation compliance inspection at 374 Brown Place in Crestview, Florida. Mr. Holman observed four men removing shingles from the roof of a residential structure at that address. Mr. Holman first interviewed a worker who identified himself as Dustin Hansel and reported that he and the other three workers on site were a new crew for Respondent, the permit for the job had not yet been pulled, and the workers were not aware of the rate of pay for the job. Mr. Hansel telephoned Respondent’s sales manager, Dillon Robinson, who then spoke directly with Mr. Holman via telephone. Mr. Robinson informed Mr. Holman that Respondent obtained workers’ compensation coverage through Payroll Management Inc. (PMI), an employee-leasing company. Mr. Holman identified the three remaining workers at the jobsite as Milton Trice, Winston Perrotta, and Kerrigan Ireland. Mr. Holman contacted PMI and secured a copy of Respondent’s then-active employee roster. None of the workers at the jobsite, including Mr. Hansel, were included on Respondent’s employee roster. Upon inquiry, Mr. Holman was informed that PMI had no pending employee applications for Respondent. Mr. Holman consulted the Department’s Coverage Compliance Automated System (CCAS) and found Respondent had no workers’ compensation insurance policy and no active exemptions. During Mr. Holman’s onsite investigation, the workers left the jobsite. Mr. Holman could not immediately reach Ms. Fisher, but did speak with her husband, Tim Fisher. Mr. Fisher informed Mr. Holman that the crew was on their way to the PMI Fort Walton office to be enrolled on Respondent’s employee roster. On May 5, 2016, based on his investigation, and after consultation with his supervisor, Mr. Holman issued Respondent Stop-Work Order (SWO) 16-148-1A, along with a Business Records Request (BRR) for records covering the audit period of July 27, 2015 through May 4, 2016. Later that day, Mr. Holman spoke to Ms. Fisher, who informed him the crew did not have permission to begin the work on that date, as she had not yet pulled the permit for the reroof. Ms. Fisher further explained that the crewmembers had been instructed to complete applications with PMI prior to departing Tallahassee for Crestview. Ms. Fisher confirmed the crewmembers were completing applications at PMI Fort Walton that same day. Mr. Holman met with Ms. Fisher the following day and personally served SWO 16-148-1A. Ms. Fisher delivered to Mr. Holman an updated employee roster from PMI which included Mr. Hansel, Mr. Perrotta, and Mr. Ireland; a letter documenting Mr. Trice was not employed by Respondent; and a $1000 check as downpayment on the penalty. Respondent initially submitted business records in response to the BRR on May 23 and 25, 2017. DOAH Case No. 17-1558 On June 8, 2016, Mr. Holman conducted a random workers’ compensation compliance inspection at 532 Rising Star Drive in Crestview. The single-family home at that address was undergoing renovations and Mr. Holman observed three men on the roof removing shingles. None of the men on the roof spoke English, but a fourth man, who identified himself as Jose Manuel Mejia, appeared and stated he worked for Respondent, and that all the workers onsite were paid through PMI at a rate of $10.00 per hour. Mr. Mejia admitted that one of the worker’s onsite, Emelio Lopez, was not enrolled with PMI and explained that Mr. Mejia brought him to the worksite that day because he knew Mr. Lopez to be a good worker. The remaining workers onsite were identified as Juan Mencho and Ramon Gonzalez, both from Atlanta, Georgia. Mr. Mejia produced some PMI paystubs for himself and Mr. Mencho. Mr. Mejia stated that he and his crews also received reimbursement checks directly from Respondent for gas, rentals, materials, and the like. Mr. Holman contacted PMI, who produced Respondent’s then-active employee roster. Mr. Mejia and Mr. Mencho were on the roster, but neither Mr. Gonzalez nor Mr. Lopez was included. Mr. Holman next contacted Ms. Fisher, who identified Mr. Mejia as a subcontractor, but was not familiar with any of the other men Mr. Holman encountered at the worksite. Mr. Holman consulted via telephone with his supervisor, who instructed him to issue an SWO to Respondent for failing to secure workers’ compensation coverage for its employees. Mr. Holman issued SWO 16-198-1A by posting the worksite on June 8, 2016. Department Facilitator Don Hurst, personally served Ms. Fisher with SWO 16-198-1A in Tallahassee that same day. SWO 16-148-1A Penalty Calculation1/ Department Penalty Auditor Eunika Jackson, was assigned to calculate the penalties associated with the SWOs issued to Respondent. On June 8, 2016, Ms. Jackson began calculating the penalty associated with SWO 16-148-1A. Ms. Jackson reviewed the documents submitted by Respondent in response to the BRR. The documents included Respondent’s Wells Fargo bank statements, check images, and PMI payroll register for the audit period.2/ Based on a review of the records, Ms. Jackson identified the following individuals as Respondent’s employees because they received direct payment from Respondent at times during the audit period: David Rosinsky, Dylan Robinson, Jarod Bell, Tommy Miller, and David Shields. Ms. Jackson determined periods of non-compliance for these employees based on the dates they received payments from Respondent and were not covered for workers’ compensation via PMI employment roster, separate policy, or corporate officer exemption. Ms. Jackson deemed payments to each of the individuals as gross payroll for purposes of calculating the penalty. Based upon Ms. Fisher’s deposition testimony, Ms. Jackson assigned National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) class code 5551, Roofing, to Mr. Miller; NCCI class code 5474, Painting, to Mr. Rosinsky; NCCI class code 8742, Sales, to Mr. Bell and Mr. Robinson; and NCCI class code 8810, clerical office employee, to Mr. Shields. Utilizing the statutory formula for penalty calculation, Ms. Jackson calculated a total penalty of $191.28 associated with these five “employees.” Ms. Jackson next calculated the penalty for Dustin Hansel, Kerrigan Ireland, Milton Trice, and Winston Perrotta, the workers identified at the jobsite as employees on May 4, 2016. The Department maintains that the business records submitted by Respondent were insufficient to determine Respondent’s payroll to these “employees,” thus, Ms. Jackson used the statutory formula to impute payroll to these workers. Ms. Jackson calculated a penalty of $14,970.12 against Respondent for failure to secure payment of workers’ compensation insurance for each of these four “employees” during the audit period. The total penalty associated with these four “employees” is $59,880.48. Ms. Jackson calculated a total penalty of $60,072.96 to be imposed against Respondent in connection with SWO 16-148- 1A. Business Records In compliance with the Department’s BRR, Respondent submitted additional business records on several occasions-- March 21, May 3 and 31, June 7, and August 15 and 24, 2017--in order to establish its complete payroll for the audit period. While the Department admits that the final documents submitted do establish Respondent’s complete payroll, the Department did not issue amended penalty assessment based on those records in either case. The Department maintains Respondent did not timely submit records, pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.028(4), which allows an employer 20 business days after service of the first amended order of penalty assessment to submit sufficient records to establish payroll. All business records submitted by Respondent were admitted in evidence and included as part of the record. The undersigned is not limited to the record before the Department at the time the amended penalty assessments were imposed, but must determine a recommendation in a de novo proceeding. The undersigned has relied upon the complete record in arriving at the decision in this case. Penalty Calculation for Ireland, Trice, and Perrotta For purposes of workers’ compensation insurance coverage, an “employee” is “any person who receives remuneration from an employer” for work or services performed under a contract. § 440.02(15)(a), Fla. Stat. Respondent did not issue a single check to Mr. Ireland, Mr. Trice, or Mr. Perrotta during the audit period. Mr. Ireland, Mr. Trice, and Mr. Perrotta are not included on any PMI leasing roster included in the record for the audit period. The uncontroverted evidence, including the credible and unrefuted testimony of each person with knowledge, established that Mr. Ireland, Mr. Trice, and Mr. Perrotta were newly hired for the job in Crestview on May 4, 2016, and began working that day prior to submitting applications at PMI, despite Ms. Fisher’s directions otherwise. Petitioner did not prove that either Mr. Ireland, Mr. Trice, or Mr. Perrotta was Respondent’s employee at any time during the audit period. Petitioner did not correctly calculate the penalty of $44,911.26 against Respondent for failure to secure workers’ compensation insurance for Mr. Ireland, Mr. Trice, and Mr. Perrotta during the audit period. Penalty Calculation for Hansel Ms. Fisher testified that Mr. Hansel has owned several businesses with which Respondent has conducted business over the