Findings Of Fact 8. The factual allegations contained in the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment issued on February 16, 2010 and the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on May 6, 2010, which are attached as “Exhibit A” and “Exhibit B,” respectively, and fully incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted as the Department’s Findings of Fact in this case.
Conclusions THIS PROCEEDING came on for final agency action and Alex Sink, Chief Financial Officer of the State of Florida, or her designee, having considered the record in this case, including the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment and the Amended Order. of Penalty Assessment served’ in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 10-060-D3, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby finds that: 1. On February 16, 2010, the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (hereinafter “Department”) issued a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 10-060-D3 to INITECH RESTORATION, INC. The Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein INITECH RESTORATION, INC.. was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, and must conform to Rule 28-106.2015, Florida Administrative Code. 2. On March 29, 2010, the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment was served by certified mail on INITECH RESTORATION, INC. A copy of the Stop-Work Order . and Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit A” and incorporated herein by reference. 3. On April 2, 2010, INITECH RESTORATION, INC. filed a petition requesting an administrative hearing with the Department. The petition was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings on May 10, 2010, and the matter was assigned DOAH Case No. 10- 2484. 4. On May 6, 2010, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to INITECH RESTORATION, INC. in Case No. 10-060-D3. The Amended Order ‘of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $50,756.24 against INITECH RESTORATION, INC. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein INITECH RESTORATION, INC. was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, and must conform to Rule 28- 106.2015, Florida Administrative Code. 5. On May 10, 2010, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served through the Division of Administrative Hearings in Case No. 10-2484. A copy of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit B” and incorporated herein by reference. 6. On June 4, 2010, an Order Canceling Hearing and Placing Case in Abeyance was entered by the Administrative Law Judge, sua sponte. The Order directed the parties to advise of the status of the case by August 9, 2010. 7. On August 5, 2010, the Department filed its Response to the Order, however INITECH RESTORATION, INC. failed to comply with the Order. After receiving no response to the Order, the Administrative Law Judge entered an Order Closing File which relinquished jurisdiction of the matter to the Department for final disposition. A copy of the Order Closing File is attached hereto as “Exhibit C” and incorporated herein by reference.
Findings Of Fact 10. The factual allegations in the Stop- Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment issued on January 28, 2009, and the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on January 22, 2010, which are fully incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted as the Department’s Findings of Fact in this case.
Conclusions THIS PROCEEDING came on for final agency action and Alex Sink, Chief Financial Officer of the State of Florida, or her designee, having considered the record in this case, including the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment and the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment served in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 09-005- D5, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby finds that: 1. On January 28, 2009, the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (hereinafter “Department”) issued a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 09-005-D5 to LAZARO DELIVERY CORPORATION (LAZARO). The Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of rights wherein LAZARO was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. 2. On January 28, 2009, the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment was served via personal service on LAZARO. A copy of the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit A” and incorporated herein by reference. 3. On February 18, 2009, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to LAZARO in Case No. 09-005-D5. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $181,479.49 against LAZARO. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein LAZARO was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. 4. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served on LAZARO by personal service on February 18, 2009. A copy of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit B” and incorporated herein by reference. 5. On February 18, 2009, LAZARO entered into a Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty (Periodic Payment Agreement), pursuant to which the Department entered a Conditional Release of Stop-Work Order which would remain in effect for so long as LAZARO complied with the conditions of the Periodic Payment Agreement. 6. On March 11, 2009, LAZARO filed a timely Petition for a formal administrative hearing in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. The Petition was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned Case No. 09-1607. 7. On January 22, 2010, the Department issued a Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to LAZARO in Case No. 09-005-D5. The Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $7,184.55 against LAZARO. The Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served on LAZARO through the Division of Administrative Hearings. A copy of the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit C” and is incorporated herein by reference. 8. On February 12, 2010, LAZARO filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal in DOAH Case No. 09-1607. A copy of the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal filed by LAZARO is attached hereto as “Exhibit D.” 9. On February 12, 2010, Administrative Law Judge R. Bruce McKibben entered an Order Closing File, relinquishing jurisdiction to the Department. A copy of the February 12, 2010 Order Closing File is attached hereto as “Exhibit E.”
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent failed to provide workers' compensation coverage, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing section 440.107. That section mandates, in relevant part, that employers in Florida secure workers' compensation insurance coverage for their employees. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. At all times relevant, All Florida was a Florida corporation engaged in the business of well drilling for water, a construction business, with its principal office located at 2250 Havana Avenue, Fort Myers, Florida. On August 3, 2010, Amy Thielen (Ms. Thielen), a compliance investigator for the Department, conducted an on-site investigation at a work site located at 129 Montrose Street, Fort Myers, Florida. Ms. Thielen observed a parked truck with the All Florida logo on it at this work site and an individual working nearby. After identifying herself to the individual, the individual identified himself as Edward Perez (Mr. Perez), an employee of and working for All Florida at that time. Ms. Thielen then consulted the Department's Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) database to determine if All Florida had workers' compensation coverage. The insurance companies report any workers' compensation coverage to the Department through this CCAS database, which is kept current. The CCAS showed that All Florida had two periods in which its workers' compensation coverage lapsed: March 3, 2009, through October 24, 2009, and a second period when the workers' compensation policy was cancelled from January 9, 2010, to August 3, 2010. Ms. Thielen contacted All Florida's last workers' compensation carrier and was informed that there was no workers' compensation policy in