The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Axiom Construction Design Corporation (Axiom), 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 the various requirements of chapter 440, Florida Statutes. Section 440.107(3) mandates, in relevant part, that employers in Florida must secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage for their employees. At all times relevant, Axiom was a small Florida corporation engaged in the construction industry, principally installing drywall. Axiom’s principal office is located at 1067 Walt Williams Road, Lakeland, Florida. Mr. Pratt is Axiom’s owner, sole corporate officer, and registered agent. On July 23, 2014, Randall Durham conducted a job site workers’ compensation compliance investigation (Compliance Investigation). Mr. Durham spoke with Mr. Pratt at a job site at 109 Cattleman Road, the new Sarasota mall. Mr. Pratt and Al Lappohn were working the job site at the new mall. Mr. Pratt had a workers’ compensation policy in place with Southeast Personnel Leasing. Mr. Lappohn did not have an exemption from workers’ compensation coverage, and he was not covered by Axiom’s Southeast Personnel Leasing policy. On July 23, 2014, Mr. Pratt, as Axiom’s representative, was hand-served a Stop-Work Order1/ and a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation (Request). This Request encompassed all of Axiom’s payroll documents, account documents, disbursements, workers’ compensation coverage policies, and professional employer organization records from January 4, 2013, through July 23, 2014. Mr. Pratt provided the certificates of liabilities, payroll and tax records for 2013, and additional business records to the Department. These records were given to Mr. Knopke to calculate the penalty. In reviewing the records, Mr. Knopke determined that Mr. Pratt, Mr. Lappohn and Frank Cutts were employees of Axiom, and that Axiom did not provide workers’ compensation coverage for them. Mr. Cutts worked for Axiom at a Family Dollar Store build-out in Orlando in early 2014. Mr. Cutts swept up after the drywall was installed in the store, and was paid $125. Axiom conceded it owed the workers’ compensation penalty based on the work Mr. Lappohn and Mr. Cutts performed. The business records provided that during the audit period Mr. Pratt had dual employment, payment being paid outside of leasing. Dual employment is when a business has a leasing policy and there is extraneous payroll that is paid outside of the leasing policy. Payments received outside of a leasing policy are considered unsecured payroll for the purposes of calculating a penalty against an employer. Mr. Knopke included Mr. Pratt’s outside distributions in the penalty calculation. The “Scopes Manual” is published by the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc. (NCCI), the nation’s most authoritative data collecting and disseminating organization for workers’ compensation. The manual contains certain codes related to the construction industry and trades considered to be within that industry. The installation of drywall, wallboard, sheetrock, plasterboard or cement board is considered to be “construction” under the relevant codes in the manual. The manual, with its codes and classifications, is relied upon in the insurance industry and has been adopted by the Department in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.021. Mr. Knopke, using the manual, determined the appropriate classification code for Respondent’s employees was 5445. Mr. Knopke applied the correct rates and used the methodology found in section 440.107(7)(d)1., and Florida Administrative Code Rules 69L-6.027 and 69L-6.028 to calculate the penalty assessment. Based upon the testimony and exhibits, the 3rd Amended Penalty Assessment in the amount of $20,221.62 is accurate and correct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, issue a final order upholding the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and assess a penalty in the amount of $20,221.62. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of June, 2015, 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 2nd day of June, 2015.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Ocala Exterior Solutions, Inc., failed to properly maintain workers' compensation insurance coverage for its employees, and, if so, what penalty should be assessed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for ensuring that all employers maintain workers' compensation insurance for themselves and their employees. It is the duty of the Department to make random inspections of job sites and to answer complaints concerning potential violations of workers' compensation rules. This case arose as a result of a random inspection. Respondent is a business created by Johnny Busciglio on or about October 16, 2012. At all times relevant hereto, Respondent was duly licensed to do business in the State of Florida. Its business address is 140 Southwest 74th Lane, Ocala, Florida 34476. On May 22, 2015, the Department’s investigator, William Pangrass, made a random site visit to a construction site located at a residence at 9189 Southwest 60th Terrace Road, Ocala, Florida. He saw two men installing soffit as part of the construction which was going on. Pangrass remembers the men identifying themselves as Derek McVey and Frank Deil. When Pangrass inquired as to their employer, the two men were initially not certain for whom they were working. One of the men made a telephone call and then told Pangrass they were employees of Sauer & Sons. Interestingly, Respondent said the two men on-site that day were McVey and a man named James Van Brunt. Pangrass contacted Sauer & Sons and were told that neither McVey nor Deil (or Van Brunt) were employees of that company. He was told by a representative of Sauer & Sons that the men were in fact employees of Respondent. Pangrass then verified that Respondent was a current, viable company and checked whether the company had workers’ compensation insurance coverage for its employees. He found that Respondent had a workers’ compensation insurance policy for a short time in 2014. Two of Respondent’s employees, however, did have exemptions from coverage. Those two were Johnny Busciglio and Anthony Wayne. Based on his findings, Pangrass issued a SWO which he posted at the work site he had visited. He posted the SWO on the permit board in front of the job site on May 26, 2015. On May 29, he served a Request for Production of Business Records on Respondent, seeking information concerning Respondent’s business for purposes of calculating a penalty for failure to have workers’ compensation insurance in place. Respondent emailed the requested business records to Pangrass. The Department requested additional records and clarification concerning some of the records which had been provided. Busciglio made a good faith effort to respond to each of the Department’s requests. After review of Respondent’s business records, the Department calculated a penalty and issued an amended OPA. That amended OPA was issued on September 8 and served on Busciglio (as agent for Respondent) on October 1, 2015. The amount of the penalty in the amended OPA was $9,896.32. Within a few days after receiving the amended Order, Busciglio obtained workers’ compensation insurance for his employees, paid a down payment of $1,000 to the Department, and Respondent was released to resume its work. The penalty in the amended OPA was based upon information obtained from Busciglio concerning Respondent. Using the bank records supplied by Busciglio, the Department determined that Respondent had the following employees: Eric McVey, Frank Dorneden, Jeff Burns, Jordan Anchondo, Anthony Wayne, Nikki Smith, Johnny Busciglio, and Jason Bridge. Their wages were used by the Department to calculate the penalty. The penalty was calculated by the Department as follows: The business was assigned class code 5645, construction on residential dwellings; The period of non-compliance was set at two years; The gross payroll amount for that two-year period was established at $30,905.14; The gross payroll amount was divided by 100, resulting in the sum of $309.05; The approved manual rate, i.e., the amount the employer would have paid if insurance was in place, was assigned for each employee; The gross payroll was multiplied by the manual rate; And the penalty amount was established, taking the figure in (f), above, and multiplying by two. Busciglio established by credible testimony, unrefuted by the Department, that Nikki Smith was a person from whom he bought tools; she was never an employee of Respondent. The same was true for the person listed as Jason Bridge (although his real name may have been Jason Woolridge). As for Eric McVey, he worked for Frank Dorneden, who paid McVey directly. There were no payroll records or checks from Respondent provided to the Department which were attributable to McVey. Dorneden had begun working for Respondent on December 22, 2014. On May 22, 2015, he was asked by Busciglio to visit the work site; he found McVey working there and Deil/Van Brunt was also on the site. Neither the Department nor Respondent offered any further explanation about Deil/Van Brunt, nor did the Department attribute any penalty to Van Brunt as a putative employee. His status in this matter is a mystery. When the penalties associated with McVey, Smith, and Bride are subtracted from the calculation, the amount of the penalty would be $9,454.22.
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 requiring Respondent, Ocala Exterior Solutions, Inc., to pay the sum of $9,454.22. DONE AND ORDERED this 20th day of November, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 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.
