The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent had sufficient or complete workers' compensation coverage for his employees pursuant to Chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2006).1
Findings Of Fact Respondent owns and operates a business engaged in the practice of installing flooring, including carpets, tile, hardwood, etc. He is a sole proprietor with no one else on his payroll. His work is performed by subcontractors whom he hires for each individual job. Respondent has been involved in the construction industry for many years and is generally aware of the concept of workers' compensation coverage. He has always operated under the assumption that an employer is only responsible for providing workers' compensation coverage for persons who are directly employed, i.e., that contracted employees (subcontractors) were exempt or had to pay their own coverage. Respondent did not make workers' compensation contributions for the subcontractors who did work for him. He acted on a good faith belief that such coverage was not his responsibility. On April 7, 2006, an investigator for Petitioner conducted a compliance investigation at Pegasus Point apartments in Orlando, Florida, pursuant to a public request. In Apartment J of the complex, the investigator observed a man (later identified as Jeff Menendez), who stated he was installing carpet. When asked about workers' compensation coverage, he replied that he was a subcontractor and did not believe he needed coverage. He said he got this job from "Allied" (the Petitioner in this case). As a result of this encounter, Petitioner contacted Respondent and asked for certain records in order to determine whether appropriate coverage was in place for its employees. When the requested records were not forthcoming, Petitioner entered a Stop Work Order. This prompted another request for business records so that Petitioner could calculate the appropriate penalty. Once it received the necessary records from Respondent, Petitioner determined there were several employees (as that term is defined in statute) working for Respondent for whom workers' compensation coverage had not been paid for the period of May 3, 2003, through May 3, 2006. When those workers were checked against Petitioner's data base--called the Coverage & Compliance Automated System, or CCAS--no coverage was found for Respondent or the identified employees for that period of time. One or more of the named employees had exemptions in place for a portion of the time they did work for Respondent. After taking that into consideration, Petitioner calculated a penalty of $28,619.97 against Respondent. The penalty was calculated using the Scopes Manual, a tool promulgated by rule. Respondent's business was identified in the Scopes Manual as Code 5478: carpet or flooring installation. The assigned rate for this code was then compared to the designated insurance rate. Once the amount was determined, it was multiplied by 1.5 to ascertain the penalty amount. The Stop Work Order was lifted by Petitioner after Respondent signed a "Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty" on June 1, 2006. At that time, Respondent made a down payment of $2,867.19 and agreed to pay the sum of $403.08 per month for 60 months. Upon reaching agreement with Petitioner to pay the fine, Respondent also terminated all "employees" doing subcontract work for him at that time.
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 upholding the Penalty assessed against Respondent for failure to provide workers' compensation coverage for employees. Inasmuch as the parties have already agreed to a payment plan, it is RECOMMENDED that the plan remain in effect until the penalty has been paid. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of March, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 22nd day of March, 2007.
Findings Of Fact 9. The factual allegations contained in the Request for Production of Business Records, the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment, the Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation, the Amended Stop-Work Orders, the Petition for Administrative Hearing, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and the Order Closing File, which are fully incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted as the Department’s Findings of Fact in this case.
Conclusions THIS PROCEEDING came on for final agency action and Alex Sink, Chief Financial Officer of the State of Florida, or her designee, having considered the record in this case, including the Request for Production of Business Records, the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment, the Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation, the Amended Stop-Work Orders, the Petition for Administrative Hearing, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and the Order Closing File served in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 09-077-D4, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby finds that: 1. On February 17, 2009, the Department issued and personally served a Request for Production of Business Records to IDEAL POOLS, INC. A copy of the Request for Production of Business Records is attached hereto as “Exhibit 1” and incorporated herein by reference. 2. On March 6, 2009, the Department issued a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment to IDEAL POOLS, INC. The Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment was personally served on IDEAL POOLS, INC. on March 10, 2009. A copy of the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit 2” and incorporated herein by reference. 3. On March 6, 2009, the Department issued a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation to IDEAL POOLS, INC. On May 15, 2009, the Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation was served by certified mail on IDEAL POOLS, INC. A copy of the Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation is attached hereto as “Exhibit 3” and incorporated herein by reference. 4. On April 16, 2009, the Department issued an Amended Stop-Work Order to ) IDEAL POOLS, INC. The Amended Stop-Work Order was served by certified mail on IDEAL POOLS, INC. on April 22, 2009. A copy of the Amended Stop-Work Order is attached hereto as “Exhibit 4” and incorporated herein by reference. 5. On May 12, 2009, the Department issued an Amended Stop-Work Order to IDEAL POOLS, INC. The Amended Stop-Work Order was served by certified mail on IDEAL POOLS, INC. on May 13, 2009. A copy of the Amended Stop-Work Order is attached hereto as “Exhibit 5” and incorporated herein by reference. 6. On March 30, 2009, IDEAL POOLS, INC. filed a Petition for Administrative Hearing (“Petition”), requesting review of the Amended Stop-Work Order. The Petition was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 22, 2009, and the matter was assigned DOAH Case No. 09-3407. A copy of the Petition is attached hereto as “Exhibit 6” and incorporated herein by reference. 7. On July 24, 2009, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 09-077-D4 to IDEAL POOLS, INC. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $103,717.85 against IDEAL POOLS, INC. A copy of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit 7” and incorporated herein by reference. 8. On August 25, 2009, the Administrative Law Judge issued an Order Closing File. A copy of the Order Closing File is attached hereto as “Exhibit 8” and incorporated herein by reference.