place. There was no workers' compensation coverage in effect on August 3, 2010, when Ms. Thielen confirmed that Mr. Perez was working for All Florida. Ms. Thielen testified that any construction company could obtain an exemption from having workers' compensation coverage through an application to the Department. All Florida did not have an exemption for any corporate officers.2/ Ms. Thielen checked the Department of State, Division of Corporations', records and learned that Robert Henshaw (Mr. Henshaw) was the president and only officer of All Florida. Based on her investigation, Ms. Thielen determined that All Florida did not have the requisite workers' compensation coverage at that time. After consulting with her supervisor, Ms. Thielen issued a Stop-Work Order to All Florida on August 11, 2010. A stop-work order is an enforcement action issued against employers that forces the employer to cease all business operations in Florida until they obtain the requisite workers' compensation coverage and return to full compliance. At the time Ms. Thielen served All Florida with the Stop-Work Order, she also served a request for production of business records for penalty assessment calculation to All Florida. This document requests certain business records from the employer for a three-year period in order for an audit to be performed to properly calculate the penalty assessment. All Florida produced the requested business records to the Department. Melissa Geissler (Ms. Geissler), a penalty calculator for the Department's Bureau of Compliance, calculated the penalty assessment based on All Florida's business records. Based on a review of the produced business records, the initial penalty assessment was $18,216.73. On September 8, 2010, Mr. Henshaw, acting on behalf of All Florida, executed a "payment agreement schedule for periodic payment of penalty" with the Department. Mr. Henshaw paid ten percent of the penalty assessment, put the remainder of the penalty assessment in a payment plan, and obtained the requisite worker's compensation coverage. The Department then issued an "Order of Conditional Release from Stop-Work Order," thus allowing All Florida to continue to operate while paying the remaining penalty assessment in specific increments. After the original penalty assessment order was issued, All Florida submitted additional business records, and the Department sought to and did revise the penalty assessment amount downward. As the case was already at the Division, the Department, with All Florida's consent, requested that a second amended order of penalty assessment be issued, reducing the penalty amount to $13,267.24. On October 20, 2010, the Division issued an Order allowing the second amended order of penalty assessment to be issued. In April 2011, after still more business records were delivered to the Department, the Department issued a third amended order of penalty assessment. This time the penalty assessment was reduced to $12,721.73. On August 24, 2011, the Department filed a motion to amend order of penalty assessment. There was insufficient time for All Florida to respond to the motion, and, at hearing, All Florida, through its president, Mr. Henshaw, voiced no objection to the reduction in the penalty assessment amount. Ms. Geissler's duties at the Department include reviewing financial documentation from employers, identifying payroll transactions, and verifying workers' compensation coverage. Ms. Geissler testified that she utilizes the CCAS database to confirm whether any employer has secured workers' compensation coverage. When she finds a payroll transaction that reflects such coverage, that transaction is not used in the penalty assessment calculation; otherwise, the transaction is used in calculating the coverage cost amount. Ms. Geissler also testified that she utilizes the penalty worksheet authorized in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.027 to aid in the penalty calculation process. Ms. Geissler conducted an audit of All Florida based on the business records it provided to the Department. Ms. Geissler determined the amount of workers' compensation premium that All Florida would have paid had it been in compliance with Florida law between August 12, 2007, and August 11, 2010 (excluding October 25, 2009, through January 8, 2010, when there was coverage). Ms. Geissler testified that, during this three-year period, All Florida was an active construction based employer. It was confirmed that there were four employees (including Mr. Henshaw) of All Florida. In order to calculate the appropriate penalty, Ms. Geissler took 1/100th of the gross payroll and multiplied that figure by the approved manual rate applicable to class code 6204 (the class code designated to specialist contractors engaged in drilling work as found in the approved Scopes Manual3/). The approved manual rates are determined by the National Council on Compensation Insurance, adopted by the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation, and represent the recent trends in workers' compensation loses associated with each individual class code. After reviewing all of the business records submitted by All Florida, and using the applicable formula, Ms. Geissler credibly testified that the final penalty assessment was $12,721.73. Ms. Geissler's calculations for the penalty assessment were performed in accordance with the requirements of section 440.107(7) and rule 69L-6.027. Mr. Henshaw did not provide any testimony during the proceeding, but rather made the statement that there was no point in fighting the allegation, "everything is correct."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that All Florida failed to secure workers' compensation coverage and assessing a penalty of $12,721.73 against All Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of October, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 5th day of October, 2011.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether XKLUCIV Investment Group, LLC, (Respondent) violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2014),1/ by failing to secure workers’ compensation coverage as alleged in the Stop-work Order issued against Respondent by the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (Petitioner) on August 28, 2014, and, if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (Petitioner) is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage for the benefit of their employees and corporate officers. Robert Feehrer has been a compliance investigator with Petitioner since April 2011. Mr. Feehrer has participated in over 1,000 site visit inspections during his tenure with Petitioner. The primary purpose of a site inspection is to ensure that employers have workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. On August 28, 2014, Mr. Feehrer conducted a site inspection at a residence located at 15772 85th Road, Loxahatchee, Florida. The residence was being remodeled (the subject job). For approximately ten minutes, Mr. Feehrer watched two men paint the exterior of the residence. When he approached the men, he learned that one was Anthony Lucombe and the other was a man named Wesley Roper. Mr. Lucombe, who appeared to be in charge of the project, told Mr. Feehrer that he was “running this job.” Mr. Feehrer was not able to ascertain any information from Wesley Roper because Mr. Roper did not want to get involved. Mr. Roper refused to provide any form of identification to Mr. Feehrer or to otherwise cooperate. Mr. Lucombe told Mr. Feehrer that he had been working on the subject job for two days, that he did not know how much he would be paid for the job, and that he had agreed to pay Mr. Roper $100.00 for one day’s work. Mr. Lucombe credibly testified that he had not worked with Mr. Roper before or after the subject job. Mr. Lucombe told Mr. Feehrer that he had been hired by a man with the last name of Diamond who did business as Diamond Painting.2/ After Mr. Lucombe had worked a day, Diamond Painting walked off the job without paying Mr. Lucombe. Mr. Lucombe told Mr. Feehrer that he had no company, and that he was hired by the general contractor to finish painting the house after Diamond Painting walked off the job. A Georgia entity named Master Craft was the general contractor for the