The Issue Whether Petitioner properly issued a Stop-Work Order and Penalty Assessment against Respondent for failing to obtain workers' compensation insurance that meets the requirements of chapter 440, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for enforcing the Florida Workers' Compensation Law, chapter 440, Florida Statutes, including those provisions that require employers to secure and maintain payment of workers? compensation insurance for their employees who may suffer work- related injuries. Respondent is an active Florida limited liability company, having been organized in 2006. Howard?s Famous Restaurant is a diner-style restaurant located at 488 South Yonge Street, Ormond Beach, Florida. It seats approximately 60 customers at a time, and is open for breakfast and lunch. In 2006, Edward Kraher and Thomas Baldwin jointly purchased Howard?s Famous Restaurant. They were equal partners. Mr. Baldwin generally handled the business aspects of the restaurant, while Mr. Kraher was responsible for the food. At the time the restaurant was purchased, Mr. Baldwin organized That?s Right Enterprises, LLC, to hold title to the restaurant and conduct the business of the restaurant. Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Kraher were both identified as managing members of the company.1/ On June 27, 2007, a 2007 Limited Liability Company Annual Report for That?s Right Enterprises, LLC, was filed with the Secretary of State. The Annual Report bore the signature of Mr. Kraher, and contained a strike-through of the letter that caused the misspelling of Mr. Kraher?s name. Mr. Kraher testified that the signature on the report appeared to be his, but he had no recollection of having seen the document, or of having signed it. He suggested that Mr. Baldwin may have forged his signature, but offered no explanation of why he might have done so. Although Mr. Kraher could not recall having signed the annual report, and may have had little understanding of its significance, the evidence supports a finding that Mr. Kraher did, in fact, sign the annual report for That?s Right Enterprises, LLC, as a managing member of the business entity. From March 9, 2009, through March of 2011, Mr. Kraher and Mr. Baldwin received salaries as officers, rather than employees, of That?s Right Enterprises, LLC. Their pay was substantially equivalent during that period. The paychecks were issued by the company?s accountant. Mr. Kraher denied having specific knowledge that he was receiving a salary as an officer of That?s Right Enterprises, LLC. Since Mr. Baldwin left the company, Mr. Kraher has continued to use the same accountant, and has continued to receive his salary as an officer of That?s Right Enterprises, LLC. On March 24, 2011, after having bought out Mr. Baldwin?s interest in the company by paying certain company- related debt owed by Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Kraher filed an annual report for That?s Right Enterprises, LLC. In the annual report, which was prepared and filed at his request, Mr. Kraher assumed control as the sole member and registered agent of the company. Mr. Baldwin was removed as a managing member and registered agent, and other changes were made consistent therewith. Mr. Kraher denied any understanding of the significance of his operating as the same corporate entity, but rather thought he was “buying a new LLC.” On March 8, 2012, Petitioner's investigator, Carolyn Martin, conducted an inspection of Howard?s Famous Restaurant. Ms. Martin introduced herself to one of the waitresses working at the restaurant. The waitress called Mr. Kraher from the kitchen to speak with Ms. Martin. Mr. Kraher identified himself as the owner of the restaurant for the past six years. Ms. Martin asked Mr. Kraher for evidence that Respondent?s employees were covered by workers? compensation insurance. Mr. Kraher retrieved a folder containing the restaurant?s insurance policies and information. Ms. Martin reviewed the folder, and determined that Respondent did not have workers? compensation insurance. Mr. Kraher, who was very cooperative with Ms. Martin throughout the inspection, was genuinely surprised that the restaurant employees were not covered by workers? compensation insurance. He had taken out “a million-dollar insurance policy” that he thought covered everything he needed to have. While Ms. Martin was at the restaurant, Mr. Kraher called his insurance agent who, after reviewing his file, confirmed that Respondent did not have workers? compensation insurance. Mr. Kraher immediately asked his agent to bind a policy, and paid his first six-month premium using a business credit card. A copy of the policy was quickly faxed by the agent to Ms. Martin. Ms. Martin took the names of Respondent?s employees, which included two kitchen staff and four wait staff. Some of the employees worked in excess of 30 hours per week, while others worked part-time. Ms. Martin went to her vehicle and completed a Field Interview Worksheet. Ms. Martin reviewed the Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS), which is the statewide database for workers? compensation information, to confirm Respondent?s status in the workers? compensation system. Using the CCAS, Ms. Martin confirmed that Respondent had no workers? compensation coverage on file for any employee of the company. She also accessed the Florida Division of Corporations website to ascertain Respondent?s corporate status. After having gathered the information necessary to determine Respondent?s status, Ms. Martin contacted her supervisor and received authorization to issue a consolidated Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment. The Stop-Work Order required Respondent to cease all business operations statewide. The Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a penalty, pursuant to section 440.107(7)(d), equal to 1.5 times the amount the employer would have paid in premium when applying the approved manual rates to the employer's payroll for the preceding three-year period. The consolidated order was hand- delivered to Mr. Kraher on behalf of Respondent at 11:00 a.m. on March 8, 2012. At the time she delivered the consolidated Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment, Ms. Martin also hand- delivered a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation. The Request required that Respondent produce business records for the preceding three-year period, from March 9, 2009, through March 8, 2012. Respondent was given five days in which to provide the records. On or about March 12, 2012, Mr. Kraher produced three boxes of business records to Ms. Martin. Those records were forwarded by Ms. Martin, and placed in the queue for review by the penalty auditor. The records were reviewed by Petitioner?s penalty auditor, Lynne Murcia, and were found to be insufficient to establish the actual compensation paid to Respondent?s employees for the preceding three year period. Therefore, pursuant to section 440.107(7)(e), salaries were imputed for each of the six employees based on the statewide average weekly wage. Ms. Murcia used the “Scopes Manual” published by the National Council on Compensation Insurance to ascertain the classification of Respondent?s business, based upon the nature of the goods and services it provided. Class code 9082, titled “Restaurant NOC,” is described as “the „traditional? restaurant that provides wait service.” Ms. Murcia correctly determined that Howard?s Famous Restaurant fell within class code 9082. The salaries of Respondent?s six employees, as employees of a class code 9082 restaurant, were imputed as though they worked full-time for the full three-year period from March 9, 2009, to March 8, 2012, pursuant to section 440.107(7)(e). The total imputed gross payroll amounted to $1,130,921.64. The penalty for Respondent?s failure to maintain workers? compensation insurance for its employees is calculated as 1.5 times the amount Respondent would have paid in premium for the preceding three-year period. The National Council on Compensation Insurance periodically issues a schedule of workers? compensation rates per $100 in salary, which varies based on the Scopes Manual classification of the business. The workers? compensation insurance premium was calculated by multiplying one percent of the imputed gross payroll ($11,309.21) by the approved manual rate for each quarter (which varied from $2.20 to $2.65, depending on the quarterly rate), which resulted in a calculated premium of $26,562.06. The penalty was determined by multiplying the calculated premium by 1.5, resulting in the final penalty of $39,843.18. On March 28, 2012, Petitioner issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessing a monetary penalty amount of $39,843.18 against Respondent. Respondent subsequently provided Petitioner with additional payroll records regarding the six employees. The records had been in the possession of Respondent?s accountant. The records, which included Respondent?s bank statements and payroll records for the six employees, were determined to be adequate to calculate the actual employee salaries for the preceding three-year period. Ms. Murcia revised her penalty worksheet to reflect that payroll was now based on records, rather than being imputed.2/ Respondent?s total payroll for the three-year period in question was determined to be $154,079.82. Applying the same formula as that applied to determine the penalty amount reflected in the Amended Penalty Assessment, the premium was calculated to have been $3,624.33, with a resulting penalty of $5,436.64. On April 24, 2012, Petitioner issued a 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment reducing Respondent's penalty from $39,843.18 to $5,436.64.