Findings Of Fact 12. The factual allegations in the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment issued on December 30 2008, and the Seventh Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on August 31, 2009, which are fully incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted as the Department’s Findings of Fact in this case.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent materially understated payroll in violation of Section 440.107, Florida Statutes (2003), and, if so, what penalty, if any, should be imposed against Respondent; and whether Respondent's workers are not employees defined in Section 440.02, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure the payment of workers' compensation for the benefit of their employees. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. (2002). Respondent is a corporation domiciled in Florida and engaged in the business of stucco and plastering. On March 2, 2004, Petitioner's compliance officer conducted a random site inspection of a single-family residence under construction at 12061 Cypress Links Drive, Fort Myers, Florida. Two work crews were present on the construction site. One crew was finishing drywall seams inside the house. The other crew was applying stucco to the outside of the house. The compliance officer is the only employee for Petitioner who investigated and developed the substantive information that forms the basis of Petitioner's proposed agency action. Other employees calculated the actual amounts of the proposed penalties. On March 3, 2004, the compliance officer conducted a conference in his office with Ms. Sandra Gomez and Mr. Francesco Zuniga; and Mr. Juan Rivera and Ms. Licia Rivera. Mr. and Mrs. Rivera are the principal officers for Respondent. The compliance officer determined that the crew working inside the house worked for Mr. Zuniga and that the crew working outside the house worked for Ms. Gomez. The compliance officer further determined that Ms. Gomez and Mr. Zuniga were subcontractors for Respondent and that neither Ms. Gomez nor Mr. Zuniga had workers compensation insurance. The compliance officer issued stop work orders against Ms. Gomez and Mr. Zuniga that are not within the purview of this proceeding. The compliance officer determined that Respondent maintained workers' compensation insurance through the Hartford Insurance Company (Hartford) and took no action against Respondent except to issue an order for Respondent to produce its business records for the preceding three years (the business records) for audit by Petitioner. The compliance officer reported to Hartford that Respondent had uninsured subcontractors working for Respondent. The compliance officer also requested and received from Hartford a copy of the last premium audit report for Respondent (the audit report). On March 10, 2004, Respondent produced the business records previously requested by the compliance officer. The production of records fully satisfied the request issued by the compliance officer. The compliance officer determined there was a discrepancy between the audit report's description of employee duties and related information in the business records. The compliance officer determined that Respondent had materially understated or concealed payroll and had materially misrepresented or concealed employee duties by representing that Respondent was in the drywall business and not in the stucco business. On March 10, 2004, Petitioner issued Stop Work and Penalty Assessment Order Number 04-94-D6 (the Initial Order). The Initial Order alleged that Respondent violated Subsection 440.107(2), Florida Statutes (2003), by materially understating or concealing payroll and proposed a penalty equal to the greater of 1.5 times the premiums Respondent would have paid over the preceding three years or $1,000. Petitioner subsequently amended the Initial Order to charge Respondent with materially misrepresenting or concealing employee duties. Petitioner issued the Initial Order without conducting any further review of Respondent or its principals. The compliance officer told Mr. Rivera that it would not be helpful for Respondent to retain counsel and that counsel would only further delay release of the stop work order. The compliance officer did not provide Respondent with any information concerning methods of avoiding the penalty except for Respondent to provide proof of an exemption or proof of insurance for Respondent's subcontractors. The compliance officer did not advise Respondent that proving independent contractor status for some or all of Respondent's subcontractors before the effective date of statutory amendments on October 1, 2003, would reduce the proposed penalty against Respondent. The compliance officer did not interview the Hartford employee who prepared the audit report. The audit report was limited to the period from December 17, 2002, through December 17, 2003. The audit report stated that Hartford had not provided a copy to Respondent and had not audited Respondent's general ledger. The compliance officer did not identify or interview the Hartford employee who had responsibility for Respondent's account, the Hartford agent responsible for Respondent, or the Hartford underwriter. The compliance officer did not request Hartford's complete file for Respondent. The audit report included a copy of an exemption for a person identified in the record as Mr. Stinnett who was included in Petitioner's penalty calculation. The audit report and penalty calculation each identified Mr. Stinnett by the same social security number. On March 16, 2003, Petitioner amended the amount of the proposed fine to $526,593.44 pursuant to Amended Order of Penalty Assessment Number 04-094-D7-2 (the Amended Order). Petitioner issued a Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment Number 04-094-D7-3 (the Second Amended Order) on March 23, 2004. The Second Amended Order reduced the proposed penalty to $90,131.51. Petitioner reduced the $526,593.44 fine proposed in the Amended Order by $426,461.91. The latter sum pertained to penalties assessed for the period preceding October 1, 2003, and for the period following December 31, 2003. The parties agree that statutory amendments authorizing Petitioner to issue a stop work order to an employer that materially misrepresents employee duties or materially understates or conceals payroll became effective on October 1, 2003, and cannot be applied to Petitioner retroactively. In addition, the parties agree that Hartford's audit report for Petitioner did not cover the period after December 31, 2003. Respondent paid the proposed fine of $90,131.51. On March 23, 2004, Petitioner issued a Release of Stop Work Order (the Release) that removed the Stop Work Order issued on March 10, 2004. In a Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment Number 04-094-D7-4 (the Third Amended Order) dated May 26, 2004, Petitioner reduced the proposed penalty by $21,679.28 to $68,432.23. Petitioner discovered errors totaling $16,261.42 that occurred when employees input numbers to calculate the proposed penalties against Respondent. The remaining portion of the reduction in the amount of $5,417.86 was attributable to the deletion of Mr. Sinnett from the penalty calculation. In a Fourth Amended Order of Penalty Assessment Number 04-094-D7-5 (the Fourth Amended Order) dated June 1, 2004, Petitioner further reduced the