The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment filed October 17, 2008, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement of Section 440.107, Florida Statutes, that employers in Florida secure workers' compensation insurance coverage for their employees. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Valou Enterprises is a Florida corporation located in Miami, Florida, which does business under the fictitious name of "Mr. Rooter Plumbing" ("Mr. Rooter"). Leslie McMillan is part- owner and the President of Valou Enterprises. Pedro Rolle is part-owner and the Treasurer of Valou Enterprises, and he is responsible for the business's day-to-day management. Welthial McMillan is part-owner and the Secretary of Valou Enterprises. Mr. Rooter is a franchise that engages in the business of providing plumbing services and repairs. According to franchise documents, among the services offered by Mr. Rooter are HydroScrubbing™ sewer lines to remove blockages; water heater installation; kitchen and bath installation and repairs, including faucets, sinks, tubs and toilets; and leak detection and water line repair and installation.2 On its website, Valou Enterprises advertises that Mr. Rooter provides full-service plumbing, including bath sinks, bathtubs and showers, drain pipes, faucets, floor drains, gas meters, gas vents, kitchen sinks, pipe repair, sewer lines, and water softeners.3 Mr. McMillan is a Florida-certified plumbing contractor, and he is the qualifier for Mr. Rooter. Mr. and Mrs. McMillan and Mr. Rolle, have elected, as officers of a corporation engaged in the construction industry, to be exempt from Florida's workers' compensation law, in accordance with the provisions of Sections 440.02(15)(b)2. and 440.05(3), Florida Statutes. Valou Enterprises hires plumbing technicians to provide plumbing services to Mr. Rooter's customers. These plumbing technicians are not licensed; rather, they work under Mr. McMillan's plumbing contractor's license. They do not receive a salary and do not have regular hours during which they must be at the Mr. Rooter office or at a jobsite. The plumbing technicians are paid commissions based on the work they perform, and they are required to supply their own tools. The plumbing technicians are on-call with Mr. Rooter at all times, but they only perform services for Mr. Rooter when actually dispatched to a job. When a plumbing technician is called and notified of a job, he is free either to accept or to reject the job. Mr. Rooter also dispatches plumbing helpers when a plumbing technician needs assistance. Valou Enterprises employs Catia Duque, who takes calls and dispatches plumbing technicians to Mr. Rooter jobs. Kenneth Mecure runs errands for Valou Enterprises part-time when needed, on a part-time basis. Late in the afternoon on Friday, June 27, 2008, a compliance investigator working for the Division of Workers' Compensation stopped at the Mr. Rooter office, which was located in a warehouse district. The visit was random, initiated when the investigator saw white vans parked in front of the office, with the name "Mr. Rooter Plumbing" and logo on the sides of the vans. When the investigator entered the office, she observed four men wearing shirts with the "Mr. Rooter Plumbing" logo. When the investigator requested information about Valou Enterprises's workers' compensation insurance coverage, Mr. Rolle referred her to Ms. Duque. Ms. Duque told the investigator that she would send whatever information she had regarding workers' compensation insurance coverage by facsimile transmittal, but the investigator did not receive any information from Ms. Duque. After her visit on June 27, 2008, the compliance investigator conducted research through the Coverage and Compliance Automated System database, which provides information on workers' compensation insurance coverage and exemptions. The investigator's research revealed that Mr. McMillan, Mrs. McMillan, and Mr. Rolle had exemptions from the workers' compensation law as officers of a corporation engaged in the construction industry and that none of the persons she observed in the Mr. Rooter office on June 27, 2008, were covered by a workers' compensation insurance policy. The investigator confirmed the lack of workers' compensation insurance coverage by consulting the website for the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc. ("NCCI"). The compliance investigator returned to the Mr. Rooter office on Monday, July 1, 2008, and spoke with Mr. McMillan. Mr. McMillan was unable to provide her with proof that Valou Enterprises had workers' compensation insurance coverage. The investigator then prepared a Stop-Work Order and an Order of Penalty Assessment, which she hand-delivered to Mr. McMillan on July 2, 2008, and posted at the Mr. Rooter office. At the same time, the investigator served Mr. McMillan with a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculations. The Stop-Work Order required Valou Enterprises to "cease all business operations for all worksites in the state." An Order of Penalty Assessment was included in the Stop-Work Order, in which Valou Enterprises was advised that a penalty would be assessed in an amount [e]qual to 1.5 times the amount the employer would have paid in premium when applying approved manual rates to the employer's payroll during periods for which it failed to secure the payment of workers' compensation required by this chapter within the preceding 3-year period, or $1,000, whichever is greater. Section 440.107(7)(d), F.S. In addition, the Order of Penalty Assessment also advised Valou Enterprises that a penalty of "[u]p to $5,000 for each employee who the Employer misclassified as an independent contractor" would be imposed pursuant to Sections 440.10(1)(f) and 440.107(7)(f), Florida Statutes. On July 3, 2008, the compliance investigator returned to the Mr. Rooter office. The office was closed, but she observed a white van turning out of the office parking lot. The van had the "Mr. Rooter Plumbing" name and logo on the side, and it was driven by Michael Dassell, a plumbing technician the investigator had met during her visit to the Mr. Rooter office on July 27, 2008. The investigator questioned Mr. Dassell, who told her that he was on-call that day. Mr. Dassell had not been dispatched on a job or called into the office but had gone to the office to pick up a commission check. Mr. Dassell had not been told that the Mr. Rooter office was closed on July 3, 2008. Mr. McMillan provided the compliance investigator the payroll and other records requested in the business records request. Based on these records, the compliance investigator calculated the penalty to be imposed on Valou Enterprises for its failure to have workers' compensation insurance coverage in the amount of $59,652.93. The investigator also imposed a penalty of $1,000.00 for a one-day violation of the Stop-Work Order and a penalty of $35,000.00 for "misrepresenting the status of the employee(s) as an independent contractor(s)." The total penalty of $95,652.93 was set forth in an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment that the investigator hand-delivered the order to Mr. McMillan on July 9, 2008. Valou Enterprises obtained workers' compensation insurance coverage effective July 4, 2008, and, on July 9, 2008, Mr. McMillan entered into a Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty, remitting at the time a down payment of 10 percent of the penalty, or $9,566.00. As a result, an Order of Conditional Release from Stop-Work Order was entered on July 9, 2008. The compliance investigator subsequently recalculated the penalty assessment and prepared a 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment dated October 17, 2008. The $35,000.00 penalty assessed for misclassifying employees as independent contractors was deleted for lack of evidence, and the final penalty assessment was in the amount of $60,652.93, which consisted of a $59,652.93 penalty for failure to secure workers' compensation insurance coverage for Valou Enterprises employees and a $1,000.00 penalty for violating the Stop-Work Order.4 The compliance investigator looked to the NCCI SCOPES Basic Manual of Classifications ("SCOPES Manual") for classification codes attributable to the various workplace operations of the persons working for Valou Enterprises. The classification code assigned by the compliance investigator to the plumbing technicians and plumbing helpers performing work for Valou Enterprises was Code 5183.5 According to the SCOPES Manual and to Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.021(1)(r), Code 5183 is a code applicable to the construction industry and covers "Plumbing NOC and Drivers." The description of the scope of Code 5183 is stated in the SCOPES Manual in pertinent part as follows: Applicable to gas, steam, hot water or other types of pipe fitting. Includes house connections and shop operations. * * * Code 5183 is applicable to plumbing operations provided that the work performed is "not otherwise classified" (NOC). Insureds contemplated by Code 5183 may install, remove, or repair equipment that is used to direct gas or water supplies to a destination. This equipment includes but is not limited to piping and related fixtures, appliances, and accessories. No limits have been established as to the size of the pipe being