Recommendation Based on the 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 of $5,436.64 against Respondent, That?s Right Enterprises, LLC, for its failure to secure and maintain required workers? compensation insurance for its employees. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of August, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of August, 2012.
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 Whether Respondent violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2016), by failing to secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage, as alleged in the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment; and, if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement of chapter 440 that employers in Florida secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage for their employees and corporate officers. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. Respondent sells roof coating and provides installation services in the Bradenton, Florida, area. The Investigation On April 20, 2015, the Department received a public referral that Respondent was operating without a roofing license or workers' compensation coverage. The case was assigned by the Department to Compliance Investigator Germaine Green ("Green"). Green first checked the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations, Sunbiz website to verify Respondent's status as an active corporation. Green then checked the Department's Coverage and Compliance Automated System ("CCAS") to see whether Respondent had a workers' compensation policy or any exemptions. An exemption is a method in which a corporate officer can exempt himself from the requirements of chapter 440. See § 440.05, Fla. Stat. CCAS is the Department's internal database that contains workers' compensation insurance policy information and exemption information. Insurance providers are required to report coverage and cancellation information, which is then input into CCAS. Green's CCAS search revealed that Respondent had no coverage or exemptions during the relevant period. Because Green was not aware of any specific job site at which Respondent was working, she issued a Business Records Request ("BRR") No. 1 to Respondent seeking records for an audit period of January 1, 2015, through April 29, 2015, to determine compliance. Respondent provided payroll records and bank statements. Respondent's president, Felecia Bly ("Bly"), contacted Green and described the nature of the business as a roof coating business that sells a sealant that coats roofs to seal leaks and extend their longevity. Bly explained that Respondent used commissioned salesmen to review the county assessor's website to determine the square footage of a residence. The salesman then contacted property owners to determine whether they experienced leaks and offered the product and installation. The salesmen did not go on the roofs. Respondent considered its salesmen independent contractors to whom they issued IRS Forms 1099. Respondent used subcontractors to perform the installations. According to Respondent, these workers had their own businesses or exemptions. Respondent also used the services of part-time workers for a short period that addressed and sent post cards marketing Respondent's business. Based on her conversation with Bly, Green determined that the business should be categorized as "roofing," which is classified as National Council on Compensation Insurance ("NCCI") class code 5551 and is considered a type of construction activity under Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.021(2)(cc). Green also determined Respondent was non-compliant with the obligation to secure workers' compensation coverage for its workers. The corporate officers did not have exemptions, and several individuals, identified as sales and roofing subcontractors, did not have their own businesses or exemptions and, therefore, were employees. Petitioner did not issue a Stop-work Order because Respondent came into compliance on June 22, 2015, by securing exemptions for the corporate officers. Petitioner issued a BRR No. 5 for additional records from July 1, 2013, through June 21, 2015, to make a penalty calculation for the two-year period of non-compliance. Penalty Calculation The Department assigned Penalty Auditor Christopher Richardson ("Richardson") to calculate the penalty assessed against Respondent. Richardson reviewed the business records produced by Respondent and properly identified the amount of gross payroll paid to Respondent's workers on which workers' compensation premiums had not been paid. Richardson researched Respondent's corporate officers and Respondent's subcontractors to determine those periods when they were not compliant with chapter 440 during the audit period. Richardson determined that Respondent was not compliant for the period of June 22, 2013, through June 21, 2015. Respondent's compliant subcontractors (those with their own workers' compensation insurance or exemptions) were not included in the penalty. The business records ultimately produced by Respondent were sufficient for Richardson to calculate a penalty for the entire audit period. The initial OPA was in the amount of $257,321.16. After receiving and reviewing additional records supplied by Respondent, an Amended OPA was issued in the amount of $51,089.52. After a deposition of Bly's assistant, Sueann Rafalski ("Rafalski"), who provided additional details regarding those individuals and businesses identified in the Amended OPA, a 2nd Amended OPA was issued on July 18, 2016, in the amount of $43,542.16. During the hearing, Respondent disputed a few items that the Department subsequently voluntarily removed in the 3rd Amended OPA. The Department's Motion for Leave to Amend Order of Penalty Assessment was granted on September 29, 2016. Respondent disputed the inclusion of referral fees to Hicks and Campbell, a customer reimbursement payment to Robert Nyilas, payment to House Medic for work done on the Bly's home, and a loan repayment to the Bly's son, Brian Bly. The Department correctly removed any penalties associated with Hicks, Campbell, Robert Nyilas, House Medic, and Brian Bly. The Department also removed $14,200.00 from the penalty that Respondent disputed as repayments toward a $150,000.00 loan from its corporate officers. Respondent continues to dispute the penalty calculation for all others identified in the 3rd Amended OPA, except for the inclusion of the payment to Unexpected Blessings. For the penalty assessment calculation, Richardson consulted the classification codes listed in the Scopes® Manual, which has been adopted by the Department of Financial Services through rules 69L-6.021 and 69L-6.031. Classification codes are assigned to various occupations to assist the calculation of workers' compensation insurance premiums. Richardson assigned the class codes based on information provided by Bly. Richardson then utilized the corresponding approved manual rates for those classification codes and the related periods of non-compliance. Richardson applied the correct approved manual rates and correctly utilized the methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)l. and rules 69L-6.027 and 69L-6.028 to determine the penalty. Penalty for the Blys Respondent admits that during the audit period, the business did not carry workers' compensation insurance coverage, and its corporate officers, Glenn and Felecia Bly ("the Blys"), did not have workers' compensation exemptions. Because neither Mr. nor Mrs. Bly was engaged in the application of the roofing materials, the Department correctly assigned class code 8742, for sales and marketing, to them. However, the Department miscalculated the gross income of the Blys. Respondent provided check stubs and its accountant's itemization of payments to the Blys, which constituted repayment of loans from Respondent to the Blys. No evidence to the contrary was presented to indicate these sums were anything other than loan repayments. The Department erroneously included these sums in its calculation of gross payroll to the Blys. Although the Department made a $14,000.00 deduction from gross income for the Blys during this period as "loan repayments," no explanation was provided regarding how this sum was ascertained and why the Department disregarded the information of Respondent's accountant showing repayments during the relevant period in the amount of $19,200.00. The Department obviously accepted the testimony of Bly that, in fact, a portion of what the Department previously concluded was gross income to the Blys, was rather repayments for loans made to Respondent. Accordingly, in the absence of any evidence by the Department of how it parceled out which portion of money paid to the Blys constituted wages and which portion was loan repayments, the Department failed to demonstrate clearly and conclusively that the penalty associated with payments to the Blys is accurate.2/ Penalty for Postcard Mailers Three women, Meghan Saulino, Kimberly Kalley, and Stacy Boettner, were identified by Bly as independent contractors she hired to address and mail postcards for Respondent. According to Bly and Rafalski, these workers were college students who did the work at home, on their own time, and were paid by the job. This arrangement did not last long because the women did not like the work, and the task was transferred to Minuteman, a printing and copying business. These women are included in the Second Amended OPA and are assigned class code 8742 for sales and marketing. Respondent contends they should not be included because they were not employees. No evidence was presented to refute that these three women were merely casual workers whose duties (addressing and mailing postcards) were not in the course of the trade, business, profession, or occupation of Respondent (selling and installing roof coating). Accordingly, the amount included in the penalty for their work, $78.18, should be excluded from the 3rd Amended OPA. Penalty for Commissioned Salesmen Respondent contends that its commissioned sales people are all independent contractors who performed jobs for others. These salespeople included Kevin Kalley, Robert Patton, Gino Barone, Scott De Alessandro, Scott Black, and Tim Paige. However, no evidence was presented of the independent contractor agreements for these individuals, certificates of exemption for them for the penalty period, or evidence that these individuals owned their own businesses. As such, the Department was correct in including the amounts received by the salespeople as gross income for purposes of the penalty calculations. Penalty for Roof Coating Installers Respondent similarly argues that its roof coating installers were independent contractors. The roof coating installers included Bill Boettner, owner of Unexpected Blessings who did not have an exemption during the penalty period, and his business, Unexpected Blessings. Again, no evidence was presented of certificates of exemption for the penalty period or evidence that Unexpected Blessings had coverage. As such, the Department was correct in including the amounts received by the roof coating installers as gross income for purposes of the penalty calculations. Penalty for Other Independent Contractors Respondent argues that Rafalski and Bobby McGranahan ("McGranahan") should not be included in the penalty calculation because they were independent contractors not directly associated with Respondent's business. Rafalski was hired by Bly to help with personal errands and to respond to the audit which serves as a basis for this action. McGranahan is alleged to have run errands for the roof coating installers and acted as a handyman for Respondent before becoming a salesperson for Respondent. It is undisputed that Rafalski and McGranahan performed duties directly related to Respondent's business. Although Rafalski testified at her deposition that she considered herself an independent contractor, it was clear she worked on-site and was the individual most familiar with Respondent's business operations and internal accounting practices. McGranahan's duties, of shopping for supplies for the roofing installers, and then selling for Respondent, were directly related to Respondent's business. No evidence was presented demonstrating that either Rafalski or McGranahan owned their own business or had an exemption. Accordingly, they were properly included in the Department's 3rd Amended OPA.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, enter a final order assessing a penalty against Respondent in the amount of $34,552.20. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of October, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of October, 2016.