proposed penalty by $1,531.97 to $66,926.00. Respondent provided additional information concerning exemptions for a few workers. On June 7, 2004, Petitioner issued a Fifth Amended Order of Penalty Assessment Number 04-094-D7-5 (the Fifth Amended Order) deleting the charge that Respondent materially misrepresented or concealed employee duties. Petitioner admits that Hartford committed errors in the audit report and in recording the description of duties that Respondent reported to Hartford. Mr. Rivera personally reported to the appropriate Hartford employee that Respondent's primary business was stucco and that Respondent hired subcontractors to perform drywall plastering. The Fourth Amended Order dated June 1, 2004, as amended by the Fifth Amended Order, remain at issue in this proceeding. The Fourth Amended Order proposes a penalty in the amount of $66,920.26. The Fifth Amended Order limits the grounds for the proposed penalty to the charge that Respondent materially understated or concealed payroll by excluding subcontractors from Respondent's payroll from October 1 through December 31, 2003 (the relevant period), and by excluding either subcontractors or independent contractors thereafter. If a worker included in the penalty calculation were an independent contractor, within the meaning of former Subsection 440.02(15)(d)1, Florida Statutes (2003), the worker should be excluded from the penalty calculation during the relevant period. Effective January 1, 2004, however, Subsection 440.02(15)(d)1, Florida Statutes (2003), no longer excluded independent contractors in the construction industry from the definition of an employee. Thus, a determination of whether a worker was an independent contractor is not probative of that portion of the proposed penalty covering any period after December 31, 2003. Prior to January 1, 2004, former Subsection 440.02(15), Florida Statues (2003), did not except subcontractors from the definition of an employee unless the subcontractor satisfied the definition of an independent contractor. Effective January 1, 2004, Subsection 440.02(15)(c)2, Florida Statutes (2003), excluded from the definition of an employee those subcontractors that did not satisfy the definition of an independent contractor if a subcontractor either executed a valid exemption election or otherwise secured payment of compensation coverage as a subcontractor. There is insufficient evidence to support a finding that subcontractors included in that part of the penalty assessment attributable to the period after December 31, 2003, either elected a valid exemption or otherwise secured payment for compensation coverage. These subcontractors would not be excluded from the definition of an employee after December 31, 2004, even if they were independent contractors. Except for constitutional arguments raised by Respondent over which DOAH has no jurisdiction, Respondent owes that part of the penalty attributable to any period after December 31, 2003. It is undisputed that the workers included in that part of the penalty assessment attributable to the relevant period were subcontractors. Respondent's ledger clearly treated those workers as subcontractors and reported their earnings on Form 1099 for purposes of the federal income tax. Petitioner treated those workers as subcontractors in the penalty calculation. The Workers' Compensation Law in effect during the relevant period did not expressly exclude from the definition of an employee those subcontractors who executed a valid exemption election or otherwise secured payment of compensation coverage as a subcontractor. Rather, former Subsection 440.02(15)(c), Florida Statutes (2003), required a subcontractor to be an independent contractor to escape the definition of an employee. Former Subsection 440.02(15)(c), Florida Statutes (2003), required a subcontractor to satisfy all of the following requirements in former Subsection 440.02(15)(d)1, Florida Statutes (2003), in order for the subcontractor to be classified as an independent contractor: 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 requirements; The independent contractor performs or agrees to perform specific services or work for specific amounts 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 work or services that he or she performs or agrees to perform and is or could be held liable for a failure to complete the work or services; The independent contractor receives compensation for work or services performed for a commission or on a per-job or competitive-bid 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; and The success or failure of the independent contractor's business depends on the relationship of business receipts to expenditures. There is insufficient evidence to find that the workers included in that part of the penalty assessment attributable to the relevant period were independent contractors within the meaning of former Subsection 440.02(15)(d)1.a.-i., Florida Statutes (2003). Petitioner did not exceed its statutory authority by proposing a penalty of $66,920.26 in accordance with the Fourth Amended Order and Fifth Amended Order. Respondent previously paid a fine in excess of that proposed by Petitioner and is entitled to a refund of the excess penalty that Respondent paid.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order sustaining the allegations and penalties in the Fourth Amended Order and the Fifth Amended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of August, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 13th day of August, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Colin M. Roopnarine, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Workers' Compensation 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 Susan McLaughlin, Esquire Law Offices of Michael F. Tew Building 800, Suite 2 6150 Diamond Center Court Fort Myers, Florida 33912 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Pete Dunbar, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issues are whether nine workers were employees of Respondent, during part of the audit period; whether Respondent failed to secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage in violation of Section 440.107, Florida Statutes (2003); and whether Petitioner should impose a penalty against Respondent in the amount of $123,960.23.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure the payment of workers' compensation for the benefit of their employees. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. (2002). Respondent is a closely held corporation domiciled in Florida and engaged in the sale and installation of floor coverings. Mr. Dennis Davison and Mrs. Lynne Davison, a married couple, own all of the outstanding stock of Respondent (the owners). Respondent has five in-office employees, including the owners, and had a net worth of approximately $100,000 before paying the proposed penalty. On April 2, 2004, Petitioner's compliance officer conducted a random site inspection of a single-family residence at 213 Northwest 3rd Place, Cape Coral, Florida. Mr. John Walega and Mr. Mike Stephens were laying carpet in the residence (Walega and Stephens, respectively). Walega was a sole proprietor who employed Stephens. The compliance officer determined that Walega was an employee of Respondent because Walega had an expired exemption and no proof of workers' compensation insurance coverage. The compliance officer issued separate stop work orders against Walega and Respondent. The stop work order against Walega is not at issue in this proceeding. The compliance officer issued the stop work order against Respondent even though: she knew that Respondent had compensation coverage for Respondent's five employees through a leasing company; and she had no knowledge that Respondent had subcontractors other than Walega working for Respondent. The compliance officer requested Respondent's business records for the three years from April 2, 2001, through April 2, 2004 (the audit period). Respondent fully complied with the request in a timely manner. The stop work order issued against Respondent on April 2, 2004, also assessed a penalty stated as the greater of $1,000 or 1.5 times the premium Respondent would have paid in premium charges during the period Respondent allegedly failed to secure the payment of workers' compensation insurance. Sometime between April 2 and 16, 2004, Petitioner amended the penalty assessment to $137,820.72. On April 16, 2004, the owners mortgaged their personal residence to pay the amended penalty assessment. Petitioner released the stop work order, but the owners lost business in an unspecified dollar amount while the stop work order was in effect and continue to incur monthly interest expense in the amount of $500 to service the mortgage on their home. On June 28, 2004, Petitioner issued a Seconded Amended Order of Penalty Assessment No. 04-157-D7-2 that reduced the assessed penalty to $123,960.23 (the Seconded Amended Order). Respondent is entitled to a refund in the amount of $13,860.49, but Petitioner had not paid the refund as of the date of hearing. The Second Amended Order is the proposed agency action at issue in this proceeding. The compliance officer is the only employee for Petitioner who investigated and developed the substantive information that forms the basis of Petitioner's proposed agency action. Other employees calculated the actual amounts of the proposed penalties. Respondent does not challenge the mathematical accuracy of the penalty calculations by Petitioner, but challenges the legal and factual basis of Petitioner's determination that nine workers were Respondent's employees. The nine workers are identified in the record as Walega; Messrs. James Allan, Bertin Flores, Cliff Hill, David Lancaster, Earl Lancaster, Jeff Dozier, Anthony Gioe; and Ms. Patricia Lancaster. The statutory definition of an employee for that part of the audit period before January 1, 2004 (the relevant period), was different than the statutory definition that became effective on January 1, 2004. Factual findings concerning the nine workers at issue are driven by one statutory definition during the relevant period and another statutory definition thereafter. Any of the nine workers that satisfied the statutory definition in former Subsection 440.02(15)(d)1, Florida Statutes (2003), of an independent contractor should not have been included in that part of the proposed penalty attributable to the relevant period. Effective January 1, 2004, however, Subsection 440.02(15)(d)1, Florida Statutes (2003), no longer excludes independent contractors in the construction industry from the definition of an employee. Thus, a determination of whether a worker was an independent contractor is not relevant to that portion of the proposed penalty covering any part of the audit period after December 31, 2003. Effective January 1, 2004, Subsection 440.02(15)(c)2, Florida Statutes (2003), no longer excludes a subcontractor, including those that would have satisfied the former definition of an independent contractor, from the definition of an employee unless the subcontractor either executes a valid exemption election or otherwise secures payment of compensation coverage as a subcontractor. There is insufficient evidence to support a finding that any of the nine workers at issue in this proceeding either elected a valid exemption or otherwise secured payment for compensation coverage after December 31, 2003. The nine workers at issue in this proceeding are not excluded from the definition of an employee after December 31, 2004, even if they were independent contractors throughout the audit period. Except for constitutional arguments raised by Respondent over which DOAH has no jurisdiction, Respondent owes that part of the penalty attributable to any period after December 31, 2003. It is undisputed that the nine workers included in that part of the penalty assessment attributable to the relevant period were subcontractors throughout the audit period. Respondent's ledger clearly treated the workers as subcontractors and reported their earnings on Form 1099 for purposes of the federal income tax. Petitioner treated the workers as subcontractors in the penalty calculation. Customers of Respondent paid Respondent for installation of floor coverings they purchased from Respondent, and Respondent paid each of the nine workers to install the floor coverings. The Workers' Compensation Law in effect during the relevant period did not expressly exclude from the definition of an employee those subcontractors who executed a valid exemption election or otherwise secured payment of compensation coverage as a subcontractor. Findings concerning the existence of an exemption election or payment of compensation coverage are neither relevant nor material to the statutory definition of an employee during the relevant period. During the relevant period, the nine workers at issue were excluded from the definition of an employee only if they satisfied the definition of an independent contractor in former Subsection 440.02(15)(d)1, Florida Statutes (2003). Each of the nine workers were required to satisfy all of the following requirements: 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 requirements; The independent contractor performs or agrees to perform specific services or work for specific amounts 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 work or services that he or she performs or agrees to perform and is or could be held liable for a failure to complete the work or services; The independent contractor receives compensation for work or services performed for a commission or on a per-job or competitive-bid 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; and The success or failure of the independent contractor's business depends on the relationship of business receipts to expenditures. The preponderance of evidence shows that each of the nine workers at issue was an independent contractor during the relevant period. Respondent conducted the ordinary course of its trade or business with each of the nine workers in substantially the identical manner. None of the workers shared office space with Respondent. Each worker used his or her own truck, equipment, and tools to transport the floor coverings sold by Respondent and to install them in a customer's premises. Petitioner admits that Walega was a sole proprietor. Each of the other workers either held a federal employer identification number or was a sole proprietor who was not required to obtain a federal employer identification number. Each worker agreed to perform specific services or work for specific amounts of money and controlled the means of performing the services or work. Each worker incurred his or her own expenses to install floor coverings. Each worker transported