remodeling project. After talking to Mr. Lucombe and after talking by telephone to Jay York, an employee of Master Craft, Mr. Feehrer asked Mr. Lucombe whether he had a company. In response to that question, Mr. Lucombe truthfully answered in the affirmative and gave Mr. Feehrer the name XKLUCIV Investment Group, LLC. Based on that information, Mr. Feehrer concluded that the corporate Respondent had subcontracted to paint the residence after Diamond Painting walked off the job. Mr. Lucombe never told Mr. Feehrer that he was working as an employee of his company. Respondent was organized as a limited liability company pursuant to the provisions of chapter 608, Florida Statutes (2012), for “any and all lawful business” effective July 22, 2012, by Mr. Lucombe, a cousin (Rosemond Lucombe), and his wife (Cryselda Lucombe). Mr. Lucombe was designated the manager of the company. Mr. Lucombe credibly testified that the corporation was formed for the purposes of making investments in real estate. Mr. Lucombe also credibly testified that due to the state of the economy, the company had lost its investments and that he worked odd jobs as a handyman. Mr. Lucombe posted his availability to work as a handyman on Craig’s List and worked various jobs, including house painting, for persons who responded to the posting. Petitioner failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the corporate Respondent acted as a painting subcontractor on August 28, 2014.3/ While at the job site, Mr. Feehrer determined that the corporate Respondent had no workers’ compensation coverage and that Mr. Roper and the three principals of the corporate Respondent had no exemption from the workers’ compensation coverage requirements. Mr. Feehrer, on Petitioner’s behalf, issued a Stop-work Order 14-325-D2 (Stop-work Order) to the corporate Respondent on August 28, 2014, pursuant to section 440.107, Florida Statutes, for its failure to comply with Florida’s Workers’ Compensation Law. The Stop-work Order contained an order of penalty assessment that described how the penalty assessment would be calculated without stating the amount of the penalty assessment.4/ While Mr. Feehrer was preparing the Stop-work Order, Mr. Lucombe and Mr. Roper packed up the painting equipment, loaded them in Mr. Lucombe’s truck, and left the worksite in Mr. Lucombe’s truck. Mr. Lucombe appeared to be in charge of the painting equipment. Mr. Feehrer thereafter posted the Stop-work Order at the jobsite. On September 12, 2014, Mr. Lucombe went to Petitioner’s district office where he was personally served with the Stop-work Order and with a request for production of business records for penalty assessment calculation (request to produce). Both the Stop-work Order and the request to produce were directed to Respondent. In response to the request to produce, Mr. Lucombe produced certain bank records pertaining to Respondent’s bank accounts. Eric Ruzzo, an experienced penalty calculator employed by Petitioner, reviewed the bank records produced by Mr. Lucombe. The bank records were insufficient to determine Respondent’s payroll for the applicable penalty period. The two-year penalty period for this matter started August 29, 2012, and ended August 28, 2014. Based on Mr. Ruzzo’s calculations, Petitioner issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment against the corporate Respondent on October 13, 2014. The amount of the assessment totaled $106,003.26. Mr. Ruzzo calculated this penalty by imputing Respondent’s payroll during the penalty period. The calculation assumed that Respondent’s three principals would have been paid as painters during the penalty period. On December 5, 2014, Petitioner entered its Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, which assessed a total penalty in the amount of $141,337.68. Mr. Ruzzo calculated this penalty by imputing Respondent’s payroll during the penalty period. The calculation assumed that Respondent’s three principals and Mr. Roper would have been paid as painters during the penalty period.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation rescind both the Stop-work Order issued August 28, 2014, and the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued December 5, 2014. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of February, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 13th day of February, 2015.
The Issue The issues are whether, under section 440.107, Florida Statutes, Petitioner may calculate a penalty assessment for a failure to secure the payment of workers' compensation for one day as though the failure persisted over two years and whether Petitioner may calculate a penalty assessment based on double the statewide average weekly wage (AWW) when the lone uncovered employee earned $10 per hour.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was incorporated in 2008 by Ineido Soler, Sr., and his son, Ineido Soler, Jr. Since the corporation began operations, the wife of Mr. Soler, Jr., Idalmis Pedrero, has served as the office manager of this family-owned company. At all material times, Respondent has contracted with a personnel leasing company to handle employee matters, such as securing the payment of workers' compensation. Ms. Pedrero's responsibilities include informing the employee leasing company of new hires, so the company can obtain workers' compensation coverage, which typically starts the day following notification. On the afternoon of November 22, 2015, Mr. Soler, Jr., telephoned his wife and told her that he and his father had hired, at the rate of $10 per hour, a new employee, Geony Borrego Lee, who would start work the following morning. Customarily, Ms. Pedrero would immediately inform the employee leasing company. However, Ms. Pedrero was working at home because, six days earlier, she had delivered a baby by caesarian section, and she was still recuperating and tending to her newborn. A fatigued Ms. Pedrero did not notify the employee leasing company that day of the new hire. Late the next morning, Ms. Pedrero was awakened by a call from her husband, who asked her if she had faxed the necessary information to the employee leasing company. Ms. Pedrero admitted that she had not done so, but would do so right away. She faxed the information immediately, so that the employee leasing company could add Mr. Lee to the workers' compensation policy, effective the next day, November 24. Uncovered for November 23, Mr. Lee joined three other employees of Respondent and performed roofing work at a worksite. Late in the afternoon of November 23, one of Petitioner's investigators conducted a random inspection of Respondent's worksite and determined that Respondent had secured the payment of workers' compensation for the three other employees, but not for Mr. Lee. The investigator issued an SWO on the day of the inspection, November 23. The SWO contains three parts. First, the SWO orders Respondent to cease work anywhere in the state of Florida. Second, the SWO includes an Order of Penalty Assessment, which does not contain a specific penalty, but instead sets forth the formula by which Petitioner determines the amount of the penalty to assess. Tracking the statute discussed below, the formula included in the SWO is two times the premium that the employer would have paid when applying approved manual rates to the employer's payroll "during periods for which it has failed to secure the payment of compensation within the preceding 2-year period." Third, the SWO includes a Notice of Rights, which advises Respondent that it may request a chapter 120 hearing. On November 24, Petitioner released the SWO after Respondent had secured the payment of workers' compensation for Mr. Lee. On November 25, the investigator hand delivered to Respondent a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation (Request). The Request covers November 24, 2013, through November 23, 2015, and demands records in eight categories: identification of employer, occupational licenses, payroll documents, account documents, disbursements, contracts for work, identification of subcontractors, and documentation of subcontractors' workers' compensation coverage. The Request identifies "payroll documents" as: all documents that reflect the payroll of the employer . . . including . . . time