years. Originally, Mr. Hansel owned a dumpster rental business, now owned by his father. Mr. Hansel also owned an independent landscaping company with which Respondent occasionally transacted business. When Respondent expanded business into the Panama City area, Ms. Fisher hired Mr. Hansel as a crew chief to supervise new crews in the area. The job on May 4, 2016, was his first roofing job. A review of Respondent’s records reveals Respondent issued the following checks to Mr. Hansel during the audit period: December 4, 2015, in the amount of $360, $300 of which was for “dumpster rental” and the remaining $60 for “sod”; May 4, 2016, in the amount of $200 for “sod repair”; May 6, 2016, in the amount of $925 as reimbursement for travel expenses; May 9, 2016, in the amount of $1,011.50 (with no memo); and May 21, 2016, in the amount of $100 for “7845 Preservation.” Mr. Hansel was included on Respondent’s PMI leasing roster beginning on May 13, 2016. Petitioner proved that Mr. Hansel was Respondent’s employee at times during the audit period. Petitioner did not prove that Respondent’s records were insufficient to determine payroll to Mr. Hansel during the audit period, which would have required an imputed penalty. Petitioner did not correctly calculate the penalty of $14,970.42 against Respondent for failure to secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage for Mr. Hansel during the audit period. Sod repair by Mr. Hansel is a service performed for Respondent during the audit period. Reimbursement of travel expenses is specifically included in the definition of payroll for purposes of calculating the penalty. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L- 6.035(1)(f) (“Expense reimbursements, including reimbursements for travel” are included as remuneration to employees “to the extent that the employer’s business records and receipts do not confirm that the expense incurred as a valid business expense.”). Dumpster rental is neither work performed on behalf of, nor service provided to, Respondent during the audit period. The correct uninsured payroll amount attributable to Mr. Hansel is $2,296.50. Petitioner correctly applied NCCI class code 5551, Roofing, to work performed by Mr. Hansel based on the observation of Mr. Holman at the worksite on May 4, 2016. With respect to Mr. Hansel’s services for sod and sod repair, Petitioner did not correctly apply NCCI class code 5551. Petitioner did not introduce competent substantial evidence of the applicable NCCI class code and premium amount for landscaping services performed during the audit period.3/ Uninsured payroll attributable to Mr. Hansel for roofing services during the audit period is $2,036.50. The approved manual rate for workers’ compensation insurance for NCCI class code 5551 during the period of non- compliance--May 9 and 21, 2016--is $18.60. The premium amount Respondent would have paid to provide workers’ compensation insurance for Mr. Hansel is $378.79 (One percent of Mr. Hansel’s gross payroll during the non-compliance period--$20.36--multiplied by $18.60). The penalty for Respondent’s failure to secure worker’s compensation coverage insurance for Mr. Hansel during the period of non-compliance is calculated as two times the amount Respondent would have paid in premium for the non- compliance period. The correct penalty for Respondent’s failure to maintain workers’ compensation coverage for Mr. Hansel during the period of non-compliance is $757.58. Penalty Calculation for Salesmen Independent contractors not engaged in the construction industry are not employees for purposes of enforcing workers’ compensation insurance requirements. See § 440.02(15)(d)1., Fla. Stat. Sales is a non-construction industry occupation. The Department calculated a penalty associated with payroll attributable to the following persons identified by Ms. Fisher as independent salesmen: Dylan Robinson, Kevin Miller, Marc Medley, Mike Rucker, Colby Fisher, David Jones, Jarod Bell, Matt Flynn, and Todd Zulauf. Section 440.02(15)(d)1. provides that an individual may be an independent contractor, rather than an employee, as follows: In order to meet the definition of independent contractor, at least four of the following criteria must be met: The independent contractor maintains a separate business with his or her own work facility, truck, equipment, materials, or similar accommodations; The independent contractor holds or has applied for a federal employer identification number, unless the independent contractor is a sole proprietor who is not required to obtain a federal employer identification number under state or federal regulations; The independent contractor receives compensation for services rendered or work performed and such compensation is paid to a business rather than to an individual; The independent contractor holds one or more bank accounts in the name of the business entity for purposes of paying business expenses or other expenses related to services rendered or work performed for compensation; The independent contractor performs work or is able to perform work for any entity in addition to or besides the employer at his or her own election without the necessity of completing an employment application or process; or The independent contractor receives compensation for work or services rendered on a competitive-bid basis or completion of a task or a set of tasks as defined by a contractual agreement, unless such contractual agreement expressly states that an employment relationship exists. If four of the criteria listed in sub- subparagraph a. do not exist, an individual may still be presumed to be an independent contractor and not an employee based on full consideration of the nature of the individual situation with regard to satisfying any of the following conditions: The independent contractor performs or agrees to perform specific services or work for a specific amount of money and controls the means of performing the services or work. The independent contractor incurs the principal expenses related to the service or work that he or she performs or agrees to perform. The independent contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of the work or services that he or she performs or agrees to perform. The independent contractor receives compensation for work or services performed for a commission or on a per-job basis and not on any other basis. The independent contractor may realize a profit or suffer a loss in connection with performing work or services. The independent contractor has continuing or recurring business liabilities or obligations. The success or failure of the independent contractor’s business depends on the relationship of business receipts to expenditures. Ms. Fisher testified that each of the above-named salesmen sold roofing jobs for her at various times during the audit period on a commission-only basis. The contractors inspect homeowner roofs, draft schematics, use their own equipment (e.g., drones), incur all of their own expenses, and handle the insurance filing for the homeowner’s insurance to pay on the claim. Ms. Fisher further testified that each of the salesmen also sells for other roofing contractors in the Tallahassee area. She pays the salesmen on a per-job basis. Ms. Fisher does not compensate the salesmen for the time involved in inspecting a roof, preparing schematics, or making the sale. Nor does Ms. Fisher reimburse the salesmen for travel to sales jobsites. Ms. Fisher’s testimony was credible, persuasive, and uncontroverted. Respondent introduced in evidence four “Independent Contractor Checklists” allegedly completed by Mr. Robinson, Mr. Medley, Mr. Fisher, and Mr. Flynn. Each form checklist follows the format of section 440.02(15)(d)1., listing the criteria set forth in subparagraphs a. and b. The forms indicate that they each meet all the criteria listed in subparagraph b.: they perform, or agree to perform services for a specific amount of money and control the means of performing the service; they incur the principal expenses related to the service performed; they are responsible for satisfactory completion of the services performed; they receive compensation for the services performed on a per-job or commission basis; they may realize a profit or suffer a loss in connection with performing the services; they have continuing and recurring business liabilities or obligations; and the success or failure of their business depends on the relationship of business receipts to expenditures.4/ In its Proposed Recommended Order, Petitioner conceded the nine men identified by Respondent as independent sales contractors “would not be considered employees of Respondent” because the “salesmen would seem to meet the majority of [the] requirements [of section 440.02(15)(d)1.b.].” Respondent issued Dylan Robinson, Mark Medley, Colby Fisher, Matt Flynn, Kevin Miller, Mike Rucker, Jarod Bell, David Jones, and Todd Zulauf an IRS FORM 1099-MISC for income paid during the 2016 tax year. Respondent did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the above-named salesmen were Respondent’s employees during the audit period. For SWO 16-148-1A, Respondent did not correctly calculate the penalty because Respondent included a penalty associated with Petitioner’s failure to provide workers’ compensation insurance coverage for Dylan Robinson and Jarod Bell. Penalty in the amount of $20.70 associated with Dylan Robinson and Jarod Bell should not be included in the total penalty. The correct penalty amount for SWO 16-148-1A, based on records submitted by Respondent on or before March 20, 2016, is $929.16. Draft Revised Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment The additional records submitted by Respondent revealed payments made to persons during the audit period who were not included in the Department’s Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. The Department and Respondent disagreed at hearing whether the payments qualified as payroll. At hearing, Petitioner submitted a draft revised second amended penalty calculation for SWO 16-148-1A based on all records received from Respondent. The revised penalty is in the amount of $61,453.50. Ms. Jackson populated the spreadsheet with the name of every individual to whom a check was written on Respondent’s business bank account during the audit period, removing only those payments to individuals and entities which, to Petitioner’s knowledge, were not Respondent’s employees. Respondent’s calculations in the revised penalty suffer from some of the same errors as in the second amended penalty calculation--they include individuals Petitioner did not prove were Respondent’s employees, as well as payments which were not uninsured payroll. For the reasons explained herein, Petitioner did not prove that salesmen David Jones, Dylan Robinson, Jarod Bell, Kevin Miller, Mark Medley, Matt Flynn, Mike Rucker, Tim Fischer, and Colby Fisher were Respondent’s employees during the audit period. Respondent did not accurately calculate the penalty associated with those persons. Respondent made payments to David Shields during the audit period, which the Department argues should be included as payroll. The Department included payments to Mr. Shields in its draft revised second amended order of penalty assessment and assigned NCCI class code “8810” for clerical work. Mr. Shields is a licensed professional roofing contractor who acts as “qualifier” for Respondent’s business. A qualifier is a licensed professional who certifies plans for permit applications submitted by another business. Respondent pays Mr. Shields a flat fee per permit application qualified by him. The record evidence does not support a finding that Mr. Shields provides clerical services to Respondent. Mr. Shields provides some sort of professional services to Respondent, and is likely an independent contractor providing his own materials and supplies, maintaining his own business accounts, and liable for his own business success. Assuming Mr. Shields were Respondent’s employee, the Department introduced no evidence of an appropriate NCCI class code for Mr. Shields’ services. The Department did not prove that payments to Mr. Shields should be included as Respondent’s uninsured payroll during the audit period. Respondent paid Susan Swain a total of $258 during the audit period for clerical work. Ms. Fisher maintained Ms. Swain’s work was casual at first, and the payments reflect a time when she worked on-again, off-again, handling the paperwork for restoration insurance claims. Later, Ms. Swain came to work for Respondent full-time and was added to the PMI leasing roster. Section 440.02(15)(d)5. provides that a person “whose employment is both casual and not in the course of the trade, business, profession or occupation of the employer” is not an employee. The statute defines “casual” employment as work that is anticipated to be completed in 10 working days or less and at a total labor cost of less than $500. See § 440.02(5), Fla. Stat. In its Proposed Recommended Order, the Department argues Ms. Swain’s wages should be included as payroll because the “testimony regarding Ms. Swain does not suggest that she was employed for less than 10 days[.]” However, it was the Department’s burden to prove that Ms. Swain was a statutory employee. The Department did not prove that Ms. Swain’s wages should be included within Respondent’s uninsured payroll. The largest portion of the penalty assessed by the Department, as well as in the draft revised second amended penalty assessment, against Respondent is in connection with various roofers who were employed by Respondent at times during the audit period. Each of the roofers was included on Respondent’s PMI leasing roster, but received checks directly from Respondent in addition to PMI payroll checks. The Department included all the direct payments to those roofers as payroll for purposes of calculating a penalty in this case. As Ms. Fisher explained, the company bids a reroof on a per job basis--usually a per square foot price. Ms. Fisher adds each roofing contractor’s name to the PMI leasing roster to ensure that each roofer is covered by workers’ compensation insurance for the duration of the job. When the job is completed (which is a matter of just a few days), the contractor reports to Ms. Fisher what amount of the contract price was spent on materials, supplies, or other non-labor costs. Ms. Fisher cuts a check to the contractor for that amount and authorizes PMI to issue payroll checks for the “labor cost” (the difference between the contract price and the non-labor costs). Ms. Fisher refers to this process as “back-charging” the contractors for their materials, maintenance, tools, and other non-labor costs. The Department is correct that the direct payments are payroll to the roofing contractors. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.035(1)(b) and (h) (remuneration includes “payments, including cash payments, made to employees by or on behalf of the employer” and “payments or allowances made by or on behalf of the employer for tools or equipment used by employees in their work or operations for the employer.”). The Department would be correct to include these payments in the penalty calculation if they represented uninsured payroll. However, the evidence supports a finding that the direct payments to the roofing contractors were made for the same jobs on which Respondent secured workers’ compensation coverage through PMI. The roofing contractors were covered for workers’ compensation throughout the job, even though they may have received partial payment for the job outside of the PMI payroll checks.5/ The direct payments were not for separate reroofs on which the roofers were not otherwise insured. The Department did not correctly calculate penalties associated with the following roofing contractors: Donald Tontigh, Joseph Howard, Keith Mills, Aaron Kilpatrick, Gustavo Tobias, Jose Mejia, and Tommy Miller. Ms. Fisher also received cash payments from Respondent during the audit period. These payments were made in addition to her payroll through PMI. Ms. Fisher described these payments as “cash tickets,” which were paid outside of her PMI payroll to reimburse her for investments made in the company. For purposes of calculating the penalty in this case, these “cash tickets” are clearly payroll, as that term is to be calculated pursuant to rule 69L-6.035. Similar to the issue with the roofing contractors, the question is whether the payments represent uninsured payroll. Ms. Fisher did not hold a corporate officer exemption at any time relevant hereto. Ms. Fisher testified that she was covered through PMI payroll leasing. In contrast to the roofing contractors, Ms. Fisher’s direct payments do not directly coincide with any particular job or specific time frame during which Ms. Fisher was covered for workers’ compensation insurance through PMI. The evidence was insufficient to determine that the amounts were insured payroll. The Department properly calculated a penalty associated with payroll attributable to Ms. Fisher. Respondent made one payment of $75 to Donald Martin during the audit period. The Department calculated a penalty of $27.90 associated with this payment to Mr. Martin. Ms. Fisher explained that Mr. Martin was a down-on-his-luck guy who came by the office one day complaining that Mr. Hansel owed him some money. Ms. Fisher offered to put him on a roofing crew and wrote him the $75 check to help him out. Ms. Fisher’s testimony was both credible and unrefuted. Mr. Martin was never hired by Respondent, put on any roofing crew, or added to the PMI leasing roster. Mr. Martin was not Respondent’s employee because he did not receive remuneration for the “performance of any work or service while engaged in any employment under any appointment or contract for hire” with Respondent. § 440.02(15)(a), Fla. Stat. Cale Dierking works for Respondent full-time in a clerical position. During the audit period, Respondent paid Mr. Dierking directly by check for $1,306.14. This payment was made outside of Mr. Dierking’s PMI payroll checks. Ms. Fisher testified that she paid Mr. Dierking directly on one occasion when “PMI’s payroll got stuck in Memphis, I believe it was a snow-in situation where payroll checks didn’t come.” Rather than ask her employee to go without a timely paycheck, she advanced his payroll. Ms. Fisher’s testimony was both credible and unrefuted. The payment to Mr. Dierking is clearly payroll. However, Mr. Dierking was covered for workers’ compensation through PMI for the period during which the check