floor coverings and necessary materials to the work site in the worker's own truck and used his or her own tools to perform the work. Each worker exercised independent professional judgment to perform the work. Respondent did not perform any pre-installation site inspection and did not perform any site preparation. Respondent did not train workers, instruct workers on how to perform their work, did not supervise their work while it was being performed, and did not perform any post-installation site inspection unless Respondent received a customer complaint. Each worker was responsible for the satisfactory completion of work or services that he or she performed. Each worker was liable to Respondent and the customer for any failure to complete the work or services or for inferior workmanship. Each worker warranted his or her work to the customer's satisfaction and absorbed the costs of rework and any damage to the customer's premises. Respondent paid each worker for work or services performed on a per-job or competitive-bid basis rather than any other basis. Respondent negotiated the price paid to a worker on a square-foot basis. The price did not change regardless of the amount of time the job required or the number of helpers the worker paid to assist the worker on the job. Each worker realized a profit or suffered a loss in installing floor coverings sold by Respondent. Each worker performed work for other vendors and had continuing or recurring business liabilities or obligations apart from installing floor coverings for Respondent. Each worker depended on the relationship of business receipts of expenditures for the success or failure of the worker's business. Each worker maintained his or her own occupational and professional licenses. Each worker maintained his or her own liability insurance. Respondent required each worker to sign a written form stating that the worker was an independent contractor. The form acknowledged the workers' warranty obligations and his or her obligations for their own taxes and insurance. Each form disclosed the workers' social security number or federal employer identification number. Respondent did not withhold federal income taxes from the payments to workers. Petitioner did not explicate the basis for reducing the proposed assessment in the Second Amended Order. However, the evidence reveals that the penalty reduction resulted from the exclusion of corporate subcontractors from the penalty base. The business relationship between Respondent and its corporate subcontractors during the relevant period was substantially the same as that between Respondent and the nine workers at issue. Early in this administrative proceeding on April 8, 2004, the compliance officer advised the owners that she was unable to release the stop work order against Respondent unless she could verify in Petitioner's data base, in relevant part, that the nine workers at issue each had a valid exemption or had insurance. However, Petitioner's database would not have disclosed compensation coverage maintained by a subcontractor through a leasing company. The compliance officer's advice to the owners did not reflect the law in effect during the relevant period. The Workers' Compensation Law in effect during the relevant period did not expressly exclude from the definition of an employee those workers who executed a valid exemption election or otherwise secured payment of compensation coverage as a subcontractor. The law excluded subcontractors from the definition of an employee only if the subcontractors satisfied the statutory definition of an independent contractor. The compliance officer made no effort to determine whether any of the workers she included in the penalty base satisfied the definition of an independent contractor. The compliance officer never advised the owners that establishing a subcontractor as an independent contractor would avoid part of the assessment against Respondent during the relevant period. The compliance officer never advised the owners that Respondent was free to choose to be represented by counsel during the audit process. The compliance officer told the owners that the only thing Respondent could do to avoid the assessment was to provide a certificate of insurance or an exemption for each of the subcontractors included in the penalty base. The compliance officer admitted that she was unaware that a subcontractor who was an independent contractor during the relevant period was legally excluded from the penalty base. Counsel for Respondent advised the compliance officer of the correct legal standard on April 12, 2004, but the compliance officer refused to release the stop work order unless Respondent paid the assessed penalty. The compliance officer knew that Walega had held a valid exemption at various times in the past as a sole proprietor. She knew Walega had renewed the exemption on October 29, 2003, for five years. However, Petitioner's database showed the exemption had expired on January 1, 2004, by operation of new law. Walega provided Respondent with a copy of the exemption he renewed on October 29, 2003. The exemption stated on its face that it was effective for five years. The owners had no actual knowledge that the exemption expired on January 1, 2004, as a result of a change in the Workers' Compensation Law. Petitioner admits that it issued the exemption to Walega knowing that the exemption would expire on January 1, 2004. Petitioner issued the exemption so that Walega could use it until January 1, 2004.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order dismissing the disputed charges against Respondent for the relevant period, refunding any overpayment by Respondent, and sustaining the remaining allegations and penalties against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of August, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 27th day of August, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: David C. Hawkins, Esquire Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 Susan McLaughlin, Esquire Law Offices of Michael F. Tew Building 800, Suite 2 6150 Diamond Center Court Fort Myers, Florida 33912 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Pete Dunbar, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2014),1/ by failing to secure the payment of workers’ compensation as alleged in the Stop-Work Order and 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and, if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for the enforcement of the workers’ compensation insurance coverage requirements established in chapter 440. On June 1, 2015, Investigator Abedrabbo conducted a random workers' compensation compliance check at 11422 North 56th Street, Tampa, Florida 33617. During the course of the compliance check, Investigator Abedrabbo observed two individuals installing a stone façade on a building that was under construction at the identified address. It is undisputed that the two individuals observed by Investigator Abedrabbo were, at the time of observation, employed by Respondent. In support of its 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, the Department prepared a penalty calculation worksheet showing a total penalty owed of $17,274.30.3/ Respondent does not challenge the accuracy or method of calculating the assessed penalty, but only asserts that the penalty is “too high” and the company cannot afford to pay it.