sheets, time cards, attendance records, earning records, check stubs and payroll summaries for both individual employees and aggregate records; [and] federal income tax documents and other documents reflecting the . . . remuneration paid or payable to each employee . . . . The Request adds: The employer may present for consideration in lieu of the requested records, proof of compliance with F.S. 440 by a workers' compensation policy or coverage through employee leasing for all periods of this request where such coverage existed. If the proof of compliance is verified by the Department the requested records for that time period will not be required. The Request warns: If the employer fails to provide the required business records sufficient to enable the . . . Division of Workers' Compensation to determine the employer's payroll for the period requested for the calculation of the penalty provided in section 440.107(7)(d), F.S., the imputed weekly payroll for each employee shall be the statewide average weekly wage as defined in section 440.12(2), F.S., multiplied by 2. The Department shall impute the employer's payroll at any time after ten, but before the expiration of twenty eight business days after receipt by the employer of [the Request]. (FAC 69L-6.028) . . . . On December 11, 2015, Respondent provided the following documents to Petitioner: itemized invoices, including for workers' compensation premiums, from the employee leasing company to Respondent and checks confirming payment, but the invoices and checks are from December 2011; an employee leasing agreement signed by Respondent on August 1, 2014, and signed by the employee leasing company on August 5, 2014; an employee leasing application for Mr. Lee dated November 23, 2015, showing his date of birth as November 20, 1996, his hourly pay as $10, and his hire date as November 23, 2015; and an employee census dated December 1, 2015, showing, for each employee, a date of hire and, if applicable, date of termination. Partially compliant with the Request, this production omitted any documentation of workers' compensation coverage prior to August 1, 2014, and any documentation of payroll except for Mr. Lee's rate of pay. On December 14, 2015, Respondent filed with Petitioner its request for a chapter 120 hearing. On December 30, 2016, Petitioner issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment (Amended Assessment), which proposes to assess a penalty of $63,434.48. On the same date, Petitioner transmitted the file to DOAH. Petitioner issued a Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on February 16, 2016, which is mentioned in, but not attached to, the Prehearing Stipulation that was filed on April 26, 2016, but the second amended assessment reportedly leaves the assessed penalty unchanged from the Amended Assessment. In determining the penalty assessment, Petitioner assigned class code 5551 from the National Council on Compensation Insurance because Mr. Lee was performing roofing work; determined that the entire two-year period covered in the Request was applicable; identified the AWW as $841.57 based on information provided by the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity for all employers subject to the Florida Reemployment Assistance Program Law, sections 443.01 et seq., Florida Statutes, for the four calendar quarters ending June 30, 2014; applied the appropriate manual rates for class code 5551 to $841.57, doubled, and divided the result by 100--all of which yielded a result of $31,717.24, which, doubled, results in a total penalty assessment of $63,434.48. There is no dispute that the classification code for Mr. Lee is code 5551, the AWW is $841.57, and the manual rates are 18.03 as of July 1, 2013, 18.62 as of January 1, 2014, and 17.48 as of January 1, 2015. Because Petitioner determined that Respondent had failed to provide sufficient evidence of its payroll, Petitioner calculated the penalty assessment by using the AWW of $841.57, doubled, instead of Mr. Lee's actual rate of $10 per hour. Petitioner's calculations are mathematically correct. For the 5.27 weeks of 2013, the penalty assessment is $3198.58 based on multiplying the AWW, doubled, by the manual rate of 18.03 divided by 100 multiplied by 2 and multiplied by 5.27. For the 52 weeks of 2014, the penalty assessment is $32,593.67 based on multiplying the AWW, doubled, by the manual rate of 18.62 divided by 100 multiplied by 2 and multiplied by 52. For the 46.44 weeks of 2015, the penalty assessment is $27,326.48 based on multiplying the AWW, doubled, by the manual rate of 17.48 divided by 100 multiplied by 2 and multiplied by 46.44. Adding these sums yields a total penalty assessment of $63,118.73, which approximates Petitioner's penalty assessment calculation of $63,434.48. (Mistranscription of difficult-to- read manual rates or a different rule for handling partial weeks may account for the small difference.) Respondent challenges two factors in the imputation formula: the two-year period of noncompliance for Mr. Lee instead of one day's noncompliance and the AWW, doubled, instead of Mr. Lee's $10 per hour rate of pay. Underscoring the differences between the two-year period of noncompliance and double the AWW and the actual period of noncompliance and Mr. Lee's real pay rate, at the start of the two-year period, Mr. Lee was three days past his 16th birthday and residing in Cuba, and Mr. Lee continues to earn $10 per hour as of the date of the hearing. The impact of Petitioner's use of the two-year period of noncompliance and double the AWW is significant. If the calculation were based on a single day, rather than two years, the assessed penalty would be less than the statutory minimum of $1000, which is described below, even if double the AWW were used. One day is 0.14 weeks, so the penalty assessment would be $82.38 based on multiplying the AWW, doubled, by the manual rate of 17.48 divided by 100 multiplied by 2 and multiplied by 0.14. If the calculation were based on the entire two years, rather than a single day, the assessed penalty would be about one-quarter of the proposed assessed penalty, if Mr. Lee's actual weekly rate of pay were used instead of double the AWW. Substituting $400 for twice the AWW in the calculations set forth in paragraph 15 above, the penalty would be $760.14 for 2013, $7746.92 for 2014, and $6494.17 for 2015 for a total of $15,001.23. Explaining why Petitioner treated one day of noncompliance as two years of noncompliance, one of Petitioner's witnesses referred to Mr. Lee as a "placeholder" because the real focus of the imputation formula is the employer. The same witness characterized the imputation formula as a "legal fiction," implying that the formula obviously and, in this case, dramatically departs from the much-smaller penalty that would result from calculating exactly how much premium that Respondent avoided by not covering the modestly paid Mr. Lee on his first day of work. Regardless of how Petitioner characterizes the imputation formula, the statutory mandate, as discussed below, is to determine the "periods" during which Respondent failed to secure workers' compensation insurance within the two-year period covered by the Request. The focus is necessarily on the employee found by the investigator to be uncovered and any other uncovered employees. Petitioner must calculate a penalty based on how long the employee found by the investigator on his inspection has been uncovered, determining how many other employees, if any, in the preceding two years have been uncovered, and calculating a penalty based on how long they were uncovered. There is evidence of one or two gaps in coverage during the relevant two years, but Petitioner has failed to prove such gaps by clear and convincing evidence. One of Petitioner's witnesses testified to a gap of one month "probably" from late January to late February 2015. This witness relied on Petitioner Exhibit 2, but it is completely illegible. Ms. Pedrero testified that Respondent had workers' compensation coverage since 2011, except for a gap, which she thought had occurred prior to August 2014, which is the start date of the current policy. This conflicting evidence does not establish by clear and convincing evidence any gap, and, even if a gap had been proved, no