was issued. Thus, there is no evidence that it was uninsured payroll. The Department did not correctly calculate a penalty associated with payments to Mr. Dierking. The correct penalty to be assessed against Respondent for failure to secure workers’ compensation coverage for its employees during the audit period in connection with SWO 16-148- 1A is $770.60. Penalty Calculation for SWO 16-198-1A Ms. Jackson calculated a total penalty against Respondent in connection with SWO 16-198-1A in the amount of $19,115.84, as reflected in the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. The Department correctly imputed penalty against Respondent in the amount of $91.68 each for uninsured payroll to Mr. Gonzalez and Mr. Lopez. The evidence supported a finding that these workers were Respondent’s statutory employees on June 8, 2016, and were not enrolled on the PMI leasing roster. The Department did not correctly calculate the penalty associated with salesmen Dylan Robinson, Jarod Bell, Kevin Miller, Mark Medley, Matt Flynn, and Todd Zulauf. The Department did not correctly calculate the penalty associated with roofing contractors Abraham Martinez- Antonio, Edwin Kinsey, Dustin Hansel, Efrian Molina-Agustin, Jose Mejia, Joseph Howard, Keith Mills, Samuel Pedro, and Tommy Miller. The Department did not correctly calculate the penalty against Respondent associated with Mr. Shields, Respondent’s qualifier. Based on a review of Respondent’s complete “untimely” records, the Department discovered direct payments made to additional employees not included on the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. Respondent made a direct payment to Ethan Burch in the amount of $602.50 during the audit period. Ethan Burch is one of Respondent’s full-time clerical employees. The evidence is insufficient to determine whether the payment of $602.50 was insured or uninsured payroll. As such, the Department did not prove it correctly calculated the penalty associated with Mr. Burch. Respondent also made a direct payment to Chelsea Hansel in the amount of $965 during the audit period. Ms. Hansel is another clerical employee. Ms. Hansel’s PMI enrollment was delayed due to some background investigation. Respondent paid Ms. Hansel for work she completed prior to enrollment. The direct payment to Ms. Hansel constitutes uninsured payroll. The Department correctly calculated the penalty associated with the payment to Chelsea Hansel. The correct penalty amount to be imposed against Respondent for failure to secure payment of workers’ compensation coverage for its employees (Gonzalez, Lopez, and Chelsea Hansel) during the audit period in connection with SWO 16-198-1A is $187.80.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, finding that Royal Roofing and Restoration, Inc., violated the workers’ compensation insurance law and, in DOAH Case No. 17-0879, assessing a penalty of $770.60; and in DOAH Case No. 17-1558, assessing a penalty of $187.80. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of January, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of January, 2018.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Tony Williams Drywall and Plastering, 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.
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. Tony Williams Drywall and Plastering, Inc., (Respondent or Williams Drywall) is a corporation based in Tallahassee, Florida, first incorporated on August 18, 1999. Williams Drywall is engaged in the construction industry, operating as a drywall installation and repair business with a principal office located at 8513 Raquel Lane in Tallahassee. Tony Williams is the sole owner, registered agent and president of Williams Drywall. On or about October 30, 2014, Williams Drywall was hired by Bill Davis, a general contractor, to make drywall repairs at 2069 North Monroe Street in Tallahassee (the job site). Williams Drywall hired Viper Enterprises, LLC, (Viper) for the job. Viper is a company owned and operated by Joseph Johnson, whom Mr. Williams described as a friend. Mr. Williams deemed the job as simple and expected to pay Viper about $200. On October 30, 2014, Department Investigator Betty Fuentes arrived at the job site and encountered Mr. Johnson. Ms. Fuentes inquired regarding Mr. Johnson’s workers’ compensation compliance.1/ Although Mr. Johnson, as corporate officer of Viper, had been exempt from the requirement to obtain workers’ compensation insurance, pursuant to section 440.05(3), Florida Statutes, the exemption expired after September 10, 2014. As of October 30, 2014, Mr. Johnson had not effectively renewed his exemption. Mr. Johnson called Mr. Williams from the job site on October 30, 2014, to inform Mr. Williams of the events that transpired at the job site. Through this telephone call, Mr. Williams learned that Ms. Fuentes had issued a stop-work order at the job site. Mr. Williams also spoke with Ms. Fuentes by phone from the job site on October 30, 2014, and Ms. Fuentes asked Mr. Williams for his corporate records as part of her investigation. Mr. Williams met directly with Ms. Fuentes in the late afternoon of October 30, 2014. During the meeting, Ms. Fuentes hand-delivered to Mr. Williams a Stop Work Order for Specific Worksite Only (Stop Work Order). The Stop Work Order required Williams Drywall to cease all business operations at the job site for failure to secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage for its employees. The Stop Work Order included an Order of Penalty Assessment in the amount of two times the amount Williams Drywall would have paid in premium when applying the approval manual wage rates to Williams Drywall’s employee payroll during periods for which it failed to secure payment of workers’ compensation insurance within the preceding two-year period. During the meeting, Mr. Williams provided to Ms. Fuentes corporate records and workers’ compensation information for Williams Drywall. Ms. Fuentes also requested from Mr. Williams payroll records for the preceding two-year period. Mr. Williams disputed that his payroll records for the preceding two-year period were relevant. Mr. Williams testified that he offered to provide his payroll records for the two-week time period during which Mr. Johnson’s exemption had lapsed. Mr. Williams insisted that the October 30, 2014, drywall job was the only job for which he hired Mr. Johnson between September 11, 2014, and October 30, 2014. Mr. Williams did not provide any payroll records for Williams Drywall to Ms. Fuentes or any other representative of the Department. Andrew Moskowitz was assigned to calculate the appropriate penalty to be assessed against Williams Drywall by the Department. Penalties for workers’ compensation insurance violations are based on doubling the amount of evaded insurance premiums for periods during which the employer failed to secure workers’ compensation coverage within the two-year period preceding the Stop Work Order. § 440.107(7)(d), Fla. Stat. The applicable period of noncompliance for Williams Drywall was September 11, 2014, the date Mr. Johnson’s exemption lapsed, through October 30, 2014, the date the Stop Work Order was issued. 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.2/ In the penalty assessment calculation, Mr. Moskowitz 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.” Mr. Moskowitz applied NCCI Class Code 5480, titled “Plastering NOC [Not Otherwise Classified] and Drivers,” which applies to specialty contractors engaged in interior plastering. Mr. Moskowitz used the approved manual rates corresponding to Class Code 5840 for the period of non-compliance to calculate the penalty. On December 14, 2014, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in the amount of $2,105.50, based upon an imputation of wages to Mr. Johnson, the only employee of Williams Drywall known to the Department for the period of noncompliance. The evidence produced at the hearing established that Mr. Moskowitz utilized the correct class codes, average weekly wages, and manual rates in his calculation of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. The Department has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Williams Drywall was in violation of the workers' compensation coverage requirements of chapter 440. Joseph Johnson was an employee of Williams Drywall 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 Mr. Moskowitz, through the use of the approved manual rates and the penalty calculation worksheet adopted by the Department in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.027.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, assessing a penalty of $2,105.50 against Tony Williams Drywall and Plastering, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of June, 2015, 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 3rd day of June, 2015.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2016), by failing to secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage, as alleged in the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment; and, if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement of chapter 440 that employers in Florida secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage for their employees and corporate officers. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. Respondent sells roof coating and provides installation services in the Bradenton, Florida, area. The Investigation On April 20, 2015, the Department received a public referral that Respondent was operating without a roofing license or workers' compensation coverage. The case was assigned by the Department to Compliance Investigator Germaine Green ("Green"). Green first checked the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations, Sunbiz website to verify Respondent's status as an active corporation. Green then checked the Department's Coverage and Compliance Automated System ("CCAS") to see whether Respondent had a workers' compensation policy or any exemptions. An exemption is a method in which a corporate officer can exempt himself from the requirements of chapter 440. See § 440.05, Fla. Stat. CCAS is the Department's internal database that contains workers' compensation insurance policy information and exemption information. Insurance providers are required to report coverage and cancellation information, which is then input into CCAS. Green's CCAS search revealed that Respondent had no coverage or exemptions during the relevant period. Because Green was not aware of any specific job site at which Respondent was working, she issued a Business Records Request ("BRR") No. 1 to Respondent seeking records for an audit period of January 1, 2015, through April 29, 2015, to determine compliance. Respondent provided payroll records and bank statements. Respondent's president, Felecia Bly ("Bly"), contacted Green and described the nature of the business as a roof coating business that sells a sealant that coats roofs to seal leaks and extend their longevity. Bly explained that Respondent used commissioned salesmen to review the county assessor's website to determine the square footage of a residence. The salesman then contacted property owners to determine whether they experienced leaks and offered the product and installation. The salesmen did not go on the roofs. Respondent considered its salesmen independent contractors to whom they issued IRS Forms 1099. Respondent used subcontractors to perform the installations. According to Respondent, these workers had their own businesses or exemptions. Respondent also used the services of part-time workers for a short period that addressed and sent post cards marketing Respondent's business. Based on her conversation with Bly, Green determined that the business should be categorized as "roofing," which is classified as National Council on Compensation Insurance ("NCCI") class code 5551 and is considered a type of construction activity under Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.021(2)(cc). Green also determined Respondent was non-compliant with the obligation to secure workers' compensation coverage for its workers. The corporate officers did not have exemptions, and several individuals, identified as sales and roofing subcontractors, did not have their own businesses or exemptions and, therefore, were employees. Petitioner did not issue a Stop-work Order because Respondent came into compliance on June 22, 2015, by securing exemptions for the corporate officers. Petitioner issued a BRR No. 5 for additional records from July 1, 2013, through June 21, 2015, to make a penalty calculation for the two-year period of non-compliance. Penalty Calculation The Department assigned Penalty Auditor Christopher Richardson ("Richardson") to calculate the penalty assessed against Respondent. Richardson reviewed the business records produced by Respondent and properly identified the amount of gross payroll paid to Respondent's workers on which workers' compensation premiums had not been paid. Richardson researched Respondent's corporate officers and Respondent's subcontractors to determine those periods when they were not compliant with chapter 440 during the audit period. Richardson determined that Respondent was not compliant for the period of June 22, 2013, through June 21, 2015. Respondent's compliant subcontractors (those with their own workers' compensation insurance or exemptions) were not included in the penalty. The business records ultimately produced by Respondent were sufficient for Richardson to calculate a penalty for the entire audit period. The initial OPA was in the amount of $257,321.16. After receiving and reviewing additional records supplied by Respondent, an Amended OPA was issued in the amount of $51,089.52. After a deposition of Bly's assistant, Sueann Rafalski ("Rafalski"), who provided additional details regarding those individuals and businesses identified in the Amended OPA, a 2nd Amended OPA was issued on July 18, 2016, in the amount of $43,542.16. During the hearing, Respondent disputed a few items that the Department subsequently voluntarily removed in the 3rd Amended OPA. The Department's Motion for Leave to Amend Order of Penalty Assessment was granted on September 29, 2016. Respondent disputed the inclusion of referral fees to Hicks and Campbell, a customer reimbursement payment to Robert Nyilas, payment to House Medic for work done on the Bly's home, and a loan repayment to the Bly's son, Brian Bly. The Department correctly removed any penalties associated with Hicks, Campbell, Robert Nyilas, House Medic, and Brian Bly. The Department also removed $14,200.00 from the penalty that Respondent disputed as repayments toward a $150,000.00 loan from its corporate officers. Respondent continues to dispute the penalty calculation for all others identified in the 3rd Amended OPA, except for the inclusion of the payment to Unexpected Blessings. For the penalty assessment calculation, Richardson consulted the classification codes listed in the Scopes® Manual, which has been adopted by the Department of Financial Services through rules 69L-6.021 and 69L-6.031. Classification codes are assigned to various occupations to assist the calculation of workers' compensation insurance premiums. Richardson assigned the class codes based on information provided by Bly. Richardson then utilized the corresponding approved manual rates for those classification codes and the related periods of non-compliance. Richardson applied the correct approved manual rates and correctly utilized the methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)l. and rules 69L-6.027 and 69L-6.028 to determine the penalty. Penalty for the Blys Respondent admits that during the audit period, the business did not carry workers' compensation insurance coverage, and its corporate officers, Glenn and Felecia Bly ("the Blys"), did not have workers' compensation exemptions. Because neither Mr. nor Mrs. Bly was engaged in the application of the roofing materials, the Department correctly assigned class code 8742, for sales and marketing, to them. However, the Department miscalculated the gross income of the Blys. Respondent provided check stubs and its accountant's itemization of payments to the Blys, which constituted repayment of loans from Respondent to the Blys. No evidence to the contrary was presented to indicate these sums were anything other than loan repayments. The Department erroneously included these sums in its calculation of gross payroll to the Blys. Although the Department made a $14,000.00 deduction from gross income for the Blys during this period as "loan repayments," no explanation was provided regarding how this sum was ascertained and why the Department disregarded the information of Respondent's accountant showing repayments during the relevant period in the amount of $19,200.00. The Department obviously accepted the testimony of Bly that, in fact, a portion of what the Department previously concluded was gross income to the Blys, was rather repayments for loans made to Respondent. Accordingly, in the absence of any evidence by the Department of how it parceled out which portion of money paid to the Blys constituted wages and which portion was loan repayments, the Department failed to demonstrate clearly and conclusively that the penalty associated with payments to the Blys is accurate.2/ Penalty for Postcard Mailers Three women, Meghan Saulino, Kimberly Kalley, and Stacy Boettner, were identified by Bly as independent contractors she hired to address and mail postcards for Respondent. According to Bly and Rafalski, these workers were college students who did the work at home, on their own time, and were paid by the job. This arrangement did not last long because the women did not like the work, and the task was transferred to Minuteman, a printing and copying business. These women are included in the Second Amended OPA and are assigned class code 8742 for sales and marketing. Respondent contends they should not be included because they were not employees. No evidence was presented to refute that these three women were merely casual workers whose duties (addressing and mailing postcards) were not in the course of the trade, business, profession, or occupation of Respondent (selling and installing roof coating). Accordingly, the amount included in the penalty for their work, $78.18, should be excluded from the 3rd Amended OPA. Penalty for Commissioned Salesmen Respondent contends that its commissioned sales people are all independent contractors who performed jobs for others. These salespeople included