repaired or installed. The operations contemplated by Code 5183 also include "the cleaning of building sewer connections using portable equipment" and "the installation or service of domestic water softener systems." The approved NCCI Manual rate in Florida effective January 1, 2006, for Code 5183 was $10.04 per $100.00 of payroll; the approved NCCI Manual rate in Florida effective January 1, 2007, for Code 5183 was $8.13 per $100.00 of payroll; and the approved NCCI Manual rate in Florida effective January 1, 2008, for Code 5183 was $6.75 per $100.00 of payroll.6 The classification code found in the SCOPES Manual assigned to Ms. Duque and to Paul Anderson, who was a clerical worker in the Valou Enterprises office in 2006, was Code 8810. According to the SCOPES Manual, Code 8810 covers "Clerical Office Employees."7 The description of the scope of Code 8810 is stated in the SCOPES Manual in pertinent part as follows: "The duties of a clerical office employee include . . . telephone duties." The approved NCCI Manual rate in Florida effective January 1, 2006, for Code 8810 was $.58 per $100.00 of payroll; the approved NCCI Manual rate in Florida effective January 1, 2007, for Code 8810 was $.48 per $100.00 of payroll; and the approved NCCI Manual rate in Florida effective January 1, 2008, for Code 8810 was $.37 per $100.00 of payroll.8 The classification code assigned by the compliance investigator to Kevin Mecure, a part-time employee who ran errands for Valou Enterprises, was Code 7380.9 According to the SCOPES Manual, Code 7380 covers "Drivers, Chauffeurs & Their Helpers NOC - Commercial." The description of the scope of Code 7380 is stated in the SCOPES Manual in pertinent part as follows: "The term "drivers" refers to employees who engage in duties on or in connection with vehicles " The approved NCCI Manual rate in Florida effective January 1, 2006, for Code 7380 was $12.20 per $100.00 of payroll; the approved NCCI Manual rate in Florida effective January 1, 2007, for Code 7380 was $10.18 per $100.00 of payroll; and the approved NCCI Manual rate in Florida effective January 1, 2008, for Code 7380 was $8.74 per $100.00 of payroll.10 The compliance investigator calculated the total penalty attributable to Valou Enterprises's failure to provide workers' compensation insurance coverage for the plumbing technicians, clerical workers, and drivers using the Department's Penalty Worksheet. She obtained the names of each of the individuals included in her calculations and the amount of the gross payroll for each individual from the payroll information provided by Mr. McMillan in response to the business records request. The compliance investigator calculated the penalty as follows: She listed Valou Enterprises's employees on the Penalty Worksheet; assigned each employee a classification code based on the definitions of workplace operations that most closely described the work they performed for Valou Enterprises; set out the dates during which Valou Enterprises did not provide workers' compensation insurance coverage11; entered the annual or pro-rated gross payroll for each employee during the period of non-compliance; divided the gross payroll for each employee by 100; set out the approved manual rate for each employee during the period of non-compliance in accordance with his or her classification code; determined the premium that Valou Enterprises would have paid for workers' compensation insurance coverage for each employee during the period of non-compliance by multiplying the approved manual rate and one one-hundredth of the gross payroll for each employee; calculated the penalty attributable to each employee during the period of non- compliance by multiplying the premium for each employee by 1.5; and, finally, calculated the total penalty owed by Valou Enterprises attributable to its failure to secure workers' compensation insurance coverage for its employees.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order finding that Valou Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a/ Mr. Rooter Plumbing, failed to secure workers' compensation insurance coverage for its employees in violation of Section 440.38(1), Florida Statutes, and imposing a penalty in the amount of $59,652.93 for the failure to provide the required workers' compensation insurance coverage. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of April, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA M. HART Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of April, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the testimony of the witnesses at hearing, the following facts are found: The Petitioner, Anna Torres, (hereinafter "Torres") worked for the Department of Transportation as a toll collector at the Golden Glades toll plaza and was a career service employee at all times pertinent to this case. At the time of the events giving rise to this case, Torres had been employed by the Department for about eight years. Torres was authorized to be on approved leave from October 24, 1989, through November 8, 1989. Torres used that period of leave to drive from South Florida to California to visit her parents. Torres was accompanied on the trip by her roommate. Torres was expected to return to work on November 9, 1990. Torres' father had been sick for several years and during her visit his condition took a sudden turn for the worse, as a result of which it was necessary for her father to be hospitalized. Torres was very concerned about her father's medical condition and felt a need to remain in California until it could be determined whether her father was going to recover from his worsened condition. To facilitate a longer stay in California, Torres' mother offered to pay Torres' airfare from California to Florida in the event Torres could not obtain additional leave, and the roommate offered to drive the car back. On November 7, 1989, Torres placed a telephone call from her parents' home in California to the Golden Glades toll plaza. She spoke with Mildred Burham, who was, and is, the assistant manager at the Golden Glades toll plaza and the supervisor of one of the shifts. Mildred Burham was not the supervisor of Torres' shift. The essence of what Torres told Mildred Burham is that, because of a family emergency, Torres needed to stay in California for another two weeks and wanted a two week extension of her vacation. Torres also asked Mildred Burham to convey the message to Vera Hulse. 1/ Vera Hulse was, and is, the manager of the Golden Glades toll plaza. At that time, Torres did not have sufficient annual or sick leave to cover an additional absence of two weeks. During the November 7, 1989, telephone conversation, Mildred Burham told Torres that she (Burham) would "check into" the request for additional leave and would convey Torres' message to Vera Hulse. Ms. Burham did not tell Torres that the two week extension of her vacation was approved. 2/ During the November 7, 1989, telephone call, Torres did not give Ms. Burham the telephone number at her parents' house in California. Instead, she told Ms. Burham that if they needed to get in touch with her, they could call Torres' son at her home in Florida and he could give them the California telephone number. When Ms. Burham told Vera Hulse about the telephone call from Torres, something apparently got lost in the translation. The message communicated to Ms. Hulse was to the general effect that Torres had called and said that because of a family problem Torres would not be back to Florida for another two weeks. Ms. Hulse was not advised that Torres was requesting leave; only that Torres would be two weeks late getting back due to a family problem. Torres was scheduled to work on the following days: November 9, 10, 11, 14, and 15, 1989. Torres did not report for work on any of those days, nor did she have any other communication with her employer after the telephone communication of November 7, 1990, until November 20, 1989, when Torres called again. Between November 9 and November 20, 1989, Ms. Burham and Ms. Hulse called Torres' home telephone number in an effort to contact her son and obtain the telephone number where Torres was staying in California. Those efforts were unsuccessful. On November 9, 10, 11, 14, and 15, 1989, Torres was placed on unauthorized leave without pay. On November IS, 1989, the Department sent Torres a letter advising her that because she had failed to report for work and had been on unauthorized leave without pay since November 10, 1989, she was deemed to have abandoned her position and to have resigned from the Career Service.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the Department of Administration enter a final order in this case concluding that the Petitioner, Anna Torres, did not abandon her position of employment with the Department and ordering that she be reinstated to her position as a toll collector with back pay. DONE AND ENTERED at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 27th day of June, 1990. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of June, 1990.