evidence establishes the number of uncovered employees, if any, during such a gap, nor would such a gap justify enlarging the period of noncompliance for Mr. Lee. Ms. Pedrero testified that her mother-in-law, Teresa Marquez cleaned the office and warehouse on an occasional basis, last having worked sometime in 2015. Respondent never secured workers' compensation coverage for Ms. Marquez, but she did no roofing work and appears to have been a casual worker, so her periods of employment during the two-year period covered by the Request would not constitute additional periods for which Respondent failed to secure workers' compensation insurance. Based on the foregoing, Petitioner has proved by clear and convincing evidence only a single day of noncompliance, November 23, concerning one employee, Mr. Lee, within the relevant two-year period for the purpose of calculating the penalty assessment. Likewise, Petitioner has proved by clear and convincing evidence a rate of pay of only $10 per hour for the purpose of calculating the penalty assessment. At no time has Respondent provided payroll records of all its employees for November 23, 2015. Respondent Exhibit E covers payroll for Respondent's employees for a two-week period commencing shortly after November 23, 2015. But the evidence establishes that Mr. Lee's rate of pay was $80 for the day, which, as discussed below, rebuts the statutory presumption of double the AWW.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order determining that Respondent has failed to secure the payment of workers' compensation for one employee for one day within the two-year period covered by the Request and imposing an administrative penalty of $1000. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of July, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of July, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Jonathan Anthony Martin, Esquire Trevor S. Suter, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 (eServed) Daniel R. Vega, Esquire Robert Paul Washington, Esquire Taylor Espino Vega & Touron, P.A. 2555 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 220 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 (eServed) Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 (eServed)
The Issue The issues in this proceeding are whether Respondent, Matt’s Quality Painting, Inc. ("Respondent"), failed to abide by the coverage requirements of the Workers' Compensation Law, chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by not obtaining workers' compensation insurance for its employees; and whether Petitioner properly assessed a penalty against Respondent pursuant to section 440.107, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement of the Workers' Compensation Law that employers secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage for their employees and corporate officers. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Respondent operates a painting business located in Jacksonville, and is therefore engaged in the construction industry. On April 28, 2016, the Department's compliance investigator, Michael Robinson, observed three individuals painting the exterior of a residence in the Hidden Hills subdivision of Jacksonville. Mr. Robinson approached one of the painters, an individual later identified as Ismet "Matt" Rapi, who told Mr. Robinson that he was the owner of the business. Mr. Rapi told Mr. Robinson that the other two men on the job were his employees. Mr. Rapi stated that he was exempt from the workers' compensation coverage requirements, but his two employees were not covered. Mr. Robinson researched the database maintained by the Department of State, Division of Corporations (accessible at www.sunbiz.org) and learned that Matt’s Quality Painting, Inc., was an active corporation and that Mr. Rapi was the sole corporate officer. Mr. Robinson consulted the Department's Coverage and Compliance Automated System ("CCAS") database, which lists the workers' compensation insurance policy information for each business as provided by the insurance companies, as well as any workers' compensation exemptions for corporate officers. CCAS indicated that Mr. Rapi had an active exemption but that Respondent did not have a workers' compensation insurance policy or an employee leasing policy for its two employees, neither of whom was exempt. Mr. Robinson concluded that Respondent had failed to secure workers' compensation insurance coverage that met the requirements of chapter 440. Mr. Robinson therefore issued an SWO to Respondent on April 28, 2016, and personally served the SWO on Mr. Rapi on the same date. Also on April 28, 2016, Mr. Robinson served Respondent with the Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation. The purpose of this request was to obtain the business records necessary to determine the appropriate penalty to be assessed against Respondent for violating the coverage requirements of chapter 440. Because section 440.107(7)(d)1. provides that the Department's assessment of a penalty covers the preceding two-year period, the request for production asked for Respondent's business records from April 29, 2014, through April 28, 2016. If an employer fails to produce business records sufficient to allow for the calculation of the appropriate penalty, the Department must calculate the applicable penalty by imputing the employer's payroll using the statewide average weekly wage for the type of work performed by the employee and multiplying that payroll by two. The statewide average wage is derived by use of the occupation classification codes established by the proprietary Scopes Manual developed by the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc. ("NCCI"). The Scopes Manual has been adopted by reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.031(6). For Respondent's employees, Mr. Robinson applied the occupation classification code 5474, for painting. Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.031(6)(b)9. The Department's Amended Order, assessing an imputed penalty in the amount of $46,692.64 against Respondent, was issued on June 23, 2016, and served on Mr. Rapi by hand on June 28, 2016. Following service of the Amended Order, Respondent supplied the Department with additional business records sufficient for the Department to calculate a penalty. The Department assigned penalty audit supervisor, Anita Proano, to recalculate and approve the penalty assessed against Respondent. Ms. Proano reviewed the business records produced by Respondent and identified Respondent's uninsured payroll. Payments to Mr. Rapi were not included in the penalty because he had an active exemption. Respondent's penalty period was less than two years because Respondent’s record included a prior SWO.1/ Ms. Proano identified numerous cash withdrawals in Respondent's business records. Based on the lack of business records and receipts to validate the cash expenses, Ms. Proano included 80 percent of the cash withdrawals as uninsured labor in assessing the penalty, pursuant to rule 69L-6.035(1)(k). Ms. Proano consulted the classification codes listed in the Scopes Manual and confirmed that Respondent’s employees should be assigned class code 5474. Ms. Proano then utilized the corresponding approved manual rates for that classification code and the related periods of non-compliance. Ms. Proano applied the correct approved manual rates and correctly utilized the methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)l. and rules 69L-6.027, 69L-6.028, and 69L-6.035, to determine the penalty of $22,282.46. The Department issued the Second Amended Order on November 8, 2016, lowering the penalty assessment to $22,282.46. The Department utilized the correct occupation classification code for the two employees. The Department correctly utilized the procedure set forth by section 440.107(7)(d) and (e), and the penalty calculation worksheet incorporated by reference into rule 69L- 6.027(1), to calculate the penalty assessed against Respondent by the Second Amended Order.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, assessing a penalty of $22,282.46 against Matt’s Quality Painting, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of May, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of May, 2017.