Kevin Kalley, Robert Patton, Gino Barone, Scott De Alessandro, Scott Black, and Tim Paige. However, no evidence was presented of the independent contractor agreements for these individuals, certificates of exemption for them for the penalty period, or evidence that these individuals owned their own businesses. As such, the Department was correct in including the amounts received by the salespeople as gross income for purposes of the penalty calculations. Penalty for Roof Coating Installers Respondent similarly argues that its roof coating installers were independent contractors. The roof coating installers included Bill Boettner, owner of Unexpected Blessings who did not have an exemption during the penalty period, and his business, Unexpected Blessings. Again, no evidence was presented of certificates of exemption for the penalty period or evidence that Unexpected Blessings had coverage. As such, the Department was correct in including the amounts received by the roof coating installers as gross income for purposes of the penalty calculations. Penalty for Other Independent Contractors Respondent argues that Rafalski and Bobby McGranahan ("McGranahan") should not be included in the penalty calculation because they were independent contractors not directly associated with Respondent's business. Rafalski was hired by Bly to help with personal errands and to respond to the audit which serves as a basis for this action. McGranahan is alleged to have run errands for the roof coating installers and acted as a handyman for Respondent before becoming a salesperson for Respondent. It is undisputed that Rafalski and McGranahan performed duties directly related to Respondent's business. Although Rafalski testified at her deposition that she considered herself an independent contractor, it was clear she worked on-site and was the individual most familiar with Respondent's business operations and internal accounting practices. McGranahan's duties, of shopping for supplies for the roofing installers, and then selling for Respondent, were directly related to Respondent's business. No evidence was presented demonstrating that either Rafalski or McGranahan owned their own business or had an exemption. Accordingly, they were properly included in the Department's 3rd Amended OPA.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, enter a final order assessing a penalty against Respondent in the amount of $34,552.20. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of October, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of October, 2016.
The Issue The issues to be determined in this case are whether Respondent Plumb Structures, Inc., violated state laws applicable to workers’ compensation insurance coverage by failing to secure coverage for an employee and, if so, whether the penalty assessed against Respondent by Petitioner Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (Department) was lawful.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for the enforcement of the workers’ compensation insurance coverage requirements established in Chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2007).1 Respondent is a Florida corporation with its office in Hudson. Timothy Frees is Respondent’s vice president and registered agent. On September 25, 2007, Lloyd Hillis, an investigator for the Department, was performing “spot checks” of contractors and subcontractors at job sites in certain subdivisions in Land ‘O Lakes to determine compliance with the worker’s compensation laws. Mr. Hillis stopped at a house where he observed a worker installing sliding glass doors. The worker identified himself to Mr. Hillis as Timothy Frees and stated that he worked for Plumb Structures, Inc. Upon checking relevant records maintained by the Department on his laptop computer, Mr. Hillis determined Mr. Frees was not covered by workers’ compensation insurance. The computerized records showed Mr. Frees had obtained an exemption from coverage for a period of time, but the exemption had expired on August 4, 2005. Subsection 440.05(3), Florida Statutes, provides that each corporate officer of a corporation engaged in the construction industry may elect to be exempt from the requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and Subsection 440.05(5), Florida Statutes, provides that, upon written notice of such election, the Department will issue a certificate of exemption which is valid for two years. The Department’s records indicated that the Department mailed Mr. Frees a “Notice of Expiration of Certificate of Election to be Exempt” on June 16, 2005. It was undisputed that no application to renew the certificate of exemption for Mr. Frees beyond August 4, 2005, was sent to the Department until after September 25, 2007. Before leaving the job-site, Mr. Hillis issued a stop- work order against Plumb Structures and hand-delivered it to Mr. Frees. Mr. Frees was also given a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation. Business records were requested for the period from August 4, 2005, the expiration date of Mr. Frees’ exemption, to September 25, 2007, the date of the stop-work order. Mr. Frees produced some business records for the Department, including a pay stub from Bill the Window Man, Inc., for which Mr. Frees said he worked as a subcontractor in 2005, showing year-to-date earnings through December 8, 2005, of $13,526; a W-2 Wage and Tax Statement issued by Plumb Structures showing 2006 income to Mr. Frees of $27,675; and a single pay stub from 2007 showing a year-to-date income from Plumb Structures of $17,460. These business records were not sufficient to determine Mr. Frees’ wage for these years because they did not indicate his hourly rate of pay. Therefore, the Department imputed his wage by using the statewide approved manual rate for the class code applicable to installation of doors. On September 27, 2007, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment against Plumb Structures for $8,774.75. Respondent does not dispute the Department’s imputed wage for Mr. Frees, but Respondent does dispute that Mr. Frees was an employee of Plumb Structures following the expiration of the certificate of exemption. With regard to work done by Mr. Frees in 2005, Respondent also argues that the evidence only shows Mr. Frees was an employee of Bill the Window Man, Inc. Mr. Frees told the Department’s investigator that “he” was a subcontractor to Bill the Window Man in 2005, but Mr. Hillis assumed, and the Department contends, that Mr. Frees meant that Plumb Structures was the subcontractor to Bill the Window Man. The pay stubs of Bill the Window Man were made out to Timothy Frees, not Plumb Structures. The Department’s evidence on this point does not meet the standard of proof applicable in this case, which is “clear and convincing evidence.” Respondent’s argument that Mr. Frees was not an employee of Plumb Structures in 2006 and 2007 is based solely on Respondent’s interpretation of the applicable law and is addressed below.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department enter a final order that assesses a penalty against Respondent of $7,649.72. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of April, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of April, 2008.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondents violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2013),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 penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (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. Ms. Angelia Brown has been a compliance investigator with the Department since 2007. On July 25, 2013, Investigator Brown conducted a site visit to a residential structure at 606 Orby Street, Pensacola, Florida. She observed three men performing roofing work on a detached two-car garage. One of the men showed her a job “ticket” indicating he was a “leased” laborer from Action Labor, an employee leasing company specializing in daily labor. Neither of the other men showed her tickets. Investigator Brown said that Mr. Robert Reed told her he was working for Mr. Michael Cribbs and that he had been on the site for a couple of days, but did not have a job ticket from Action Labor at that time. She testified that Mr. James Kingry told her he had not discussed pay with Mr. Cribbs, but that he did expect to be paid. Investigator Brown examined the information on the permit board at the job site and determined that a permit had been issued to Michael Cribbs Construction of Pensacola, Inc., and that the permit was active. Based upon the information provided by the three men, Investigator Brown checked workers’ compensation information by accessing the Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) maintained by the Department. The database indicated no workers’ compensation coverage in effect for Mr. Cribbs or for Michael Cribbs Construction of Pensacola, Inc. CCAS further showed that Mr. Cribbs, as president of Michael Cribbs Construction of Pensacola, Inc., had an exemption on file, but that this exemption had lapsed from March 8, 2012, through July 15, 2012. Investigator Brown called Action Labor and was informed that only Mr. Louis Sampson was “on ticket” for the day; that there was no active or current ticket for