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Respondent, Lykes Brothers, Inc. operated a meat packing plant in Plant City, Florida. Hennis Washington, III was employed by Respondent at that plant as a utility worker. Petitioner, Hillsborough County, through its Human Resources and Equal Opportunity Department, had the authority to investigate and administratively enforce County Ordinances relative to unlawful discrimination in employment. Respondent is 5'1/2" tall and weighs about 114 pounds, much the same as at the time in issue. He is a power lifter and claims to be able to lift 405 pounds in a dead lift. He was employed at the Respondent's plant from July, 1991 to May, 1993, when he was terminated in the action which is the subject of this hearing. On May 24, 1993, while in the performance of his duties, Mr. Washington was carrying a stack of empty boxes from one place to another through the plant's bacon curing department. The stack of boxes he was carrying extended above his head and as a result he was unable to see in front of him. As he proceeded down the aisle, he ran into some resistance which prevented him from going further. He changed direction to the side where he could see, and which, he believed, was clear, and again ran into resistance which, this time, caused him to drop the boxes. After the boxes fell, and he could see in front of him, he observed Mr. Romero, a sanitation worker, in front of him, smiling. There is some question whether or not Mr. Romero took a step toward Mr. Washington. At hearing, Mr. Washington said he did and that he felt threatened by Mr. Romero's advance, though at his grievance hearing he did not indicate that. In response, howevever, Mr. Washington moved toward Mr. Romero, a man approximately 5'8" tall and weighing approximately 175 pounds, picked him up, and dropped him on the floor. As a result of that, Mr. Romero claimed to have injured his back and reported to the medical office by which he was released from duty for the evening. After this action, Mr. Washington was terminated from employment with the company. He is of the opinion it was because of his race, but admits he was advised by his supervisor, Mr. Freeman, it was because it was felt he had over- reacted to the situation with Mr. Romero. Nonetheless, an employee action request initiated by Mr. Freeman, dated May 24, 1993 reflected that Mr. Washington was administratively terminated. Administrative termination deals with unauthorized absences, according to the company's Employee Handbook. Mr. Freeman, himself African-American, was not present at the time of the incident, but was informed of it shortly thereafter, and called Mr. Washington to his office. Mr. Washington admitting picking up Mr. Romero, whom he did not previously know, and thereafter dropping him to the floor. Mr. Freeman, after finding out what happened, referred the matter to Mr. Harris, the employee relations manager, who is also African-American. Mr. Freeman did not interview Mr. Romero. He prepared the administrative termination notice upon direction of his supervisors. He claims the termination was based on Mr. Washington's fighting and not on the basis of his race. Mr. Harris, over a period of the next several days, conducted his independent investigation into the incident which investigation included speaking with Mr. Washington, Mr. Romero, and several other witnesses. During this period, both Mr. Washington and Mr. Romero were suspended. Mr. Harris' investigation confirmed there had been an incident, but he could find no evidence that Mr. Romero had pushed the boxes Mr. Washington was carrying. It was for that reason that Mr. Romero was not disciplined. The termination of Mr. Washington was predicated upon the fact that he had been engaged in a fight with another employee. The Respondent's personnel rules indicate that fighting, as opposed to mere horseplay, is a Class I infraction, the punishment for which can include dismissal. It includes the throwing of punches, the use of weapons, and the threat of injury. Horseplay, on the other hand, usually amounts to no more than pushing, tugging, and actions which are not likely to result in injury. In the instant case, Mr. Washington's actions constituted a direct battery of Mr. Romero which resulted in injury. It was, therefore, properly considered fighting. Mr. Harris concluded that Mr. Washington had reacted to the situation improperly. If, as he claimed, Mr. Washington felt he was being harrassed by Mr. Romero and Mr. Barbosa, who was with Mr. Romero at the time of the incident, he should have reported the matter to his supervisor rather than taking matters into his own hands. Employees are given an Employee Handbook when they begin employment with the company, and they are taught, in a four hour orientation course given to all employees, to back off from incidents of this nature - not to fight. Because he felt Mr. Washington had overreacted, Mr. Harris recommended termination, even though a check of both employees' personnel records indicated neither had any previous incidents. At the time of the incident, Lykes had approximtely 750 production maintenance employees, (Mr. Washington's category). Of this number, between 30 and 35 percent were African-American, 15 percent were Hispanic, 5 percent were other minorities, and between 45 and 50 percent white. Mr. Hampton, Lykes' Vice-President for Employee Relations, was made aware of the situation involving Mr. Washington by Mr. Harris, who recommended termination. Mr. Hampton agreed with this recommendation because Mr Washington had thrown Mr. Romero down and injured him. The recommendation for termination was not based on race and was consistent with discipline taken in prior incidents. Specifically, Mr. Hampton referred to a situation occuring not long before the instant case in which two white employees were initially terminated for an altercation they had. In that case, the investigation showed the employees had been fighting and both initially were fired. However, the union filed a grievance. A hearing was held and the decision to terminate was upheld. Thereupon, the union indicated its intent to take the matter to arbitration, and as a result of a meeting held on that issue, it was determined that the incident was more horseplay than fighting and there was little likelihood the company could prevail at arbitration. That conclusion was based on the fact there were no blows struck, there was no injury, and the incident stopped immediately upon the arrival of the supervisor. The employees thereafter were disciplined and reinstated. Mr. Washington also filed a grievance regarding his case. A hearing was held persuant to the union contract. Based on the information presented at the hearing, the grievance committee, made up of two African-American employees and one white employee, concluded there was insufficient evidence to take the issue to arbitration. This committee included the same individuals who heard the previously noted grievance, regarding the white employees. Mr. Washington asserts that because he had been assigned to a position previously held by Mr. Romero, who, he claimed, was demoted from utility to sanitation, Mr. Romero was angry with him and was looking for trouble. The evidence of record indicates that in March, 1993, Mr. Romero was transferred to another position on a different shift from that he was then occupying. The evidence also indicates the position to which Mr. Washington was assigned cannot be considered to be Mr. Romero's old position. Utility and sanitation jobs are, purportedly, on a par. Mr. Washington was assigned to a job identical to that which Mr. Romero had vacated, but on a different shift. Mr. Romero would have had no reason to think Mr. Washington took his job any more than any other utility employee. Further, there is no evidence, save the claim by Mr. Washington, that Mr. Romero acted in a threatening manner. Mr. Glisson, a witness to the incident, indicated the two "tangled". but there was no indication of aggressiveness by Mr. Romero. Taken together, while Washington may have believed Mr. Romero was threatening him, there was insufficient provocation for him to react in the way he did. Under the terms of the Employee Handbook, he should have retreated, and his actions constituted fighting which is grounds for discipline. It is impossible to conclude, from the evidence of record, that the termination of Mr. Washington resulted from anything other than a reaction to his demonstrated misconduct. Only one question remains unanswered. On June 1, 1993, an Employee Action Request was prepared, purporting to administratively terminate Mr. Washington because of fighting on the job and threats of violence. Counsel for the County claims this is an alteration of that action form prepared on May 24, 1993. Both exhibits were photo copies and it is impossible to tell, with certainty, that an alteration occurred. However, a close comparison of the copies leads to the conclusion that the latter dated form is, in reality, an alteration of the former with the dates changed, and an addition of fighting and threats with a direction to remove Mr. Washington from the payroll. No evidence was presented regarding a reason for the alteration, and nothing improper can be legitimately inferred therefrom. Counsel representing Mr. Washington makes reference to the opinion of an Appeals Referee of the Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security, dated July 30, 1993, which, in reversing the determination of the claims examiner in Mr. Washington's unemployment compensation claim, determines that he was not the aggressor in the incident that led to his discharge, and that his involvment was merely for self-protection. The Referee also finds that Mr. Washington's actions could not be viewed as misconduct connected with his work, and he is, therefore, not disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits. The Referee concludes, as a matter of law, that inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, and/or good faith errors in judgement or discretion are not to be deemed "misconduct" "within the meaning of the statute, (Chapter 443, Florida Statutes). The finding of the Appeals Referee is not binding on the undersigned in this action. Mr. Washington was deemed by his employers to have, by fighting, overreacted in the confrontation with Mr. Romero. Overreaction can be equated with poor judgement which, in an industry as hazardous as is meat packing, may well serve as appropriate grounds for discharge even if not classified as misconduct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Determination of No Cause be entered by the Hillsborough Human Relations Board concerning the termination from employment of Hennis Washington, III by the Respondent, Lykes Brothers, Inc. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of March, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: Accepted and incorporated herein. - 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 7. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. First sentence accepted and incorported herein. Second sentence rejected as a being more a Conclusion of Law than a Finding of Fact. - 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. Irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. - 17. Accepted. 18. Accepted. FOR THE RESPONDENT: 1. 2. & 3. 4. 5. & 6. Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted and and and and incorporated incorporated incorporated incorporated herein. herein. herein. herein. 7. - 9. Accepted. 10. & 11. Accepted and incorporated herein. 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. 13. & 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. 15. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Catherine P. Teti, Esquire Office of the County Attorney Hillsborough County P.O. Box 1110 Tampa, Florida 33601 Michael D. Malfitano, Esquire Malfitano & Campbell, P.A. 101 E. Kennedy Boulevard Suite 1080 P.O. Box 1840 Tampa, Florida 33601-1840 Daniel A. Kleman County Administrator Post Office Box 1110 Tampa, Florida 33601
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 The issue in this case is whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaint, are correct and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this case, Cameron D. Smith (hereafter "Respondent") was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (hereafter "Petitioner") and was issued certificate numbers 04-86- 222-04 and 14-84-502-02. During the months of August and September, 1987, the Respondent was employed as a correctional officer at the Gainesville Road Prison (now Gainesville Work Camp), a unit of the Department of Corrections (hereafter "DOC"). Each week, the Respondent worked from midnight to 8:00 a.m. Friday through Tuesday, and was off on Wednesday and Thursday. On occasion, the Respondent has suffered recurring pain and incapacity related to a foot injury which occurred in June, 1986. At one time, surgery to correct misalignment of a bone in his foot was scheduled, but was cancelled when the condition improved. The Respondent has obtained medical treatment when such was warranted. The DOC time sheets used by employees to record time worked include a code which identifies one option for leave time as "worker's comp" time. (The evidence does not establish any relationship between the DOC's "worker's comp" time and Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, setting forth the state's worker's compensation system. Therefore, the referenced statute has been disregarded in preparation of this Recommended Order.) The Department of Corrections pay period is a biweekly period ending on the day that time sheets are due. The relevant pay periods are from August 7 to August 20, 1987, and from August 21 to September 3, 1987. Records which specifically identify the days worked by the Respondent at the Road Prison are in evidence. During the period from August 7 through September 1, 1987, the Respondent claimed several days of leave time due to his continuing foot ailment, and marked "worker's comp" leave time on his DOC payroll time sheets. On August 13, 1987, the Respondent became employed as a part-time stock clerk at a newly-opened Walmart store on Archer Road in Gainesville. The Petitioner introduced evidence indicating that the Respondent worked at Walmart on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays from 5:00 p.m. to about 10:00 p.m. The Respondent asserted that worked on other days or at other times as his services were required. The greater weight of evidence, including Walmart payroll records, supports the Respondent. Walmart's payroll records demonstrate that, during some weekly periods, the Respondent worked total hours in excess of the approximate fifteen which would result were the Petitioner's evidence correct. Walmart pays employees on the day following close of the weekly pay period. Pay is computed from employee time cards which are punched by a time clock at the start and finish of each employee's shift. The relevant pay periods are from the Respondent's employment on August 13 to August 14, 1987, from August 15 to August 21, 1987, from August 22 to August 28, 1987 and from August 29 to September 4, 1987. Records which would specifically identify which days the Respondent worked at Walmart are not in evidence. The evidence identifies the number of hours worked during each pay period. On August 17-18, 21-25, and 28-31, 1987, the Respondent claimed worker's compensation leave time from his DOC employment. The Respondent's supervisor refused to approve the time sheets which included the worker's compensation leave time. The supervisor believed that the Respondent was working at Walmart during the periods of time for which worker's compensation leave had been requested. Such claims are approved only when the employee is incapable of working. The Administrative Complaint alleges that the Respondent falsified official records of the Department of Corrections. The apparent falsification of official records relates to the claim of "worker's comp" time on DOC time sheets during periods when the Respondent allegedly worked at his Walmart job. Upon reconciliation and review of payroll records from both employers, the evidence fails to establish that the Respondent worked at Walmart on dates when he was unable to work at the Road Prison. From August 7 through August 14, 1987, the Respondent worked his full DOC shifts. He became employed by Walmart on August 13. For the period ending August 14, 1987, he worked 11.76 hours at Walmart. From August 15 through August 21, 1987, the Respondent worked Saturday and Sunday at the Road Prison, claimed worker's compensation leave on Monday, Tuesday and Friday, and had Wednesday and Thursday off. For the period ending August 21, 1987, he worked 14.76 hours at Walmart. There is no evidence that the Walmart hours were worked on either Monday, Tuesday or Friday. From August 22 through August 28, 1987 the Respondent did not work at the Road Prison, claiming five days worker's compensation leave, with the usual Wednesday and Thursday off. He worked no hours at Walmart during this pay period. From August 29 through September 1, 1987, the Respondent claimed worker's compensation Saturday through Monday and worked his usual shift beginning on Tuesday. There is no evidence that the Respondent worked at Walmart during this period. One witness testified to having seen the Respondent working on a ladder in a "Newberry Road" Walmart while claiming worker's compensation time, the implication being that, were the Respondent suffering a foot ailment, he would not be on a ladder working at Walmart. The witness was unable to identify the date upon which he saw the Respondent working at Walmart and did not document the information, but reported it to his supervisor. The supervisor was likewise unable to identify the date of the incident. There is no evidence that the Respondent was ever employed in a "Newberry Road" Walmart store, if one exists. The Respondent denied having climbed a ladder during his employment with Walmart. The Respondent's testimony related to his employment at Walmart is accepted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECCOMMENDED that the Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Cameron D. Smith. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 10th day of April, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of April, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White Assistant General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Cameron D. Smith 1138 Northeast Second Avenue Williston, Florida 32696 James T. Moore Commissioner Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jeffery Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issue is whether The Department of Financial Services properly imposed a Stop Work Order and Amended Order of Penalty Assessment pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Division is charged with the regulation of workers' compensation insurance in the State of Florida. Respondent AFS, LLC. (AFS), is a corporation located in Jacksonville, Florida, and is involved in the construction industry, primarily framing houses. Braman Avery is the owner and manager of AFS. Lee Arsenault is a general contractor whose business is located in Jacksonville, Florida. Mr. Arsenault contracted with AFS to perform framing services at a construction site located at 1944 Copperstone Drive in Orange Park, Florida. At all times material to this proceeding, AFS maintained workers' compensation coverage for its employees through a licensed employee leasing company. AFS contracted with Greenleads Carpentry, Inc. (Greenleads) to perform work at the job site in question. Prior to subcontracting with Greenleads, Mr. Avery requested from Greenleads, among other things, a certificate of insurance showing that Greenleads had general liability coverage and workers' compensation insurance. Greenleads provided a certificate of insurance to Mr. Avery showing that Greenleads had workers' compensation coverage. The certificate of insurance contains a policy number, dollar limits, and effective and expiration dates of June 1, 2004 through June 1, 2005. Debra Cochran is office manager of Labor Finders, an employee leasing company. According to Ms. Cochran, Labor Finders' corporate office issued the certificate of insurance to Greenleads. At the time of issuance, the certificate of insurance was valid. Greenleads did not follow through on its obligations to Labor Finders in that Green Leads did not "run its workers through" Labor Finders. Consequently, Greenleads' workers were not covered by workers' compensation as indicated on the certificate of insurance. Labor Finders did not issue any document showing cancellation or voiding of the certificate of insurance previously issued. Mr. Avery relied upon the face of the certificate of insurance believing AFS to be in total compliance with statutory requirements regarding workers' compensation for subcontractors. That is, he believed that the Greenleads' workers were covered for workers' compensation as indicated on the face of the certificate of insurance. Mr. Avery was not informed by Labor Finders or Greenleads that Greenleads did not, after all, have workers' compensation coverage in place on the workers performing work under the contract between AFS and Greenleads on the worksite in question. Bobby Walton is president of Insure America and has been in the insurance business for 35 years. His company provides general liability insurance to AFS. According to Mr. Walton, Mr. Avery's reliance on Greenleads' presentation to him of a purportedly valid certificate of insurance is the industry standard. Further, Mr. Walton is of the opinion that there was no obligation on behalf of Mr. Avery to confirm coverage beyond receipt of the certificate of insurance provided by the subcontractor. That is, there is no duty on behalf of the contractor to confirm coverage beyond receipt of the certificate of insurance. Allen DiMaria is an investigator employed by the Division. His duties include investigating businesses to ensure that the employers in the state are in compliance with the requirements of the workers' compensation law and related rules. On January 5, 2005, Mr. DiMaria visited the job site in question and observed 13 workers engaged in construction activities. This visit was a random site check. Mr. DiMaria interviewed the owner of Greenleads and checked the Division's database. Mr. DiMaria determined that Greenleads did not have workers' compensation coverage. After conferring with his supervisor, Mr. DiMaria issued a stop-work order to Greenleads, along with a request for business records for the purpose of calculating a penalty for Greenleads. In response to the business records request, Greenleads submitted its check ledger along with an employee cash payment ledger, both of which were utilized in calculating a penalty for Greenleads. On January 11, 2005, Mr. DiMaria issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to Greenleads for $45,623.34. Attached to the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued to Greenleads is a penalty worksheet with a list of names under the heading, "Employee Name", listing the names of the employees and amounts paid to each employee. During the investigation of Greenleads, Mr. DiMaria determined that Greenleads was performing subcontracting work for Respondent. This led to the Division's investigation of AFS. Mr. DiMaria spoke to Mr. Avery and determined that AFS paid remuneration to Greenleads for work performed at the worksite. He checked the Division's data base system and found no workers' compensation coverage for AFS. He determined that AFS had secured workers' compensation coverage through Southeast Personnel Services, Inc. (SPLI), also a licensed employee leasing company. However, the policy with SPLI did not cover the employees of Greenleads performing work at the job site. Mr. DiMaria requested business records from Mr. Avery. Mr. Avery fully complied with this request. He examined AFS' check registry and certificates of insurance from AFS. Other than the situation involving Greenleads on this worksite, Mr. DiMaria found AFS to be in complete compliance. On January 10, 2005, after consulting with his supervisor, Robert Lambert, Mr. DiMaria issued a Stop Work Order to AFS. A Stop Work Order issued by the Division requires the recipient to cease operations on a job site because the recipient is believed to be not in compliance with the workers' compensation law. The Stop Work Order issued by Mr. DiMaria was site specific to the work site in question. Based upon the records provided by Mr. Avery, Mr. DiMaria calculated a fine. Penalties are calculated by determining the premium amount the employer would have paid based on his or her Florida payroll and multiplying by a factor of 1.5. Mr. DiMaria's calculation of the fine imposed on AFS was based solely on the Greenleads' employees not having workers' compensation coverage. On February 16, 2005, Mr. DiMaria issued an Amended Order of Penalty in the amount of $45,643.87, the identical amount imposed upon Greenleads. A penalty worksheet was attached to the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. The penalty worksheet is identical to the penalty worksheet attached to Greenleads' penalty assessment, with the exception of the business name at the top of the worksheet and the Division's case number. Greenleads partially paid the penalty by entering into a penalty payment agreement with the Division. Greenleads then received an Order of Conditional Release. Similarly, AFS entered into a penalty payment agreement with the Division and received an Order of Conditional Release on February 16, 2005. Moreover, AFS terminated its contract with Greenleads. Lee Arsenault is the general contractor involved in the work site in question. AFS was the sole framing contractor on this project, which Mr. Arsenault described as a "pretty significant project." He has hired AFS to perform framing services over the years. However, because the Stop Work Order was issued to AFS, Mr. Arsenault had to hire another company to complete the framing work on the project. Mr. Avery estimates economic losses to AFS as a result of losing this job to be approximately $150,000, in addition to the fine. Mr. Arsenault, Ms. Cochran, as well as the Division's investigator, Mr. DiMaria, all agree with Mr. Walton's opinion, that it is customary practice in the construction industry for a contractor who is subcontracting work to rely on the face of an insurance certificate provided by a subcontractor. Robert Lambert is a workers' compensation district supervisor for the Division. When asked under what authority the Division may impose a penalty on both Greenleads and AFS for the same infraction, he replied that it was based on the Division's policy and its interpretation of Sections 440.02, 440.10, and 440.107, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Division of Workers' Compensation rescind the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued February 16, 2005, and the Stop Work Order issued to Petitioner on January 10, 2005. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS 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 26th day of August, 2005. Endnote 1/ While this Recommended Order does not rely upon the case cited by Respondent in its Notice of Supplemental Authority, Respondent was entitled to file it. COPIES FURNISHED: Colin M. Roopnarine, Esquire Douglas D. Dolin, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Workers' Compensation East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Mark K. Eckels, ESquire Boyd & Jenerette, P.A. North Hogan Street, Suite 400 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Carlos G. Muniz, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issues in this enforcement proceeding are whether Respondent failed to comply with Sections 440.10, 440.05, and , Florida Statutes (2003),1 and, if so, whether Petitioner correctly assessed the penalty for said failure.