Findings Of Fact The factual allegations contained in the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, the 24 Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, which are fully incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted as the Department’s Findings of Fact in this case.
Conclusions THIS PROCEEDING came on for final agency action and Jeff Atwater, Chief Financial Officer of the State of Florida, or his designee, having considered the record in this case, including the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment, the Amended Orders of Penalty Assessment, the Request for Administrative Hearing, the withdrawal of Petition, and the Order Relinquishing Jurisdiction and Closing File, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby finds that: 1. On March 14, 2011, the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (hereinafter “Department”) issued a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 11-083-1A to TRACY B. HINOTE, D/B/A T.H. PLASTERING. 2. On March 14, 2011, the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment was personally served on TRACY B. HINOTE, D/B/A T.H. PLASTERING. A copy of the Stop- Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit A” and incorporated herein by reference. 3. On March 28, 2011, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 11-083-1A to TRACY B. HINOTE, D/B/A T.H. PLASTERING. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $7,590.78 against TRACY B. HINOTE, D/B/A T.H. PLASTERING. . 4. On April 6, 2011, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was personally served on TRACY B. HINOTE, D/B/A T.H. PLASTERING. A copy of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit B” and incorporated herein by reference. 5. On April 28, 2011, the Department issued a 2" Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 11-083-1A to TRACY B. HINOTE, D/B/A T.H. PLASTERING. The 2" Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $6,050.69 against TRACY B. HINOTE, D/B/A T.H. PLASTERING. 6. On May 3, 2011, the 2"4 Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was personally served on TRACY B. HINOTE, D/B/A T.H. PLASTERING. A copy of the 2" Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit C” and incorporated herein by reference. 7. On April 25, 2011, the Division received from TRACY B. HINOTE, D/B/A T.H. PLASTERING a request for an administrative hearing. The request for administrative hearing is attached hereto as “Exhibit D” and incorporated herein by reference. 8. On June 28, 2011, the Department issued a 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 11-083-1A to TRACY B. HINOTE, D/B/A T.H. PLASTERING. The 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $2,618.57 against TRACY B. HINOTE, D/B/A T.H. PLASTERING. 9. On June 29, 2011, the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served by overnight mail delivery on TRACY B. HINOTE, D/B/A T.H. PLASTERING. A copy of the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit E” and incorporated herein by reference. 10. On October 17, 2011, the Petition was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned DOAH Case No. 11-5327. 11. On November 23, 2011, the Division received from TRACY B. HINOTE, D/B/A T.H. PLASTERING a withdrawal of the request for administrative hearing. The withdrawal of request for administrative hearing is attached hereto as “Exhibit F” and incorporated herein by reference. 12. On December 8, 2011, an Order Relinquishing Jurisdiction and Closing File was entered in Division of Administrative Hearings Case. No. 11-5327. A copy of the Order Relinquishing Jurisdiction and Closing File is attached hereto as “Exhibit G” and incorporated herein by reference.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent should be assessed a penalty for an alleged failure to obtain workers’ compensation, as charged in a Stop-Work Order and Amended Order of Penalty Assessment.
Findings Of Fact On March 3, 2015, Kirk Glover, an investigator employed by the Petitioner, observed two men who appeared to him to be installing soffits on a home at 8905 Dove Valley Way in the Champions Gate residential development near Davenport, Florida (the worksite). The two men were the Respondent, Lee Roy Lamond Sizemore, and his son, Chris Sizemore. The investigator asked the Respondent for the name of his company. The Respondent answered that he had not established his company, which was to be named “Lee’s Screen and Repairs.” The investigator then asked the Respondent if he had workers’ compensation coverage or an exemption or exclusion from the requirement to have coverage. The Respondent answered, no. The investigator verified this information and concluded that the Respondent was in violation. The investigator asked the Respondent to provide business records to facilitate the computation of the appropriate penalty. In response, the Respondent provided all the records he had for 2015, which consisted of bank statements on a personal account he shared with his wife, and their joint income tax returns for 2013 and 2014. The bank statements did not reflect any business activity. The 2014 tax return indicated that the Respondent was self-employed in construction but had no income for that year. The 2013 tax return indicated that the Respondent was self-employed selling and installing pool enclosures and had gross income of $6,264 that year. Based on the information provided by the Respondent, the Petitioner calculated a penalty of $11,121.16. The calculated penalty included $1,633.84 for the Respondent for the period from July 1 to December 31, 2013, based on the tax return for 2013. It also included $4,743.66 each for the Respondent and his son for the period from January 1 to March 3, 2015; those amounts were based on income imputed to them because the records provided for that period were deemed insufficient. The Respondent did not dispute the penalty calculation, assuming that workers’ compensation coverage was required and that penalties were owed. However, the evidence was not clear and convincing that coverage was required for either the Respondent or his son in 2015. The Respondent testified that he was in the process of establishing his business under the name of Lee’s Screen and Repairs on March 3, 2015. Up to and including that day, he was self-employed, but there was no clear and convincing evidence that he or his son had worked or had any income in 2015. The Respondent testified that his son had been released from prison in 2014, was not employed, and needed money. The Respondent brought his son to the worksite on March 3, 2015, hoping that the contractor on the job would hire him and his son to do soffit and fascia work. He had not yet seen the contractor when the Petitioner’s investigator arrived, and neither he nor his son had any agreement with the contractor to begin work or be paid. There was no clear and convincing evidence that there was any agreement by anyone to pay either the Respondent or his son for any work on March 3, 2015, or at any other time in 2015. The Petitioner did not contradict the Respondent’s testimony. In this case, the absence of business records for 2015 is evidence that no business was conducted that year, consistent with the Respondent’s testimony, and does not support the imputation of income and assessment of a penalty for 2015.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, enter a final order imposing a penalty against the Respondent in the amount of $1,633.84 for 2013, but no penalty for 2014 or 2015. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of November, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of November, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: Trevor S. Suter, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Lee Roy Sizemore 9728 Piney Port Circle Orlando, Florida 32825 Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2016), by failing to secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage, as alleged in the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment; and, if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement of chapter 440 that employers in Florida secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage for their employees and corporate officers. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. Respondent sells roof coating and provides installation services in the Bradenton, Florida, area. The Investigation On April 20, 2015, the Department received a public referral that Respondent was operating without a roofing license or workers' compensation coverage. The case was assigned by the Department to Compliance Investigator Germaine Green ("Green"). Green first checked the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations, Sunbiz website to verify Respondent's status as an active corporation. Green then checked the Department's Coverage and Compliance Automated System ("CCAS") to see whether Respondent had a workers' compensation policy or any exemptions. An exemption is a method in which a corporate officer can exempt himself from the requirements of chapter 440. See § 440.05, Fla. Stat. CCAS is the Department's internal database that contains workers' compensation insurance policy information and exemption information. Insurance providers are required to report coverage and cancellation information, which is then input into CCAS. Green's CCAS search revealed that Respondent had no coverage or exemptions during the relevant period. Because Green was not aware of any specific job site at which Respondent was working, she issued a Business Records Request ("BRR") No. 1 to Respondent seeking records for an audit period of January 1, 2015, through April 29, 2015, to determine compliance. Respondent provided payroll records and bank statements. Respondent's president, Felecia Bly ("Bly"), contacted Green and described the nature of the business as a roof coating business that sells a sealant that coats roofs to seal leaks and extend their longevity. Bly explained that Respondent used commissioned salesmen to review the county assessor's website to determine the square footage of a residence. The salesman then contacted property owners to determine whether they experienced leaks and offered the product and installation. The salesmen did not go on the roofs. Respondent considered its salesmen independent contractors to whom they issued IRS Forms 1099. Respondent used subcontractors to perform the installations. According to Respondent, these workers had their own businesses or exemptions. Respondent also used the services of part-time workers for a short period that addressed and sent post cards marketing Respondent's business. Based on her conversation with Bly, Green determined that the business should be categorized as "roofing," which is classified as National Council on Compensation Insurance ("NCCI") class code 5551 and is considered a type of construction activity under Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.021(2)(cc). Green also determined Respondent was non-compliant with the obligation to secure workers' compensation coverage for its workers. The corporate officers did not have exemptions, and several individuals, identified as sales and roofing subcontractors, did not have their own businesses or exemptions and, therefore, were employees. Petitioner did not issue a Stop-work Order because Respondent came into compliance on June 22, 2015, by securing exemptions for the corporate officers. Petitioner issued a BRR No. 5 for additional records from July 1, 2013, through June 21, 2015, to make a penalty calculation for the two-year period of non-compliance. Penalty Calculation The Department assigned Penalty Auditor Christopher Richardson ("Richardson") to calculate the penalty assessed against Respondent. Richardson reviewed the business records produced by Respondent and properly identified the amount of gross payroll paid to Respondent's workers on which workers' compensation premiums had not been paid. Richardson researched Respondent's corporate officers and Respondent's subcontractors to determine those periods when they were not compliant with chapter 440 during the audit period. Richardson determined that Respondent was not compliant for the period of June 22, 2013, through June 21, 2015. Respondent's compliant subcontractors (those with their own workers' compensation insurance or exemptions) were not included in the penalty. The business records ultimately produced by Respondent were sufficient for Richardson to calculate a penalty for the entire audit period. The initial OPA was in the amount of $257,321.16. After receiving and reviewing additional records supplied by Respondent, an Amended OPA was issued in the amount of $51,089.52. After a deposition of Bly's assistant, Sueann Rafalski ("Rafalski"), who provided additional details regarding those individuals and businesses identified in the Amended OPA, a 2nd Amended OPA was issued on July 18, 2016, in the amount of $43,542.16. During the hearing, Respondent disputed a few items that the Department subsequently voluntarily removed in the 3rd Amended OPA. The Department's Motion for Leave to Amend Order of Penalty Assessment was granted on September 29, 2016. Respondent disputed the inclusion of referral fees to Hicks and Campbell, a customer reimbursement payment to Robert Nyilas, payment to House Medic for work done on the Bly's home, and a loan repayment to the Bly's son, Brian Bly. The Department correctly removed any penalties associated with Hicks, Campbell, Robert Nyilas, House Medic, and Brian Bly. The Department also removed $14,200.00 from the penalty that Respondent disputed as repayments toward a $150,000.00 loan from its corporate officers. Respondent continues to dispute the penalty calculation for all others identified in the 3rd Amended OPA, except for the inclusion of the payment to Unexpected Blessings. For the penalty assessment calculation, Richardson consulted the classification codes listed in the Scopes® Manual, which has been adopted by the Department of Financial Services through rules 69L-6.021 and 69L-6.031. Classification codes are assigned to various occupations to assist the calculation of workers' compensation insurance premiums. Richardson assigned the class codes based on information provided by Bly. Richardson then utilized the corresponding approved manual rates for those classification codes and the related periods of non-compliance. Richardson applied the correct approved manual rates and correctly utilized the methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)l. and rules 69L-6.027 and 69L-6.028 to determine the penalty. Penalty for the Blys Respondent admits that during the audit period, the business did not carry workers' compensation insurance coverage, and its corporate officers, Glenn and Felecia Bly ("the Blys"), did not have workers' compensation exemptions. Because neither Mr. nor Mrs. Bly was engaged in the application of the roofing materials, the Department correctly assigned class code 8742, for sales and marketing, to them. However, the Department miscalculated the gross income of the Blys. Respondent provided check stubs and its accountant's itemization of payments to the Blys, which constituted repayment of loans from Respondent to the Blys. No evidence to the contrary was presented to indicate these sums were anything other than loan repayments. The Department erroneously included these sums in its calculation of gross payroll to the Blys. Although the Department made a $14,000.00 deduction from gross income for the Blys during this period as "loan repayments," no explanation was provided regarding how this sum was ascertained and why the Department disregarded the information of Respondent's accountant showing repayments during the relevant period in the amount of $19,200.00. The Department obviously accepted the testimony of Bly that, in fact, a portion of what the Department previously concluded was gross income to the Blys, was rather repayments for loans made to Respondent. Accordingly, in the