Mr. Reed, although he had been on ticket in the past; and that there were no records at all on Mr. Kingry. There was clear and convincing evidence that Respondents had periodically “leased” employees from Action Labor, including evidence that Mr. Sampson was employed by Action Labor and was working at the Orby Street site on July 25, 2013. Investigator Brown next contacted Mr. Cribbs. She told him that she was at the Orby Street site and explained the reason she was there. Mr. Cribbs told her that Mr. Sampson and Mr. Reed were “covered” and that Mr. Kingry was his former business partner of 20 years and was not being paid. Investigator Brown told Mr. Cribbs that Mr. Reed was not on an Action Labor ticket. Mr. Cribbs replied that he had a ticket for Mr. Reed and that he would look for it. Investigator Brown accessed the Department of State, Division of Corporations’ website. That database indicated that Michael Cribbs Construction of Pensacola, Inc., was inactive, and that it had been dissolved on September 28, 2012, for failure to file an annual report. Based upon her investigation, Investigator Brown concluded that Mr. Reed and Mr. Kingry were employees of Michael Cribbs, d/b/a Michael Cribbs Construction of Pensacola, Inc., a dissolved Florida corporation, and were not covered by workers’ compensation. She contacted her supervisor. Respondents received a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment from the Department on July 25, 2013. Respondents received a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation from the Department on July 25, 2013. It requested records for the three- year period from July 26, 2010, through July 25, 2013. In response to the Request for Production of Business Records, Mr. Cribbs provided some records to the Department’s Pensacola Office. He did not provide business records sufficient to enable the Department to determine payroll for the calculation of a penalty, however. There was clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Cribbs had operated in the construction industry as a corporate officer of Michael Cribbs Construction of Pensacola, Inc. Mr. Phillip Sley is a penalty calculator employed by the Department. He reviewed the business records that had been provided by Respondents, including insurance policies, bank statements, exemption documents, and some payroll documents, and calculated a penalty. Respondents received an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment from the Department on August 6, 2013. It assessed a penalty for failure to secure workers’ compensation coverage based upon imputed wages for Mr. Reed and Mr. Kingry for almost all of the three-year period and imputed wages for Mr. Cribbs for the period of March 8, 2012, through July 15, 2012, when his exemption had lapsed. Mr. Cribbs subsequently provided some additional documents, including tax returns and bank images, but these were still insufficient to fully determine the payroll. Mr. Sley re- calculated a penalty based in part upon documents that were provided and in part on imputed information. Records provided by Respondents indicate that Michael Cribbs Construction of Pensacola, Inc., was an employer for periods from July 26, 2010, until its dissolution on September 28, 2012. Mr. Cribbs, as a sole proprietor, was an employer from September 29, 2012, until the site visit on July 25, 2013. The assessed penalty amount was reduced for Mr. Reed and Mr. Kingry, but additional penalties were assessed for six other individuals, based upon payments to them on various dates from September 2, 2010, through December 31, 2012. There was clear and convincing evidence at hearing that these six individuals were employees of Michael Cribbs Construction of Pensacola, Inc., and Mr. Cribbs. The new assessment represented a net reduction in the overall penalty. Respondents requested an administrative hearing, which was conducted on July 2, 2014. A motion to adopt the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, consistent with the Department’s latest calculations, was granted. At hearing, Mr. Cribbs testified that the owners of the house at the Orby Street site had been paying a framing crew, but when he checked on them they had framed the garage roof incorrectly, so he fired them. The framing work being done on the detached garage at the Orby Street site was for-profit activity involving building and substantial improvement in the size and use of the residential structures at that location. There was clear and convincing evidence that the work was activity within the construction industry. Mr. Cribbs testified that, after firing the framing crew, he asked Mr. Reed to come to the job because he had worked with Mr. Reed before through Action Labor and that Mr. Reed “seemed to know what he was doing.” He testified that he told Mr. Reed to call in to Action Labor. He also testified that he had a ticket for Mr. Reed and that he considered Mr. Reed to be an employee of Action Labor. He acknowledged that Mr. Reed failed to call in to Action Labor. Mr. Reed was an employee of Respondents, as defined in section 440.02, Florida Statutes, on July 25, 2013. Mr. Cribbs testified that Mr. Kingry was a good friend he had known since they met in 1979 while doing framing work. He testified that they had been partners through the years, that their wives were best friends, and that they fished together. He said that he had used Mr. Kingry--who earlier had his own company and exemption--as a subcontractor on a few jobs when construction was booming after hurricane Ivan in 2004. He testified that they had not worked together at all since that time. Mr. Cribbs testified that his mother had been in and out of the emergency room and hospital with lung and brain cancer. He said he called Mr. Kingry from the hospital and asked him to go by the Orby Street job just to make sure that Mr. Reed knew what he was doing in cutting in the roof. He said he wasn’t expecting Mr. Kingry to do any work because he knew that Mr. Kingry had an injured knee, and only expected him to be at the site for “maybe 30 minutes.” Mr. Cribbs testified that there was no expectation that Mr. Kingry was going to be paid for going out there and that Mr. Kingry never asked him about pay. Mr. Kingry was engaged in construction activity on the roof on July 25, 2013. There was insufficient evidence at hearing to refute Mr. Cribbs’s testimony or otherwise demonstrate that Mr. Kingry was paid for his work, however. There was insufficient evidence to show that Mr. Kingry had been an employee of Mr. Cribbs or Michael Cribbs Construction of Pensacola, Inc., on July 25, 2013, or at any time during the preceding three years. Mr. Cribbs further testified at hearing that he had maintained all of the records he was required to have, but that most of them had been destroyed. He testified that, when he was married, he had kept the records in his house, but that, after he was divorced, he moved into a rental property and kept the records in some filing cabinets in a shed out back. Mr. Cribbs testified that about two years ago someone broke the lock on the shed, stole the filing cabinets, and left the papers strewn on the dirt floor of the shed. Mr. Cribbs said that shortly afterwards it rained heavily and flooded. He said that none of the records could be salvaged. This would have been about July 2012, near the time when Mr. Cribbs renewed his expired exemption. Mr. Cribbs admitted that he did not file a police report on the stolen file cabinets. Mr. Cribbs said he went to his bank to get copies of some records, but that, for portions of the three-year period, he did not have a bank account. Investigator Brown testified that she had checked job sites of Mr. Cribbs or Michael Cribbs Construction of Pensacola, Inc., on two earlier occasions and that no violations were found. The first time, it was determined that workers at the site were being paid directly by the homeowners and that Mr. Cribbs’s exemption was in place, so everything was in compliance. The second time, the Department received a complaint. There was an active permit, but, at the time of the site visit, all work had been completed. Respondents were engaged in construction industry business operations in the state of Florida during the periods of September 2, 2010, through December 31, 2010, and August 17, 2012, through December 31, 2012. Mr. Cribbs was engaged in construction industry business operations at the Orby Street site on July 25, 2013. Mr. Reed was an “employee” of Mr. Cribbs, as defined in section 440.02, on July 25, 2013. Respondents did not secure the payment of workers’ compensation insurance coverage for Mr. Reed on July 25, 2013. Neither Mr. Reed nor Mr. Kingry held valid workers’ compensation exemptions during the period of July 26, 2010, through July 25, 2013. Mr. Cribbs did not possess an exemption during the period of March 8, 2012, through July 15, 2012. None of the employees listed in the penalty worksheet of the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment can be classified as an independent contractor, as defined in section 440.02(15)(d)1. The class codes, manual rates, and average weekly wages identified on the penalty worksheet of the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment are correct to the extent a penalty is due.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, enter a final order determining that Respondents violated the requirement in chapter 440, Florida Statutes, to secure workers’ compensation coverage, and imposing a total penalty assessment of $30,529.96. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD 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 22nd day of August, 2014.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation (Department or Respondent), should pay Petitioners’, Stephen Ogles, LLC, or RL Ogles Roofing, LLC (Petitioners), attorney's fees and costs under section 57.111, Florida Statutes (2013),1/ for initiating Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) Case Nos. 13-2448 and 13-2517.