Findings Of Fact Based upon observation of the demeanor and candor of each witness while testifying; documentary materials received in evidence; evidentiary rulings made pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes (2004); and stipulations of the parties, the following relevant and material facts, arrived at impartially based solely upon testimony and information presented at the final hearing, are objectively determined: At all times material, Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation (Department), is the state agency responsible for enforcement of the statutory requirements that employers secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage requirements for the benefit of their employees in compliance with the dictates of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. Employers who failed to comply with Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, are subject to enforcement provisions, including penalty assessment, of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. At all times material, Respondent, St. James Automotive, Inc. (St. James), is a corporation domiciled in the State of Florida and engaged in automobile repair, with known business locations in Pine Island and St. James City, Florida. Both locations are owned by Richard Conrad (Mr. Conrad). On or about August 5, 2004, a Department investigator conducted an "on-site visit" at the St. James location on Pine Island Road, Pine Island, Florida. The purpose of the on-site visit was to determine whether or not St. James was in compliance with Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, regarding workers' compensation coverage for the workers found on-site. The investigator observed four individuals working on-site in automotive repair functions. One employee, when asked whether "the workers had workers' compensation coverage in place," referred the investigator to the "owner," who, at that time, was at the second business location at 2867 Oleander Street, St. James City, Florida. The investigator verified the owner's presence at the St. James City location by telephone and met him there. Upon his arrival at the St. James City location, the investigator initiated a workers' compensation coverage check on two databases. He first checked the Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) to ascertain whether St. James had in place workers' compensation coverage. The CCAS system contained current status and proof of workers' compensation coverage, if any, and record of any exemptions from workers' compensation coverage requirements filed by St. James' corporate officers. The CCAS check revealed no workers' compensation coverage filed by any corporate officers of St. James. The second system, the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI), contained data on workers' compensation coverage in effect for workers (employees) in the State of Florida. NCCI similarly revealed no workers' compensation coverage in effect for St. James' Florida employees. The investigator discussed the situation and findings from both the CCAS and NCCI with Mr. Conrad who acknowledged and admitted: (1) St. James had no workers' compensation coverage in place; (2) St. James had made inquiry and arranged for an unnamed attorney to file exemptions from workers' compensation coverage on behalf of several St. James employees, but the attorney never filed exemptions; and (3) Mr. Conrad subsequently attempted to file the exemptions himself but was unsuccessful-- "because names of exemption applicants [employees] did not match the corporate information on file for St. James, Inc., at the Division of Corporations." When offered the opportunity by the Department's investigator to produce any proof of workers' compensation coverage or exemption from coverage, Mr. Conrad was unable to do so. At the conclusion of the August 5, 2004, on-site visit, and based upon a review of the CCAS and NCCI status reports and Mr. Conrad's inability to produce proof of workers' compensation coverage or exemptions, the investigator determined that St. James was not in compliance with requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. The investigator then issued a Stop Work Order on St. James' two business locations. The Stop Work Order contained an initial assessed penalty of $1,000, subject to increase to an amount equal to 1.5 times the amount of the premium the employer would have paid during the period for which coverage was not secured or whichever is greater. Mr. Conrad acknowledged his failure to conform to the requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, stating5: I guess you could say--I first of all, I am guilty, plain and simple. In other words, I did not conform. Subsequent to issuing the August 5, 2004, Stop Work Order, the Department made a written records' request to Mr. Conrad that he should provide payroll records listing all employees by name, social security number, and gross wages paid to each listed employee.6 Mr. Conrad provided the requested employee payroll records, listing himself and his wife, Cheryl L. Conrad, not as owners, stockholders or managers, but as employees. Pursuant to Section 440.107, Florida Statutes, the Department is required to link the amount of its enforcement penalty to the amount of payroll (total) paid to each employee. The persons listed on St. James' payroll records received remuneration for the performance of their work on behalf of St. James and are "employees" as defined in Subsection 440.02(15), Florida Statutes. Review of the payroll records by the Department's investigator revealed the listed employees for services performed on its behalf. The employee payroll records provided by St. James were used by the Department's investigator to reassess applicable penalty and subsequent issuance of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in the amount of $97,260.75.7 St. James' payroll records did not list the type of work (class code or type) each employee performed during the period in question. Accordingly, the Department's investigator properly based the penalty assessment on the highest-rated class code or type of work in which St. James was engaged, automotive repair. The highest-rated class code has the most expensive insurance premium rate associated with it, indicating the most complex activity or type of work associated with St. James' business of automotive repair. The Department's methodology and reliance on the NCCI Basic Manual for purpose of penalty calculation is standardized and customarily applied in circumstances and situations as presented herein.8 Mr. Conrad, in his petition for a Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, hearing alleged the 8380 (highest premium rate) class code applied to only three of his employees: himself, Brain Green, and William Yagmin. On the basis of this alleged penalty assessment error by the Department, Mr. Conrad seeks a reduction of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment amount of $97,260.75. Mr. Conrad presented no evidence to substantiate his allegation that the Department's investigator assigned incorrect class codes to employees based upon the employee information Mr. Conrad provided in response to the Department's record request. To the contrary, had he enrolled in workers' compensation coverage or had he applied for exemption from coverage, Mr. Conrad would have known that his premium payment rates for coverage would have been based upon the employees' class codes he would have assigned each employee in his workers' compensation coverage application. In an attempt to defend his failure to comply with the workers' compensation coverage requirement of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, Mr. Conrad asserted that the Department's investigator took his verbal verification that certain employees were clerical, but neglected to recognize his statement that he was also clerical, having been absent from the job-site for over three years. Mr. Conrad's excuses and avoidance testimony was not internally consistent with his earlier stated position of not conforming to the statutory requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. The above testimony was not supported by other credible evidence of record. This is critical to the credibility determination since Mr. Conrad seeks to avoid paying a significant penalty. For those reasons, his testimony lacks credibility. Mr. Conrad also attempted to shift blame testifying that--"My attorney did not file exemption forms with the Department," and my "personal attempts to file St. James' exemption form failed--[B]ecause the mailing instructions contained in the Department's form were not clear." In his final defensive effort of avoidance, Mr. Conrad testified that he offered to his employees, and they agreed to accept, unspecified "increases" in their respective salaries in lieu of St. James' providing workers' compensation coverage for them. This defense suffered from a lack of corroboration from those employees who allegedly agreed (and those who did not agree) and lack of documented evidence of such agreement. The intended inference that all his employees' reported salaries included some unspecified "salary increase" is not supported by employee identification or salary specificity and is thus unacceptable to support a finding of fact. St. James failed to produce credible evidence that the Department's Stop Work Order, the Penalty Assessment, and/or the Amended Penalty Assessment were improper. St. James failed to produce any credible evidence that the Department's use of the NCCI Basic Manual, as the basis for penalty assessment calculation based upon employee information provided by St. James, was improper and/or not based upon actual employee salary information provided by St. James. Prior to this proceeding, the Department and Mr. Conrad entered into a penalty payment agreement as authorized by Subsection 440.107(7)(a), Florida Statutes.9 The penalty payment agreement required fixed monthly payments be made by Mr. Conrad and afforded Mr. Conrad the ability to continue operation of his automotive repair business that was, by order, stopped on August 5, 2004.