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 finding that Respondent, Cortes Pre Cast Stone and Foam Corp, violated the provisions of chapter 440 by failing to secure the payment of workers’ compensation and assessing against Respondent a penalty in the amount of $17,274.30. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of February, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN 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 18th day of February, 2016.
Findings Of Fact 1. Pursuant to Section 440.107, Florida Statutes, the Florida Department of Financial Services 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 has the authority to “issue stop-work orders, penalty assessment orders, and any other orders necessary for the administration of this section.” Section 440.107(3)(g), Florida Statutes (2004). On March 29, 2006, the Department’s Investigator, John Wheeler, conducted a compliance investigation of Terry’s Paint & Body Shop, Inc. in Pensacola, Florida, and found that contrary to Florida law, the Business did not maintain a policy of worker’s compensation insurance for its’ employees. A Stop-Work Order and an Order of Penalty Assessment was issued to Terry’s Paint & Body Shop, Inc., on March 29, 2006, for “failing to obtain coverage that meets the requirements of Ch. 440, Fla. Stat.” (Respondent’s Exhibit 1.) The Stop-Work Order provided that Terry’s Paint & Body, Inc., cease all business operations in this State until such time as the Business secures workers’ compensation insurance for its’ employees. (id.) On March 29, 2006, a Division of Workers’ Compensation Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation was served on Terry’s Paint & Body, Inc. (Respondent’s Exhibit 2.) The Petitioner cooperated with the Division of Workers’ Compensation and timely produced business records in response to the March 29, 2006 request. On March 30, 2006, an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was issued and personally served on Terry’s Paint & Body Shop, Inc., by John Wheeler, the Respondent’s workers’ compensation compliance investigator, and provided for a total penalty assessment of $29,223.48. (Respondent’s Exhibit 3). On April 3, 2006, Terry’s Paint & Body Shop, Inc. entered into a Payment Agreement for Periodic Payment of Penalty that provided for the periodic payment of the assessed penalty of $29,223.48 over a period of sixty (60) months. (Respondent’s Exhibit 6.) Pursuant to that Agreement, the Petitioner paid a required initial payment down-payment of ten percent (10%) of the assessed penalty ($3,000), and agreed to make sixty (60) payments of $437.08 per month, payable on the first day of the month. (Id.) The first scheduled monthly payment was due on June 1, 2006. (Id.) On April 3, 2006, and based on the executed Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty, the ten percent (10%) down payment by Terry’s Paint & Body, Inc., and pursuant to Florida law, the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation entered their Order of Conditional Release from Stop-Work Order to Petitioner. (Respondent’ Exhibit 5.) Pursuant to the Order of Conditional Release from Stop-Work Order, the Petitioner was permitted to resume business operations in Pensacola, Florida. (Id.) Pursuant to the Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty and the Order of Conditional Release from Stop-Work Order, the Petitioner was obligated to make sixty (60) monthly payments of $437.08 that were payable on the first day of every month. (Respondent’s Exhibit 5 and 6.) The Petitioner failed to timely submit the schedule monthly payments that were due on October 1, 2008 and November 1, 2008, and defaulted on the April 3, 2006, Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty. (Respondent’s Exhibit 8.) Because of the missed payments and the default of the Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty, the Respondent entered an Order Reinstating Stop-Work Order on December 24, 2008. (Jd.) 10. 11. On or about January 14, 2009, the Petitioner submitted a payment for the months of October and November 2008 to the Workers’ Compensation Administration Trust Fund. (Respondent’s Exhibits 7 and 7A.) Because the Petitioner became current on his monthly payments and pursuant to Florida Law, the Respondent entered a January 28, 2009 Order Rescinding Order Reinstating Stop-Work Order wherein the Petitioner was allowed to resume normal business operations in Pensacola, Florida provided the future monthly payments were timely paid. (Respondent’s Exhibit 9.) Pursuant to the Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty and the Order of Conditional Release from Stop-Work Order, the Petitioner was obligated to make sixty (60) monthly payments of $437.08 that were payable on the first day of every month. (Respondent’s Exhibit 5 and 6) The Petitioner failed to timely submit the schedule monthly payment that was due on January 1, 2009, and again defaulted on the April 3, 2006, Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty. (Respondent’s Exhibit 10.) Because of the missed payment and the default of the Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty, the Respondent entered an Order Reinstating Stop-Work Order on March 21, 2009. (Id.) On or about April 7, 2009, the Petitioner submitted a payment for the months of January and February 2009 to the Workers’ Compensation Administration Trust Fund. (Respondent’s Exhibits 7 and 7A.) Because the Petitioner became current on his monthly payments and pursuant to Florida Law, the Respondent entered an April 13, 2009 Order Rescinding Order Reinstating Stop-Work Order wherein the Petitioner was allowed to resume normal business operations in Pensacola, Florida, provided the future monthly payments were timely paid. (Respondent’s Exhibit 9.) 12. 13. 