Findings Of Fact Respondent 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 officers, pursuant to section 440.107, Florida Statutes. Petitioners are in the business of roofing, within the construction industry, as defined by subsection 440.02(8), and are Florida employers over whom Respondent has jurisdiction to enforce the payment of workers' compensation premiums for the benefit of Petitioners' employees. Petitioners are the sole members of their respective limited liability companies, each with one employee. An officer of a corporation may elect to be exempt from chapter 440, Workers' Compensation, by filing a notice of election with the Respondent. § 440.02(15)(b)1., Fla. Stat. An officer of a corporation who elects to be exempt from Florida's Workers' Compensation Law is not an employee. § 440.02 (15)(b)3., Fla. Stat. Jonas Hall is employed as an investigator for the Division of Workers’ Compensation. He has been conducting workers’ compensation compliance investigations for approximately five years, and during that time has been involved in between 2,000 and 3,000 investigations. On June 12, 2013, Respondent issued a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment to Stephen Ogles, LLC, and RL Ogles Roofing, LLC, and a Stop Work Order For Specific Worksite Only to Ogles Construction and Roofing, LLC. Findings of Fact 8 through 18 below set forth the specific facts and circumstances known to Respondent at the time the SWO was issued. These facts are based upon the testimony at hearing of Jonas Hall, which is found credible, as well as documentary evidence offered by Respondent, which is corroborative of Mr. Hall’s testimony. Mr. Hall began a random site investigation on June 12, 2013, after he noticed construction work about to be performed at a single-family dwelling located in Live Oak, Florida. Upon investigation, four men were found to be installing roofing at a private residence. One of those workers, Robert Ogles, advised Respondent's investigator that he was working with his three sons, Stephen, Matt, and Robert, Jr. Investigator Hall first spoke to the elder Robert Ogles who advised Investigator Hall that he was the general contractor on the job and that his sons were working as subcontractors. At no time during the interview did Robert Ogles state that his sons were employees of his company, Ogles Construction and Roofing, LLC. Investigator Hall next spoke to Stephen Ogles who stated that he owned his own business and had a valid workers’ compensation exemption. Investigator Hall then spoke to the younger Robert Ogles who also advised him that he owned his own business and had a valid workers’ compensation exemption. Finally, Investigator Hall spoke to the third son, Matt Ogles, who also stated that he owned his own business and had a valid workers’ compensation exemption. At no time during the interview of June 12, 2013, did any of the three sons state that they were employees of their father’s business. After interviewing the four Ogles, Investigator Hall left the jobsite in order to gain access to a wireless internet connection for his computer. Once he obtained a connection, Investigator Hall accessed the Division of Corporations website to look up the correct names of the businesses owned by the four Ogles. With respect to the two Petitioners, the website revealed that Stephen Ogles was the sole member of Stephen Ogles, LLC, and that Robert Ogles, Jr., was the sole member of RL Ogles Roofing, LLC. Investigator Hall then accessed the Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) to ascertain the status of workers compensation coverage for the four individuals. CCAS revealed that while both Petitioners had at one time held exemptions, both exemptions had expired at the time of Investigator Hall’s site visit on June 12, 2013. Based upon this information, Investigator Hall reasonably concluded that both Petitioners were not in compliance with Florida workers’ compensation coverage requirements. With respect to the third son, Matt, Mr. Hall’s investigation revealed that his company, Matt Ogles, LLC, held a valid exemption, and was therefore compliant with the workers compensation coverage requirements. As such, Investigator Hall did not issue an SWO to Matt Ogles, LLC. After accessing information about Petitioners’ status on his computer, Investigator Hall returned to the jobsite. Upon his return, he observed all four of the Ogles working at the jobsite, with two actively working on the roof of the home. Investigator Hall then called those on the roof down, and served the SWOs on Petitioners. The facts uncovered in Investigator Hall's investigation on June 12, 2013, provided the Department with a reasonable basis to issue the SWOs to Petitioners. On June 17, 2013, Petitioners timely filed a Request for Hearing alleging the affirmative defense that Petitioners had valid workers' compensation exemptions. The Request for Hearing filed on behalf of Stephen Ogles, LLC, specifically stated: The Respondent disputes the SWO, to wit: The Owner’s exemption was not expired. And although worded somewhat differently, the Request for Hearing filed on behalf of RL Ogles Roofing, LLC, stated: The Respondent disputes the SWO, to wit: The WC Exemption was current. The Requests for Hearing filed by Petitioners on June 17, 2013, are consistent with the representations made to Investigator Hall on June 12, 2013, to wit, both Petitioners were subcontractors on the job, and held valid exemptions. On September 10, 2013, Petitioners filed an Amended Request for Hearing disputing the penalty assessment, and contending that Petitioners were employees of Ogles Construction and Roofing, LLC. The Amended Request for Hearing stated in pertinent part: The Respondents disputes the SWO, to wit: Ogles Construction and Roofing LLC disputes the penalty assessment. RL Ogles, LLC contends that he was an employee of Ogles Construction and Roofing, LLC. Stephen Ogles, LLC contends that he was an employee of Ogles Construction and Roofing, LLC. On October 8, 2013, Respondent issued an Order Releasing Stop-Work Order (Revocation) to Stephen Ogles, LLC, and RL Ogles Roofing, LLC. Two witnesses testified as to the reasonableness of the attorney’s fees being sought by Petitioners. Petitioners’ witness on the subject, John Middleton, is a Jacksonville attorney with eight years’ experience in handling workers’ compensation defense matters. Mr. Middleton opined that the $5,000 in fees being claimed by each Petitioner was not excessive, particularly in view of the successful outcomes for Petitioners in the underlying cases. Respondent’s witness, Ralph Paul Douglas, Jr., is a Tallahassee attorney who has concentrated his practice on workers’ compensation matters for twenty years. Mr. Douglas testified that Petitioners’ attorney in the underlying cases claimed 13.3 hours per case for legal services. However, according to Mr. Douglas, at least 1.3 hours of the total hours should be deducted as not awardable due to those hours relating to the preparation of a motion in response to an order to compel. Such fees “cannot be related to any delay, any confusion caused by that party claiming the fees, . . . obfuscation, . . . anything that does not move the case along in the docket.” It was Mr. Douglas’s opinion that 12 hours of legal services is a reasonable number for the underlying cases. However, since the same itemized list of services was submitted for both cases, Mr. Douglas concluded that the second itemized list was duplicative and mostly amounted to only ministerial work. The second itemized list should be, therefore, apportioned. Mr. Douglas testified that a $10,000 fee for the work done on the underlying cases would not be appropriate or reasonable based on the pleadings, the deposition testimony of the attorney performing the work, and the itemization of services. Rather, a reasonable fee would be 12 hours at $200 per hour for one case ($2,400) and $1,200 on the second case. Thus, the total fees that should be awardable for both cases would be $3,600. While the testimony of both Mr. Middleton and Mr. Douglas is credible, the undersigned gives greater weight to the testimony of Mr. Douglas due to his greater experience in the field of workers’ compensation law, and his more detailed analysis of the legal services performed in the underlying cases. The unrebutted testimony presented by Stephen Ogles and Robert Ogles, Jr., established that their respective LLC’s employ fewer than 25 full-time employees and have a net worth of less than $2 million each.