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, enter a final order that affirms the Stop Work Order and the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in the amount of $97,260.75, minus any and all periodic payments of the penalty remitted by St. James, pursuant to agreed upon conditional release from the Stop Work Order dated August 5, 2004. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of March, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRED L. BUCKINE 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 4th day of March, 2005.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the stipulations of fact, the deposition of Luis Martinez, a senior appeals referee, taken on May 18, 1979, with exhibits and the stipulated documentary evidence adduced in this proceeding, the following relevant facts are found: At the time of the filing of the instant petition challenging Rule 8B- 5.13(1), both petitioner Cotilla and petitioner Prieto were parties in proceedings before the respondent to obtain unemployment compensation benefits. Their applications for benefits had originally been denied for lack of sufficient wage credits. Both petitioners had been continuously employed by Florida East Coast Deliveries, Inc. from 1974 through December of 1978. The finding of lack of credits was based on the employer's switch from the Florida Unemployment Compensation System to coverage under the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act. By letters dated March 29, 1979, the attorney for the petitioners made a request to Manuel M. Garcia, the appeals referee, for subpoenas to produce certain documents and a witness at the hearing scheduled for April 12, 1979. The letter requesting subpoenas stated that the records and witnesses are expected to provide evidence to show that the claimants had in fact been paid sufficient wages for insured work under Fla. Stat. 443.05(1)(e), during their base periods to qualify for Florida Unemployment Compensation benefits, which they have earned." By letter dated March 30, 1979, Appeals Referee Garcia denied the request for subpoenas "at this point in time," stating that "I will take into consideration your request, and if necessary, subpoenas will be issued later. However, sufficient cause has not been shown at this point to warrant subpoenas. There is no indication in your letter that the employer has refused to comply with any request for documents and/or witnesses. In addition, is questionable whether subpoenas can be issued and served prior to the April 12, hearing. Finally, the documents and information you are requesting are so general in nature, and its relevancy is at best questionable." Petitioners' attorney requested a reconsideration of her subpoena request by letter dated April 2, 1979. This letter stated in great detail why the attorney for the claimants (petitioners herein) felt that the information and documents requested were relevant to the issue in dispute. On April 9, 1979, Referee Garcia again denied the request for subpoenas by a letter stating: Most of the information that you provided as to why these documents should be subpoenaed refer to the instant employer's liability under the Florida Unemployment Compensation Law. In addition, your clients' position, earnings, and weeks of employment with the instant employer are not being disputed, as far as I can tell. My previous denial of your request for subpoenas at this point in time still stands. I will consider a second Hearing near the employer's vicinity, subpoena or a field investigation after the hearing, if such are necessary to comply, with due process. To clarify one point the subpoenas you are requesting are not being denied because of the time involved in issuing and serving subpoenas. The matter was mentioned because it is impractical to request documents of unproven relevancy, which in all probability will not be available for the April 12, 1979, Hearing, even if the subpoenas are issued." A hearing was held in petitioner Cotilla's appeal on April 12, 1979. The employer, Florida East Coast Deliveries, Inc., refused to voluntarily supply the requested information. The petitioners did not have knowledge of or access to the requested information except by the subpoenas which were refused. Thomas J. Edwards appeared at the April 12th hearing as agent of the employer, but he did not have the information requested in the subpoena request. Other agents of the employer did have the requested information. Petitioner Prieto's hearing was postponed until May 7, 1979. By letter dated April 23rd, his attorney renewed her requests for subpoenas and the request was again denied. Since the basis for the denial of petitioners' unemployment benefits was the question of the employer's liability under the Florida Unemployment Compensation Act, the information requested was relevant to the proof of their case. In addition, in petitioner Prieto's case, it was relevant to the issue concerning the timeliness of his appeal, in that the testimony and evidence sought were relevant to the wrongfulness of the respondent's actions in denying him benefits which petitioner Prieto contends was a cause of his failure to file his appeal within ten (10) days. At their unemployment hearing, the petitioners were unable to prove the circumstances under which their former employer switched coverage from the Florida Unemployment Compensation Act to the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act. Petitioner Cotilla has not received any unemployment compensation benefits, and no decision has been rendered in the case of petitioner Prieto. The basis for all of the denials of the subpoena requests which have occurred in the unemployment compensation proceedings of the petitioners is the challenged Rule 8B-5.13(1). This Rule, which is set forth in full below, provides in pertinent part that subpoenas "may" be issued by the appeals referee upon timely written application and that the application must state the "reason for appearance to include what testimony or evidence the witness is expected to provide." Pursuant to Rule 8B-5.13(1), it is the current practice of respondent's appeals referees to deny requests for subpoenas which do not contain a written explanation of the reason the subpoena is needed prior to the hearing. The explanation must state, to the satisfaction of the appeals referee, the materiality, relevance and competence of the testimony or evidence sought. Absent such a showing which is deemed satisfactory by the referee, the request for subpoenas will be denied. Even when the request provides an explanation which illustrates that the evidence or testimony sought is material, relevant and competent, it is typical practice for the appeals referee to attempt to use other means of obtaining the facts sought. For example, someone from the referee's office will telephone the person to whom the subpoena request is directed and ask them to voluntarily appear at the hearing. Also, the referees may request a field auditor or field examiner to examine employer records and file a report at the hearing. If it becomes apparent to the referee at the hearing that a witness or document is needed, the hearing will be continued and a subpoena will be issued.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent complied with coverage requirements of the workers' compensation law, Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. A determination of whether Respondent functioned as an employer is a preliminary issue to be resolved.