The Issue Whether Leonard Smith, d/b/a Site Development & Pipeline Construction, Inc., violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by failing to secure the payment of workers’ compensation coverage for its employees; and, if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with enforcing workers’ compensation coverage requirements in Florida, including the requirement that employers secure the payment of workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. See § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Leonard Smith is an 85-year-old retired contractor. Respondent’s corporate records with the Florida Division of Corporations record that Leonard Smith is Respondent’s owner, president, and registered agent. Respondent was incorporated in February 2014. The company was administratively dissolved in September 2015. However, Leonard Smith still does business using Respondent’s name. On June 13, 2017, Cristina Brigantty, a compliance investigator with the Department, conducted a random workers’ compensation check at a worksite located at 499 Lorraine Leland Street in Dunedin, Florida. At the site, Investigator Brigantty observed an individual operating a compact excavator/tractor commonly called a “Bobcat” (the manufacturer’s name). The Bobcat operator was moving soil and appeared to be grading the site in preparation for the pouring of concrete. Investigator Brigantty approached the individual operating the Bobcat and requested his name. The driver identified himself as Joe Smith. Joe Smith also relayed to Investigator Brigantty that he was just hired by Leonard Smith (no relation) to work on the site. Joe Smith added that he expected to work approximately ten hours and be paid around $2,000 from Leonard Smith for the job. Joe Smith then provided Investigator Brigantty with Leonard Smith’s business card and phone number. At the final hearing, Investigator Brigantty testified that her duties for the Department include inspecting businesses to determine whether the business has obtained the required workers’ compensation insurance coverage. Investigator Brigantty explained that a business that performs construction-related work must have workers’ compensation coverage. Therefore, Investigator Brigantty believed that Respondent should have secured sufficient workers’ compensation coverage for its employee (Joe Smith). After learning Leonard Smith’s name, Investigator Brigantty searched the Department’s Coverage and Compliance Automated System (“CCAS”) database. CCAS is a Department database that tracks workers’ compensation insurance coverage. CCAS contains coverage data from insurance carriers, as well as any workers’ compensation exemptions on file with the Department. Insurance providers are required to report coverage and cancellation information, which the Department uses to update CCAS. While reviewing CCAS, Inspector Brigantty initially noted that the Department did not have on file any request from Leonard Smith, Respondent’s owner-of-record, for an exemption from workers’ compensation coverage. An exemption is a method by which a business’s corporate officer may exempt him or herself from the requirements of chapter 440. See § 440.05, Fla. Stat. Thereafter, based on her research of the information in CCAS, Inspector Brigantty concluded that Respondent did not have a valid exemption for a corporate officer (Leonard Smith) on June 13, 2017. Neither did Respondent carry any workers’ compensation coverage for Joe Smith. After determining that Respondent had not obtained workers’ compensation coverage for Joe Smith on the date of her visit, Investigator Brigantty called Leonard Smith. In the ensuing conversation, Leonard Smith told her that Joe Smith was working for him at the jobsite. On June 22, 2017, Investigator Brigantty issued a Stop- Work Order to Respondent. With the Stop-Work Order, Investigator Brigantty also served Respondent with a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation. Through this document, the Department requested several categories of business records from Respondent for the period of June 14, 2015, through June 13, 2017. The requested documents pertained to: employer identification, payroll documents, account documents, disbursements, workers’ compensation coverage, professional employer organization, temporary labor service, exemptions, subcontractors, and subcontractor’s workers’ compensation coverage. Based on its investigation, the Department determined that Respondent failed to secure adequate workers’ compensation coverage for its employees. Therefore, the Department proceeded to calculate a penalty based on Respondent’s lack of compliance with chapter 440. The Penalty Calculation: Lynne Murcia, the penalty auditor who determined the penalty the Department seeks to impose on Respondent, testified regarding her computation. Ms. Murcia explained that the penalty essentially consists of the “evaded” premium amount, or the actual amount the employer would have paid in workers’ compensation insurance for the uncovered employees, multiplied by two. To calculate the appropriate penalty for Respondent’s failure to secure workers’ compensation coverage, the Department first ascertained Respondent’s period of non-compliance. In determining this time frame, the Department referred to Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.028(2), which directs that: The employer’s time period or periods of non- compliance means the time period(s) within the two years preceding the date the stop- work order was issued to the employer within which the employer failed to secure the payment of compensation pursuant to chapter 440, F.S., and must be either the same time period as set forth in the business records request for the calculation of penalty or an alternative time period or period(s) as determined by the Department, whichever is less. The employer may provide the Department with records from other sources, including, but not limited to, the Department of State, Division of Corporations, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, licensing offices, and building permitting offices to show an alternative time period or period(s) of non-compliance. Based on these instructions, the Department deduced that Respondent’s period of non-compliance was from June 14, 2015, through June 13, 2017, which was the two-year period preceding the date of the Stop-Work Order.2/ (This two-year period was also the time for which the Department requested business records from Respondent.) After determining Respondent’s period of non- compliance, the Department then calculated the monetary penalty it should impose upon Respondent. In accordance with section 440.107(7)(d)1., the Department must assess against an employer: a penalty equal to 2 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 2-year period or $1,000, whichever is greater. Therefore, the Department reviewed the business records Respondent provided to ascertain the amount of Respondent’s payroll during the two-year period of non-compliance. In response to the Department’s request for documents, Respondent produced a number of financial records. These records consisted primarily of bank statements and cancelled checks. The documentation Respondent submitted, however, was not comprehensive enough for the Department to determine all the wages Respondent paid to its employees, or the work they performed for the period of June 13, 2015, through June 14, 2017. Specifically, Respondent failed to provide complete bank statements or the corresponding check images for the periods of January 1 through April 30, 2016; June 1 through July 31, 2016; and June 1 through June 13, 2017. Consequently, the Department determined that Respondent did not provide business records sufficient for it to calculate Respondent’s complete payroll or the actual employee wages it paid over the two-year period of non-compliance. Therefore, the Department exercised its option to “impute” Respondent’s weekly payroll from June 13, 2015, through June 14, 2017. In addition to Joe Smith, the Department imputed wages for several other individuals and entities it identified in Respondent’s business records. Based on Respondent’s financial records, between June 14, 2015, and June 13, 2017, Respondent made payments to Earl Cockeranoham, “J.M.L.,” Martin Moore, “Peterson,” and Robert Tamburan. The Department also identified a subcontractor Respondent paid in 2015 named Roger’s Dirt Works, Inc. The Department further determined that at the time of the transaction, Roger’s Dirt Works, Inc., had neither workers’ compensation coverage, nor an exemption for a corporate officer. (Roger’s Dirt Works, Inc., subsequently obtained a valid exemption.) Therefore, the Department included Roger’s Dirt Works, Inc., in the penalty for the period of June 14 through December 31, 2015. The Department also added to Respondent’s payroll “uninsured labor” for the full period of non-compliance. Ms. Murcia relayed that “uninsured labor” reflects undesignated cash transactions for which the recipient was not identified or “validated” by Respondent’s business records and receipts. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.035(1)(k). Respondent’s financial records revealed four separate cash payments totaling $6,892. Finally, the Department included Leonard Smith in all periods of non-compliance. The Department explained that Leonard Smith was registered as a corporate officer of Respondent. However, he did not have an active workers’ compensation exemption on file. Therefore, Respondent was also required to carry workers’ compensation for himself. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.028(3)(b). To calculate Respondent’s imputed weekly payroll, section 440.107(7)(e) directs that the gross payroll for an employer who provides insufficient business records is imputed at the statewide average weekly wage multiplied by 1.5 for each employee for the period requested for the calculation of the penalty. Therefore, the Department obtained the statewide average weekly wage effective at the time of the Stop-Work Order ($886.46)3/ for each identified employee, corporate officer, and subcontractor, then multiplied that number by 1.5. See § 440.107(7)(e), Fla. Stat.; and Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L- 6.028(3)(a). To calculate a penalty based on an imputed payroll, the Department assigns an employer’s employees the highest rated workers’ compensation classification code. The classification code is based on either the business records submitted or the investigator’s observation of the employees’ activities. In this case, the business records Respondent provided to the Department were not sufficient to categorize the exact type of work that Joe Smith, or any of the other identified employees, performed for Respondent over the two-year period of non-compliance. However, during her investigation of the jobsite on June 13, 2017, Investigator Brigantty observed Joe Smith engaging in activities consistent with excavating, such as filling, backfilling, and moving earth. According to the Scopes Manual issued by the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc. (“NCCI”), class code 6217 is the “Excavation and Drivers” classification.4/ Consequently, the Department applied class code 6217 to all Respondent’s employees and officer for the entire penalty period. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.028(3)(b) and 69L-6.021(2)(mmm)(excavation is classified as “construction activity”). Therefore, to calculate the premium amount for the workers’ compensation insurance Respondent should have paid for its employees, the Department applied the manual rates corresponding to class code 6217. Thereafter, based on: 1) the total periods of non- compliance, 2) Respondent’s calculated payroll for the periods of non-compliance, and 3) the estimated premium for workers’ compensation insurance, the Department issued the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment (“Penalty Assessment”) on October 13, 2017. The Penalty Assessment imposed a penalty of $42,407.08 against Respondent. Ms. Murcia explained that the initial penalty amount was calculated without the benefit of Respondent’s business records. However, after Respondent began providing its financial records in October 2017, the Department reduced its penalty assessment three times. On November 30, 2018, the Department served a 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, which adjusted the penalty down to $11,958.46. On May 29, 2019 (following leave by the undersigned), the Department produced a 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, which further reduced the penalty to $8,443.96. Finally, at the final hearing (in light of Leonard Smith’s deposition), the Department introduced a 4th Amended Order of Penalty Assessment with a revised (and final) penalty amount of $8,366.44. At the final hearing, Leonard Smith was adamant that Joe Smith was not his employee on June 13, 2017, or at any point. Instead, Leonard Smith explained that he is just a “broker” to help place workers with construction projects. Leonard Smith claimed that for the last nine years, he simply does estimating and consulting for other small contractors. Consequently, because he no longer engages in construction work or employs any workers, Leonard Smith asserted that he does not need to carry workers’ compensation insurance. Regarding the work that Investigator Brigantty witnessed on June 13, 2017, Leonard Smith testified that a church contacted him about supplying, filling, and spreading dirt on its property. Leonard Smith explained that the church was to pay him $12,840.00 for the job. Leonard Smith referred to Joe Smith as a “private contractor.” Leonard Smith relayed that he met Joe Smith in June 2017. Joe Smith expressed that he was looking for work. Leonard Smith told him about the job in Dunedin, Florida. On June 13, 2017, Leonard Smith met Joe Smith, who had brought his Bobcat, at the church and discussed the job. Leonard Smith then left him to complete the work. Leonard Smith insisted that he never “paid” Joe Smith. Instead, he simply agreed to share the money the church was giving him for the job. Leonard Smith called his own portion a “consulting fee.” On June 23, 2017, after he had received the $12,840.00 from the church, Leonard Smith wrote a check to Joe Smith for $3,440.00. Joe Smith never worked for Respondent or Leonard Smith before or since June 13, 2017. Regarding the payment to Earl Cockeranoham recorded in Respondent’s business records, Leonard Smith testified that Mr. Cockeranoham never worked for him. Instead, the money he paid to Mr. Cockeranoham in 2015 ($460.00) was for work Mr. Cockeranoham performed for the same church. Regarding evidence of a payment to Martin Moore, Leonard Smith testified that he paid Mr. Moore $500.00 in 2016 for Mr. Moore’s rent. Leonard Smith denied that he paid Mr. Moore for construction work. Respondent further testified that Respondent had known Mr. Moore a long time. Joe Smith testified at the final hearing regarding his understanding of his employment relationship with Respondent on June 13, 2017. Initially, Joe Smith explained that he had been out of work for several months and was looking for a job when he met Leonard Smith in June 2017. Leonard Smith offered him the work at the church spreading soil. Joe Smith relayed that he owned the Bobcat and brought it with him to the jobsite. Joe Smith stated that, on June 13, 2017, he met Leonard Smith at the church. There, Leonard Smith informed him that he was to bring an area of land up to proper elevation. They also discussed how they would split payment for the job. Joe Smith understood that the church was going to pay Leonard Smith. Then, Leonard Smith was going to give him his share. Joe Smith confirmed that Leonard Smith sent him approximately $3,000.00 several weeks after the job. Joe Smith also conceded that he was not covered by workers’ compensation on June 13, 2017. Joe Smith further testified that Investigator Brigantty showed up at the worksite the day he started working. Finally, at the final hearing, Joe Smith was dismayed that he had created this issue regarding workers’ compensation coverage. He expressed that he was simply looking for work, and Leonard Smith was kind enough to help him out. Joe Smith did not want to get anyone in trouble. Based on the competent substantial evidence in the record, the Department demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent failed to secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage or workers’ compensation exemptions for its “employees” for the periods of June 14, 2015, through June 13, 2017. Accordingly, the Department met its burden of proving that Respondent violated chapter 440 and should be penalized. (As more fully addressed below, the evidence in the record does not sufficiently establish that either Earl Cockeranoham or Martin Moore were “employees” of Respondent under chapter 440. Therefore, they should not be included in the penalty calculation.)