absence of any evidence by the Department of how it parceled out which portion of money paid to the Blys constituted wages and which portion was loan repayments, the Department failed to demonstrate clearly and conclusively that the penalty associated with payments to the Blys is accurate.2/ Penalty for Postcard Mailers Three women, Meghan Saulino, Kimberly Kalley, and Stacy Boettner, were identified by Bly as independent contractors she hired to address and mail postcards for Respondent. According to Bly and Rafalski, these workers were college students who did the work at home, on their own time, and were paid by the job. This arrangement did not last long because the women did not like the work, and the task was transferred to Minuteman, a printing and copying business. These women are included in the Second Amended OPA and are assigned class code 8742 for sales and marketing. Respondent contends they should not be included because they were not employees. No evidence was presented to refute that these three women were merely casual workers whose duties (addressing and mailing postcards) were not in the course of the trade, business, profession, or occupation of Respondent (selling and installing roof coating). Accordingly, the amount included in the penalty for their work, $78.18, should be excluded from the 3rd Amended OPA. Penalty for Commissioned Salesmen Respondent contends that its commissioned sales people are all independent contractors who performed jobs for others. These salespeople included Kevin Kalley, Robert Patton, Gino Barone, Scott De Alessandro, Scott Black, and Tim Paige. However, no evidence was presented of the independent contractor agreements for these individuals, certificates of exemption for them for the penalty period, or evidence that these individuals owned their own businesses. As such, the Department was correct in including the amounts received by the salespeople as gross income for purposes of the penalty calculations. Penalty for Roof Coating Installers Respondent similarly argues that its roof coating installers were independent contractors. The roof coating installers included Bill Boettner, owner of Unexpected Blessings who did not have an exemption during the penalty period, and his business, Unexpected Blessings. Again, no evidence was presented of certificates of exemption for the penalty period or evidence that Unexpected Blessings had coverage. As such, the Department was correct in including the amounts received by the roof coating installers as gross income for purposes of the penalty calculations. Penalty for Other Independent Contractors Respondent argues that Rafalski and Bobby McGranahan ("McGranahan") should not be included in the penalty calculation because they were independent contractors not directly associated with Respondent's business. Rafalski was hired by Bly to help with personal errands and to respond to the audit which serves as a basis for this action. McGranahan is alleged to have run errands for the roof coating installers and acted as a handyman for Respondent before becoming a salesperson for Respondent. It is undisputed that Rafalski and McGranahan performed duties directly related to Respondent's business. Although Rafalski testified at her deposition that she considered herself an independent contractor, it was clear she worked on-site and was the individual most familiar with Respondent's business operations and internal accounting practices. McGranahan's duties, of shopping for supplies for the roofing installers, and then selling for Respondent, were directly related to Respondent's business. No evidence was presented demonstrating that either Rafalski or McGranahan owned their own business or had an exemption. Accordingly, they were properly included in the Department's 3rd Amended OPA.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, enter a final order assessing a penalty against Respondent in the amount of $34,552.20. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of October, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of October, 2016.
Findings Of Fact The factual allegations in the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment issued on October 28, 2008, and the 4th Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on October 6, 2011, which are fully incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted as the Department's Findings of Fact in this case.
Conclusions THIS PROCEEDING came on for final agency action and Jeff Atwater, Chief Financial Officer of the State of Florida, or his designee, having considered the record in this case, including the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment and the 4th Amended Order of Penalty Assessment served in Division of Workers' Compensation Case No. 08-291-Dl, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby finds that: On October 28, 2008, the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation (hereinafter "Department") issued a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in Division of Workers' Compensation Case No. 08-291-Dl to Wainwright Construction and Roofing, Inc. (Wainwright). The Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein Wainwright was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. On November 3, 2008, the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment was served via certified mail on Wainwright. A copy of the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as "Exhibit A" and incorporated herein by reference. On December 2, 2008, the Department issued an Amended Stop-Work Order to Wainwright. The Amended Stop-Work Order included a Notice of Rights wherein Wainwright was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to chellenge or contest the Amended Stop-Work Order must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Amended Stop-Work Order in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. The Amended Stop-Work Order was served on Wainwright by certified mail on December 8, 2008. A copy of the Amended Stop-Work Order is attached hereto as "Exhibit B" and incorporated herein by reference. On December 2, 2008, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to Wainwright in Case No. 08-291-Dl. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $77,189.76 against Wainwright. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein Wainwright was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days ofreceipt of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served on Wainwright by certified mail on December 8, 2008. A copy of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as "Exhibit C" and incorporated herein by reference. On December 24, 2008, Wainwright filed a timely Petition for a formal administrative hearing in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. The 2 Petition was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned Case No. 09- 0340. On October 6, 2011, the Department issued a 4th Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to Wainwright in Case No. 08-291-Dl. The 4th Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $1,000.00 against Wainwright. The 4th Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served on Wainwright through the Division of Administrative Hearings. A copy of the 4th Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as "Exhibit D" and is incorporated herein by reference. On October 11, 2011, Wainwright and the Department entered into a settlement agreement pursuant to which Wainwright agreed to pay the penalty assessed in the 4th Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and accordingly, on October 11, 2011, the Department filed a Notice of Settlement in DOAH Case No. 09-0340. A copy of the Notice of Settlement filed by the Department is attached hereto as "Exhibit E." On October 12, 2011, Administrative Law Judge Lawrence P. Stevenson entered an Order Closing File, relinquishing jurisdiction to the Department. A copy of the October 12, 2011 Order Closing File is attached hereto as "Exhibit F."