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency of state government currently responsible for enforcing the requirement of Section 440.107, Florida Statutes, that employers secure the payment of compensation for their employees. Respondent works in the fence construction industry and employs four people. Petitioner's investigator identified three people preparing a worksite for the erection of a privacy fence at 3000 Majestic Oaks Lane South in Jacksonville, Florida. The investigator then contacted Respondent and confirmed that the three identified individuals in addition to Respondent, were employed by Respondent for a total of four employees. The investigator determined none of the employees had workers’ compensation exemptions nor had Respondent secured the payment of workers’ compensation to his employees. On April 27, 2005, the investigator served a SWO on Respondent. The SWO required Respondent to cease all business operations in Florida. At the same time, the investigator served a Request for Business Records for Penalty Calculation on Respondent, requesting payroll records from Respondent for the period April 27, 2002, through April 27, 2005 (the audit period for penalty calculation). Respondent provided no records to the investigator. On May 23, 2005, the investigator determined 520 days had passed between the beginning of the audit period and September 30, 2003, and the penalty for noncompliance during this period was $52,000.00. The investigator also determined that during the period October 1, 2003, through the end of the audit period, the statewide average weekly wage paid by employers was $651.38; Respondent had four (4) employees; the imputed weekly payroll for Respondent’s employees was $320,848.00; using approved manual rates Respondent should have paid $97,969.40 in workers’ compensation premium; and the penalty for noncompliance during this period was calculated to be $146,954.12. On May 26, 2005, Investigator Bowman served the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on Respondent. The Amended Order assessed Respondent with a penalty for the entire audit period in the amount of $198,954.12. The investigator obtained records created by Respondent demonstrating Respondent placed a bid on a job on June 1, 2005, and Respondent completed the job on July 1, 2005. On July 19, 2005, the investigator served a Corrected Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on Respondent, which assessed a penalty in the amount of $3,000.00 for violating the terms of the SWO. Respondent violated the SWO on two separate days, the day of the bid and the day the work was completed. No competent substantial evidence was presented regarding intervening business operations.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order affirming the Stop Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment, Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and Corrected Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, requiring Respondent to pay a penalty in the amount of $200,594.12 to Petitioner, and requiring Respondent to cease all business operations in Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of September, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of September, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: John M. Iriye, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Workers Compensation 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-422 Martin D. Snyder 10367 Allene Road Jacksonville, Florida 32219 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Carols G. Muniz, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether Respondents violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by failing to secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage, as alleged in the Stop-Work Orders, and, if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with enforcing the requirement of chapter 440, Florida Statutes, that employers in Florida secure workers' compensation coverage for their employees. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Respondents are gas station/convenience stores located in South Florida. Northlake was created by Nazma Akter on May 6, 2014. MB was created by Ms. Akter on March 23, 2010. Congress Valero was created by Muhammad Saadat on July 21, 2011. Hena was created by Ms. Akter and Abu Ahsan on December 14, 2011. Hayma was created by Ms. Akter on December 14, 2011. Blue Heron was created by Ms. Akter on August 4, 2009. At all times relevant hereto, Respondents were duly-licensed to conduct business in the state of Florida. On February 2, 2015, the Department's Compliance Investigator Robert Feehrer, began a workers' compensation compliance investigation of Gardenia, LLC. Investigator Feehrer called the number listed for Gardenia, LLC, and was provided with a corporate office address. On February 10, 2015, upon arrival at Gardenia, LLC's, corporate office located at 165 US Highway 1, North Palm Beach, Florida, 33408, Investigator Feehrer spoke with Operations Manager Mohammad Hossain. Mr. Hossain stated that Gardenia, LLC, was a paper corporation and existed only for the purpose of paying unemployment taxes on the "six stores." Mr. Hossain went on to provide Investigator Feehrer with a list of Respondents and names of the employees that worked at each store. As an employee of Gardenia, LLC, and Respondents, Mr. Hossain's statements are party opponent admissions and bind Respondents. Lee v. Dep't of Health & Rehab. Servs., 698 So. 2d 1194, 1200 (Fla. 1997). With Mr. Hossain's statements and the list of Respondents' employees, Investigator Feehrer then consulted the Division of Corporations website, www.sunbiz.org, and confirmed that Respondents were current, active Florida companies. Investigator Feehrer then consulted the Department's Coverage and Compliance Automated System ("CCAS") for proof of workers' compensation coverage and exemptions associated with Respondents. Investigator Feehrer's CCAS search revealed that Respondents had no workers' compensation policies and no exemptions. On February 24, 2015, Investigator Feehrer conducted site visits at each of the six stores. Ms. Akter and Mr. Hossain accompanied Investigator Feehrer during these site visits. At all times material hereto, Ms. Akter was a corporate officer or managing member of each of the six Respondents. Muhammed Saadat and Abu Ahsan were corporate officers or managing members of Congress Valero, Hena, and Blue Heron. Kazi Ahamed was a corporate officer or managing member of Congress Valero and Hayma. Kazi Haider and Mohammed Haque were managing members of Hayma. All received compensation from the companies with which they were involved. Although Investigator Feehrer only personally observed one employee working at each location during his site visits, the payroll records revealed that at least four employees (including corporate officers or managing members without exemptions) received compensation for work at each location during the relevant period. Investigator Feehrer required additional information to determine compliance, and with Respondents' permission, contacted Respondents' accountant. Investigator Feehrer met with the accountant at least two times to obtain relevant information prior to March 30, 2015. Upon Ms. Akter's authorization, the accountant provided tax returns and payroll information for Respondents' employees. Information from Ms. Akter and Mr. Hossain also confirmed the specific employees at each of the six stores during the period of March 30, 2013, through March 30, 2015. On March 30, 2015, based on his findings, Investigator Feehrer served six Stop-Work Orders and Orders of Penalty Assessment. The Stop-Work Orders were personally served on Ms. Akter. Mr. Hossain was present as well and confirmed the lists of employees for each of the six stores were accurate. In April 2015, the Department assigned Penalty Auditor Christopher Richardson to calculate the six penalties assessed against Respondents. Respondent provided tax returns for the audit period and payroll transaction details were provided, as well as general ledgers/breakdowns, noting the employees for each Respondent company. Based on Investigator Feehrer's observations of the six stores on February 24, 2015, Auditor Richardson used the classification code 8061 listed in the Scopes® Manual, which has been adopted by the Department through Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.021(1). Classification code 8061 applies to employees of gasoline stations with convenience stores. Classification codes are four-digit codes assigned to various occupations by the National Council on Compensation Insurance to assist in the calculation of workers' compensation insurance premiums. In the penalty assessment, Auditor Richardson applied the corresponding approved manual rate for classification code 8061 for the related periods of non-compliance. The corresponding approved manual rate was correctly utilized using the methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)1. and rule 69L-6.027 to determine the final penalties. The Department correctly determined Respondents' gross payroll pursuant to the procedures required by section 440.107(7)(d) and rule 69L-6.027. On January 14, 2016, the Department served the six Amended Orders of Penalty Assessment on Respondents, assessing penalties of $1,367.06 for Northlake, $9,687.00 for MB, $12,651.42 for Congress Valero, $18,508.88 for Hena, $7,257.48 for Hayma, and $4,031.60 for Blue Heron. The Department has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Respondents were engaged in the gasoline station, self-service/convenience store industry in Florida during the periods of noncompliance; that Respondents failed to secure the payment of workers' compensation for their employees, as required by Florida's Workers' Compensation Law; and that the Department correctly utilized the methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)1. to determine the appropriate penalties.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a consolidated final order upholding the Stop-Work Orders and the Amended Orders of Penalty Assessment in the amounts of $1,367.06 for Northlake Mobile Enterprises, Inc.; $9,687.00 for MB Food and Beverage, Inc.; $12,651.42 for Congress Valero, Inc.; $18,508.88 for Hena Enterprises, Inc.; $7,257.48 for Hayma Enterprises, Inc.; and $4,031.60 for Blue Heron BP, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of June, 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 16th day of June, 2016.