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 determining that Respondent, Leonard Smith, d/b/a Site Development & Pipeline Construction, Inc., violated the requirement in chapter 440 to secure workers’ compensation coverage, and imposing a total penalty of $8,219.06. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of September, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER 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 September, 2019.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent, Deck King Corp., failed to secure workers’ compensation coverage for its employees, and, if so, whether the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (“Department”) correctly calculated the penalty assessment imposed against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure the payment of workers’ compensation for the benefit of its employees. Respondent was a business providing services in the construction industry with its principal office located at 2200 Northwest 22nd Court, Miami, Florida 33142. On June 29, 2015, Marilyn Victores, the Department’s compliance investigator, observed Ivan Lopez Avila and Robert Jordan performing construction work on a job site at 150 South Hibiscus Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139. She learned from the individuals working that they were performing the job on behalf of Respondent, Deck King Corp. After gathering the information at the job site, Ms. Victores spoke with her supervisor, Ms. Scarlett Aldana, and an investigation was performed. The Division of Corporations’ website was consulted to determine, among other things, the identity of Respondent’s corporate officers. Mses. Victores and Aldana learned that Respondent had three corporate officers and directors listed, Derek Barnick, Thomas Barnick, and Fausto Lopez. They also learned that the corporation was “active.” Ms. Victores consulted the Department’s Coverage and Compliance Automated System (“CCAS”) for proof of workers’ compensation coverage and for any exemptions associated with Respondent. An exemption is a method whereby a corporate officer can be relieved of the responsibility of the requirements of chapter 440, Florida Statutes, pursuant to section 440.05. CCAS is the Department’s internal database that contains workers’ compensation insurance policy and exemption information. Insurance providers are required to report insurance coverage information to the Department which is then inputted into CCAS. Ms. Victores’ CCAS search revealed that Respondent did not have a workers’ compensation policy or an employee leasing policy. Additionally, she discovered that no active exemptions were associated with Respondent. Based upon the information she gathered, Ms. Victores issued and served Respondent with a Stop-Work Order on June 29, 2015. Ms. King simultaneously issued and served Respondent a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation (the “Request for Production”). The Request for Production sought documents to enable the Department to determine Respondent’s payroll for the time period of June 30, 2013, through June 29, 2015. In response to the Request for Production, Respondent provided the Department only bank statements. Ms. Eunika Jackson, a penalty auditor with the Department, was assigned to calculate the penalty to be assessed against Respondent. Ms. Jackson believed the business records produced by Respondent were insufficient to calculate a penalty for the entire audit period as they did not specify payroll or payments made to employees other than two specific checks, which were credited against the penalty ultimately assessed against Respondent. Based upon Ms. Jackson’s calculations, on October 9, 2015, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to Respondent which was served on Respondent on that date. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment imposed a penalty of $148,923.16. To make the penalty assessment determination, Ms. Jackson consulted the codes listed in the National Council on Compensation Insurance’s (NCCI) Scopes® Manual, which has been adopted by the Department through Florida Administrative Code Rules 69L-6.021 and 69L-6.031. Classification codes are assigned to various occupations to assist in the calculation of workers’ compensation insurance premiums. Based upon Ms. Victores’ description of the activities Respondent’s workers were performing and the descriptions listed in the NCCI Scopes® Manual, Ms. Jackson determined that the proper classification for employees of Respondent was 5403. Ms. Jackson then utilized the corresponding manual rates for that classification code and the related periods of the alleged non- compliance. Based upon the information provided to her by Mses. Victores and Aldana, Ms. Jackson utilized the appropriate methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)1. and rules 69L-6.027 and 69L-6.028, to determine the penalty of $148,923.16. The business records supplied by Respondent in response to the Department’s Request for Production consisted of two years’ worth of bank statements. No tax records, such as W-2s, W-4s, 1099s, or tax returns of Respondent, were provided to the Department to allow it to determine whether any of the workers were independent contractors, what salaries, if any, they were paid, or in any way to mitigate the penalty assessed by the Department. By not appearing at hearing or attempting to file any documents in explanation or mitigation of the penalty assessed against it, Respondent gave the Department nothing upon which to reach any conclusion of payroll other than through imputation. Using the Penalty Calculation Worksheet, Ms. Jackson determined the penalty to be assessed against Respondent. She imputed the income for Derek Barnick, Thomas Barnick, Ivan Lopez Avila, Robert Lopez, and Fausto Lopez, and used actual records provided by Respondent to determine the income of an individual identified only as “Mili” who received $105 in April 2014. Working through the calculations called for by the worksheet included the class code, period(s) of non-compliance, gross payroll, a divisor of 100 which was then multiplied by the approved manual rate, and then multiplied by two to calculate the penalty. The result was a penalty assessment of $148,923.16. By not appearing at hearing or offering any evidence to contradict the penalty assessed by the Department, Respondent waived its opportunity to prove the Department’s data used and calculations made were performed improperly. The Department properly determined the penalty using the worksheet prescribed by its statutes and rules.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order imposing a penalty of $148,923.16 against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of March, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of March, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Tabitha G. Harnage, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 (eServed) Deck King Corp. 2200 Northwest 22nd Court Miami, Florida 33142 Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Fantastic Construction of Daytona, Inc. (“Respondent”), failed to secure the payment of workers’ compensation 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 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. Respondent is a corporation engaged in the construction industry with headquarters in Daytona Beach, Florida. On November 19, 2015, the Department’s compliance investigator, Scott Mohan, observed five individuals framing a single-family house at 173 Botefuhr Avenue in Daytona, Florida. Mr. Mohan interviewed the individuals he observed working at the jobsite and found they were working for Respondent on lease from Convergence Leasing (“Convergence”). Mr. Mohan contacted Convergence and found that all of the workers on the jobsite were employees of Convergence, except Scott Barenfanger. Mr. Mohan also confirmed that the workers’ compensation policy for Convergence employees was in effect. Mr. Mohan reviewed information in the Coverage and Compliance Automated System, or CCAS, for Respondent. CCAS indicated Respondent’s workers were covered for workers’ compensation by Convergence and that Respondent’s contract with Convergence was active. Mr. Mohan also confirmed, through CCAS, that Foster Coleman, Respondent’s president, had previously obtained an exemption from the workers’ compensation requirement, but that his exemption expired on July 18, 2015. Mr. Mohan then contacted Mr. Coleman via telephone and informed him that one of the workers on the jobsite was not on the active employee roster for Convergence, thus Respondent was not in compliance with the requirement to obtain workers’ compensation insurance for its employees. Mr. Coleman reported to the jobsite in response to Mr. Mohan’s phone call. Mr. Coleman admitted that Mr. Barenfanger was not on the Convergence employee leasing roster. Mr. Coleman subsequently obtained an application from Convergence for Mr. Barenfanger and delivered it to his residence. Mr. Mohan served Mr. Coleman at the jobsite with a Stop-Work Order and a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation (“BRR”). In response to the BRR, Respondent provided to the Department business bank statements, check stubs, copies of checks, certificates of liability insurance for various suppliers and subcontractors, and an employee leasing roster for most of the audit period from November 20, 2013, to November 19, 2015.1/ Respondent did not produce any check stubs for November and December 2013. Mr. Coleman testified, credibly, that his bookkeeper during that time period did not keep accurate records. Mr. Coleman did produce his business bank statements and other records for that time period. Based on the review of initial records received, the Department calculated a penalty of $17,119.80 and issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in that amount on February 18, 2016. On March 17, 2016, Respondent supplied the Department with additional records. Altogether, Respondent submitted over 400 pages of records to the Department. The majority of the records are copies of check stubs for checks issued on Respondent’s business bank account. The check stubs are in numerical order from 1349 to 1879, and none are missing. The check stubs were hand written by Mr. Coleman, who is 78 years old. Some of his writing on the check stubs is difficult to discern. On April 4, 2016, following review of additional records received, the Department issued a Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in the amount of $9,629.36. The Department assigned penalty auditor Sarah Beal to calculate the penalty assessed against Respondent. Identification of Employees Ms. Beal reviewed the business records produced by Respondent and identified Respondent’s uninsured employees first by filtering out payments made to compliant individuals and businesses, and payments made for non-labor costs. However, the evidence demonstrated that the Department included on its penalty calculation worksheet (“worksheet”) payments made to individuals who were not Respondent’s employees. Neal Noonan is an automobile mechanic. Mr. Noonan was neither an employee of, nor a subcontractor for, Respondent for any work performed by Respondent during the audit period. Mr. Noonan performed repairs on Mr. Coleman’s personal vehicles during the audit period. Checks issued to Mr. Noonan during the audit period were for work performed on Mr. Coleman’s personal vehicles. The Department’s worksheet included a “David Locte” with a period of noncompliance from June 19, 2014, through December 31, 2014. The basis for including Mr. Locte as an employee was a check stub written on December 10, 2014, to a business name that is almost indiscernible, but closely resembles “Liete & Locke” in the amount of $100. The memo reflects that the check was written for “architect plans.” Mr. Coleman recognized the worksheet entry of David Locte as pertaining to David Leete, an architect in Daytona. Mr. Leete has provided architectural services to Respondent off and on for roughly five years. Mr. Leete signs and seals plans for, among others, a draftsman named Dan Langley. Mr. Langley provides drawings and plans for Respondent’s projects. When Respondent submits plans to a local governing body which requires architectural drawings to accompany permit applications, Mr. Leete reviews and signs the plans. Mr. Leete was neither an employee of, nor a subcontractor for, Respondent during the audit period. The single payment made to Mr. Leete by Respondent during the audit period was for professional architectural services rendered. Mr. Langley was neither an employee of, nor a subcontractor for, Respondent during the audit period. Payments made to Mr. Langley during the audit period were for professional drafting services rendered. Among the names on the Department’s worksheet is R.W. Kicklighter. Mr. Kicklighter is an energy consultant whose office is located in the same building with Mr. Leete. Mr. Kicklighter prepares energy calculations, based on construction plans, to determine the capacity of heating and air-conditioning systems needed to serve the planned construction. Mr. Kicklighter was neither an employee of, nor a subcontractor for, Respondent during the audit period. Payments made to Mr. Kicklighter during the audit period were for professional services rendered. Respondent made a payment of $125 on September 15, 2014, to an entity known as Set Material. Set Material is a company that rents dumpsters for collection of concrete at demolition and reconstruction sites. Removal and disposal of the concrete from the jobsite is included within the rental price of the dumpster. The Department included on the worksheet an entry for “Let Malereal.” The evidence revealed the correct name is Set Material and no evidence was introduced regarding the existence of a person or entity known as Let Malereal. Set Material was neither an employee of, nor a subcontractor for, Respondent during the audit period. The single payment made to Set Material during the audit period was for dumpster rental. The Department’s worksheet contains an entry for “CTC” for the penalty period of January 1, 2014, through May 1, 2014. Respondent made a payment to “CTC” on April 11, 2014, in connection with a job referred to as “964 clubhouse.” The records show Respondent made payments to Gulfeagle Supply, Vern’s Insulation, John Wood, Bruce Bennett, and Ron Whaley in connection with the same job. At final hearing, Mr. Coleman had no recollection what CTC referred to. Mr. Coleman’s testimony was the only evidence introduced regarding identification of CTC. CTC could have been a vendor of equipment or supplies for the job, just as easily as an employee. The evidence is insufficient to support a finding that CTC was an employee of, or a subcontractor for, Respondent during the audit period. The check stub for check 1685 does not indicate to whom the $60 payment was made. The stub reads “yo for Doug.” The Department listed “Doug” as an employee on its worksheet and included the $60 as wages to “Doug” for purposes of calculating workers’ compensation premiums owed. At hearing, Mr. Coleman was unable to recall ever having employed anyone named Doug, and had no recollection regarding the January 7, 2015, payment. The evidence was insufficient to establish that “Doug” was either Respondent’s employee or subcontractor during the audit period. Ken’s Heating and Air was not an employee of, nor a subcontractor to, Respondent for any work undertaken by Respondent during the audit period. Ken’s Heating and Air conducted repairs on, and maintenance of, Mr. Coleman’s personal residence during the audit period. Checks issued to Ken’s Heating and Air during the audit period were payments for work performed at Mr. Coleman’s personal residence. Barry Smith is an electrical contractor. Mr. Smith was neither an employee of, nor subcontractor to, Respondent for any work performed by Respondent during the audit period. Mr. Smith did make repairs to the electrical system at Mr. Coleman’s personal residence during the audit period. Checks issued to Mr. Smith during the audit period were payments for work performed at Mr. Coleman’s personal residence. The remaining names listed on the Department’s penalty calculation worksheet were accurately included as Respondent’s employees.2/ Calculation of Payroll Mr. Coleman’s exemption certificate expired on July 18, 2015, approximately four months shy of the end of the audit period. Payments made by Respondent to Mr. Coleman during the time period for which he did not have a valid exemption (the penalty period) were deemed by the Department as wages paid to Mr. Coleman by Respondent. Respondent’s business records show seven checks written either to Mr. Coleman or to cash during that time period in the total amount of $3,116.52. The Department included that amount on the worksheet as wages paid to Mr. Coleman. Check 1873 was written to cash, but the check stub notes that the payment of $1,035.69 was made to Compliance Matters, Respondent’s payroll company. Check 1875 was written to cash, but the check stub notes that the payment of $500 was made to Daytona Landscaping. The evidence does not support a finding that checks 1873 and 1875 represented wages paid to Mr. Coleman. The correct amount attributable as wages paid to Mr. Coleman during the penalty period is $1,796.52. Respondent’s employees Tyler Eubler, Brian Karchalla, Keith Walsh, and John Strobel, were periodically paid by Respondent during the audit period in addition to their paychecks from Convergence. Mr. Coleman testified that the payments were advances on their wages. He explained that when working on a job out of town, the crew would arrive after Convergence had closed for the day, and Mr. Coleman would pay them cash and allow them to reimburse him from their paychecks the following day. Unfortunately for Respondent, the evidence did not support a finding that these employees reimbursed Mr. Coleman for the advances made. The Department correctly determined the payroll amount attributable to these employees. The Department attributed $945 in payroll to “James Sharer.” The Department offered no evidence regarding how they arrived at the name of James Sharer as Respondent’s employee or the basis for the payroll amount. James Shores worked off-and-on for Respondent. Mr. Coleman recognized the worksheet entry of “James Sharer” as a misspelling of Mr. Shores’ name. Respondent’s records show payments totaling $535 to Mr. Shores during the audit period. The correct amount of payroll attributable to Mr. Shores from Respondent during the audit period is $535. The Department included wages totaling $10,098.84 to Mr. Barenfanger during the period of noncompliance from November 20, 2013, to December 31, 2013. The Department imputed the average weekly wage to Mr. Barenfanger for that period because, in the Department’s estimation, Respondent did not produce records sufficient to establish payroll for those two months in 2013. See § 440.107(7)(e), Fla. Stat. The voluminous records produced by Respondent evidenced not a single payment made to Mr. Barenfanger between January 2014, and November 19, 2015. Even if Mr. Coleman had not testified that he did not know or employ Mr. Barenfanger before November 19, 2015, it would be ludicrous to find that he worked weekly for Respondent during the last two months of 2013. Mr. Coleman testified, credibly, that Mr. Barenfanger worked the jobsite for Respondent on November 18 and 19, 2015, but not prior to those dates. The evidence does not support a finding that the worksheet entry for Mr. Barenfanger