14. Pursuant to the Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty and the Order of Conditional Release from Stop-Work Order, the Petitioner was obligated to make sixty (60) monthly payments of $437.08 that were payable on the first day of every month. (Respondent’s Exhibit 5 and 6.) The Petitioner failed to timely submit the schedule monthly payment that was due on March 1, 2009, and defaulted on the April 3, 2006, Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty for a third time. (Respondent’s Exhibit 12.) Because of the missed payment and the default of the Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty, the Respondent entered an Order Reinstating Stop-Work Order on June 16, 2009. (Id.) In addition, the June 16, 2009 Order Reinstating Stop-Work Order requires the current unpaid balance of the total assessed penalty to become immediately due in order to withdraw the current stop-work order, which totals $11,800.50. (Id.) In addition to the above penalty and stop-work orders, on October 19, 2009, an Order Assessing Penalty for Working in Violation of Reinstated Stop-Work Order was issued and personally served on Terry’s Paint & Body Shop, Inc., in the amount of $125,000.00. This penalty is being contested by Petitioner before the Division of Administrative Hearings, is not being considered by this Hearing Officer, and is not part of the instant Matter. (Respondent’s Exhibit 4.) In his Petition for Hearing and throughout this proceeding, the Petitioner is seeking a third order rescinding the Terry’s Paint & Body, Inc., Stop-Work Order conditioned on his paying all past due amounts and making future payments under the April 3, 2006 Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty. uo
Conclusions Terry’s Paint & Body, Inc. by and through Mr. Terry Hedges 8129 Pensacola Boulevard Pensacola, Florida 32534 Petitioner Pro Se Paige Shoemaker, Esq. Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 Attorney for the Florida Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order upholding the June 16, 2009 Order Reinstating Stop-Work Order issued to Terry’s Paint & Body Shop, Inc. until such time that the Petitioner pays the balance of its’ monetary penalties that were assessed beginning on March 29, 2009, as a result of the Business failing to secure mandated workers’ compensation insurance for its’ employees. In addition, it is RECOMMENDED the final order in this matter hold that Florida law does not provide the Department or this Hearing Officer any discretion whatsoever to enter an order rescinding the Department’s Stop-Work Order after the Petitioner has defaulted three (3) times on his April 3, 2006 Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty. Respectfully submitted this 26" day of July 2010. Alan J. ma bf Department of Financial Services 3700 Lifford Circle Tallahassee, Florida 32309 Phone: (850)668-9820 Fax: (850)668-9825 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing Recommended Order has been provided by US Mail to: Mr. Terry Hedges, Terry’s Paint & Body, Inc,, 8129 Pensacola Boulevard, Pensacola, Florida 32534 and via hand delivery to Paige Shoemaker, Esq., Department of Financial Services, Division of Legal Services, 200 East Gaines Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399-4429 in the interests of judicial economy, this 26" day of July, 2010. Alan J. on aff -13-
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Petitioner violated Subsection 440.107(7)(c), Florida Statutes (2007),1 and, if so, what penalty should be assessed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure workers’ compensation coverage for the benefit of their employees and corporate officers. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. Martinez Construction is a construction business. On June 15, 2005, the Department issued Stop-Work Order No. 05-325- 1A. On June 20, 2005, an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was issued against Martinez Construction assessing a penalty of $23,472.57. On June 21, 2005, Martinez Construction and the Department entered into a Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty in which Martinez Construction agreed to pay the Department a lump sum of $5,000.00 and to make 24 monthly payments of $769.69. On June 21, 2005, the Department entered an Order of Conditional Release from Stop- Work Order (Conditional Release), which conditionally released the Stop-Work Order that was issued on June 15, 2005. The Conditional Release provided: Until such time as the employer has paid the total assessed penalty of $23,472.57 in full, if the employer fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty attached hereto as Exhibit “A,” the Stop-Work Order to which this order applies will be immediately reinstated, and the unpaid balance of the total penalty to be paid by the employer shall become immediately due. The Conditional Release listed Martinez Construction’s address as 1905 Michigan Avenue, Panama City, Florida. Martinez Construction made payments until July 2006, when it stopped making payments. The unpaid balance on the assessed penalty was $10,008.98. By letter dated May 24, 2007, the Department wrote Martinez Construction advising that it was issuing an Order Reinstating Stop-Work Order because of the failure to make payments as required by the payment schedule to which the parties had agreed. A copy of the Order Reinstating Stop-Work Order was enclosed with the letter and ordered: The Stop-Work Order issued to Employer on June 15, 2005, is immediately reinstated, and pursuant to such immediate reinstatement, the provisions of said Stop- Work Order are in full force and effect. The unpaid balance of the penalty in the amount of $10,008.98 is due pursuant to such immediate reinstatement. Pursuant to such immediate reinstatement, Employer shall cease all business operations in the State of Florida until the DEPARTMENT issues an Order releasing the reinstated Stop-Work Order upon a finding by the DEPARTMENT that Employer has come into compliance with coverage requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and has paid the entire unpaid balance of the penalty assessed as specified in (7) above [$10,008.98]. The letter and Order Reinstating Stop-Work Order were sent to Martinez Construction by certified mail to its Michigan Avenue address. The letter and order were returned to the Department as undeliverable. In early January 2006, Hector Martinez (Mr. Martinez) and his family moved from 1905 Michigan Avenue, Panama City, Florida, to 1304 Delaware Avenue, Lynn Haven, Florida. They remained at that address until January 2008. Mr. Martinez was the manager and registered agent for Martinez Construction. The records of the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations, show that on February 2, 2006, the principal address and mailing address for Martinez Construction was changed to 1304 Delaware Avenue, Lynn Haven, Florida, and that the address for the registered agent was also changed to the 1304 Delaware Avenue address. The Department resent the May 24, 2007, letter and Order Reinstating Stop-Work Order by certified mail to Martinez Construction. The return receipt from the United States Postal Service shows that the documents were delivered to the 1304 Delaware Avenue address on June 1, 2007. The receipt bore a signature stating Luisa Martinez. On June 1, 2007, Mr. Martinez was married to Luisa Alvarez Diaz. Mr. Martinez claims that his wife did not sign the receipt for the certified mail and that he did not receive the documents. According to Mr. Martinez, his wife does not use his surname, but goes by the name of Luisa Alvarez. Mr. Martinez’s testimony is not credible. The letter and Order Reinstating Stop-Work Order were delivered to the 1304 Delaware Avenue address on June 1, 2007. On August 24, 2007, Robert Borden (Mr. Borden), an investigator for the Department, was conducting a random compliance investigation and found a crew working on a jobsite. When Mr. Borden questioned the crew concerning the name of their employer, they replied that they worked for Martinez Construction. Mr. Borden checked the Department’s Coverage Compliance Automated Systems database and discovered that an Order Reinstating Stop-Work Order had been issued to Martinez Construction. Mr. Borden checked with the employee leasing company which Martinez Construction used and found that Martinez Construction had been employing crews for 70 days since the issuance of the Order Reinstating Stop-Work Order. On August 28, 2007, Martinez Construction was issued and personally served an Order Assessing Penalty for Working in Violation of Reinstated Stop-Work Order, assessing a $70,000.00 penalty which represented a penalty of $1,000.00 per day for the 70 days of violation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order finding that Petitioner violated Subsection 440.107(7)(c), Florida Statutes, and assessing a penalty of $70,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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 30th day of June, 2008.
Findings Of Fact 11. — The factual allegations in the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment issued on February 3, 2009, and the Fourth Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on February 5, 2010, which are fully incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted as the Department’s Findings of Fact in this case.
Conclusions THIS PROCEEDING came on for final agency action and Alex Sink, Chief Financial Officer of the State of Florida, or her designee, having considered the record in this case, including the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment and the Fourth Amended Order of Penalty Assessment served in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 09-014-D2, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby finds that: 1. On February 3, 2009, the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (hereinafter “Department”) issued a Stop- Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 09-014-D2 to ASSOCIATED WINDOW AND DOOR, INC. (ASSOCIATED). The Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of rights wherein ASSOCIATED was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Stop- Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. 2. On February 3, 2009, the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment was served via personal service on ASSOCIATED. A copy of the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit A” and incorporated herein by reference. 3. On April 10, 2009, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to ASSOCIATED in Case No. 09-014-D2. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $99,761.78 against ASSOCIATED. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein ASSOCIATED was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569.and 120.57, Florida Statutes. 4. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served on ASSOCIATED by personal service on April 13, 2009. A copy of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit B” and incorporated herein by reference. 5. On April 30, 2009, the Department issued a Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to ASSOCIATED in Case No. 09-014-D2. The Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $76,081.13 against ASSOCIATED. The Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment contained a Notice of Rights wherein ASSOCIATED was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. 6. The Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served on ASSOCIATED by personal service on May 1, 2009. A copy of the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit C” and is incorporated herein by reference. 7. On May 22, 2009, ASSOCIATED filed a timely Petition for a formal administrative hearing in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. The Petition was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned Case No. 09- 3044. . 8. On February 5, 2010, the Department issued a Fourth Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to ASSOCIATED in Case No. 09-014-D2. The Fourth Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $1,256.24 against ASSOCIATED. The Fourth Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served on ASSOCIATED through the Division of Administrative Hearings. A copy of the Fourth Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit D” and is incorporated herein by reference. 9. ‘On February 10, 2010, ASSOCIATED filed a Motion to Close File Due to Settlement in DOAH Case No. 09-3044. A copy of the Motion to Close File Due to Settlement filed by ASSOCIATED. is attached hereto as “Exhibit E.” 10. On February 10, 2010, Administrative Law Judge Errol H. Powell entered an Order Closing File, relinquishing jurisdiction to the Department. A copy of the February 10, 2010 Order Closing File is attached hereto as “Exhibit F.”