in the amount of $10,098.84 accurately represents wages attributable to Mr. Barenfanger during the period of noncompliance. The Department’s worksheet includes an employee by the name of Ren W. Raly for the period of noncompliance from January 1, 2014, through May 1, 2014, and a Ronnie Whaley for the period of noncompliance from June 19, 2014 through December 31, 2014. Mr. Coleman testified that he never had an employee by the name of Raly and he assumed the first entry was a misspelling of Ronnie Whaley’s name. Mr. Coleman testified that Ronnie Whaley was a concrete finisher and brick layer who did work for Respondent. Mr. Coleman testified that he submitted to the Department a copy of Mr. Whaley’s “workers’ comp exempt,” but that they must not have accepted it. The records submitted to the Department by Respondent do not contain any exemption certificate for Ronnie Whaley. However, in the records submitted to the Department from Respondent is a certificate of liability insurance dated February 25, 2014, showing workers’ compensation and liability coverage issued to Direct HR Services, Inc., from Alliance Insurance Solutions, LLC. The certificate plainly states that coverage is provided for “all leased employees, but not subcontractors, of Ronald Whaley Masonry.” The certificate shows coverage in effect from February 1, 2013, through February 1, 2015. Petitioner did not challenge the reliability of the certificate or otherwise object to its admissibility.3/ In fact, the document was moved into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit P1. Petitioner offered no testimony regarding whether the certificate was insufficient proof of coverage for Mr. Whaley during the periods of noncompliance listed on the worksheet. The evidence does not support a finding that Mr. Whaley was an uninsured individual during the periods of noncompliance. Thus, the wages attributed to Mr. Whaley by the Department were incorrect. Ms. Beal assigned the class code 5645—Carpentry to the individuals correctly identified as Respondent’s uninsured employees because this code matched the description of the job being performed by the workers on the jobsite the day of the inspection. Ms. Beal correctly utilized the corresponding approved manual rates for the carpentry classification code and the related periods of noncompliance to determine the gross payroll to the individuals correctly included as Respondent’s uninsured employees. Calculation of Penalty For the employees correctly included as uninsured employees, Ms. Beal applied the correct approved manual rates and correctly utilized the methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)1. and Florida Administrative Code Rules 69L-6.027 and 69L-6.028 to determine the penalty to be imposed. For the individuals correctly included as uninsured employees, and for whom the correct payroll was calculated, the correct penalty amount is $2,590.06. The correct penalty for payments made to Mr. Coleman during the penalty period is $571.81. The correct penalty for payments made to James Shores is $170.24. The correct total penalty to be assessed against Respondent is $3,332.11. The Department demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent was engaged in the construction industry in Florida during the audit period and that Respondent failed to carry workers’ compensation insurance for its employees at times during the audit period as required by Florida’s workers’ compensation law. The Department demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent employed the employees named on the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, with the exception of Ken’s Heating and Air, CTC, Don Langly, Ren W. Raly, R.W. Kicklighter, Dave Locte, Let Malereal, Ronnie Whaley, and “Doug.” The Department did not demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that it correctly calculated the gross payroll attributable to Mr. Coleman and Mr. Shores. The Department demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Beal correctly utilized the methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)1. to determine the appropriate penalty for each of Respondent’s uninsured employees. The Department did not demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the correct penalty is $9,629.36. The evidence demonstrated that the correct penalty to be assessed against Respondent for failure to provide workers’ compensation insurance for its employees during the audit period is $3,332.11.
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 Fantastic Construction of Daytona, Inc., violated the workers’ compensation insurance law and assessing a penalty of $3,332.11. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of August, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of August, 2016.
The Issue Whether Millenium Homes, Inc. (Petitioner) conducted operations in the State of Florida without obtaining workers’ compensation coverage which meets the requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2008), in violation of Subsection 440.107(2), Florida Statutes (2008)1, as alleged in the Stop-Work Order and Order and Penalty Assessment and the Fifth Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. If so, what penalty should be assessed by the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (Respondent), pursuant to Section 440.107, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency charged with the responsibility of enforcing the requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, that employers in Florida secure the payment of workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Workers’ compensation coverage is required if a business entity has one or more employees and is engaged in the construction industry in Florida. The payment of workers’ compensation coverage may be secured via three non-mutually exclusive methods: 1) the purchase of a workers’ compensation insurance policy; 2) arranging for the payment of wages and workers’ compensation coverage through an employee leasing company; and 3) applying for and receiving a certificate of exemption from workers’ compensation coverage if certain statutorily mandated criteria are met. On September 4, 2008, Maria Seidler, a compliance investigator employed by Respondent, was making random site visits at the Bella Vida development in North Fort Myers. Seidler observed eight workers unloading a truck, taking measurements, and performing various tasks on new homes under construction. All eight of the men were engaged in some type of activity on the job site. None were merely standing around, sitting in a truck, or otherwise idle. Seidler had all eight men stand in front of her, spoke to them in Spanish, and recorded their names on her field interview worksheet. All eight men advised Seidler, in Spanish, that they worked for Millenium Homes. None of the men advised Seidler that they did not work for Petitioner, nor that they were present in hopes of applying for a job. The individual apparently in charge at the job site, did not advise Seidler that not all of the men present were working for Petitioner. The evidence demonstrated that D.R. Horton was the general contractor for the project, and that D.R. Horton had contracted with Petitioner to frame out the housing units at the project. The eight men, who were present on the job site and who identified themselves as employees of Petitioner, confirmed that they were present on September 4, 2008, to perform framing. Framing is a construction activity as contemplated by Subsection 440.02(8), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.021. James Loubert, president and sole shareholder of Petitioner, was not on the job site at the time of Seidler’s arrival, and she initially spoke with him by telephone. Loubert arrived at the job site a short time later. Loubert advised Seidler that Petitioner had secured workers’ compensation coverage for its employees through an employee leasing arrangement with Employee Leasing Solutions (ELS). This coverage was later confirmed by Seidler. However, of the eight workers found on the job site, three workers, Alejandro Osorio, Josue Sanchez Bautista, and Luis Aguilar, were not named on the ELS list of Petitioner’s active, covered employees. Seidler was very definite and precise in her testimony that she observed Alejandro Osorio, Josue Sanchez Bautista, and Luis Aguilar wearing hard hats and engaging in work activities upon her arrival at the job site. Her testimony is found to be credible. When Loubert arrived at the job site, he informed Seidler that two of the workers, not listed on Petitioner’s active employee roster, were to have been sent home to pick up their Social Security cards, and that he had called in the third worker, Josue Sanchez Bautista, to ELS. Loubert did not inform Seidler that Osorio, Bautista, and Aguilar were not employees of Petitioner and were merely present at the job site in hopes of applying for a job. The Pre-hearing Stipulation signed by counsel for the parties and filed with the DOAH clerk on December 8, 2009, contained the following statements of admitted facts in section E: Respondent’s [sic] employees Josue Sanchez Bautista, Luis Aguilar, and Juan Perez had not been called into and accepted as employees by ELS as of September 4, 2008. Respondent [sic] was not in compliance with the coverage requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, as of September 4, 2008.2 At the hearing, both Javier Perez and Loubert testified that Osorio, Bautista, and Aguilar were not employees of Petitioner, but rather were waiting on site for Loubert to arrive, so that they could ask for jobs. However, they were all wearing hard hats. The testimony of Perez and Loubert is inconsistent with the observations of Seidler, as well as the statements made to Seidler by Loubert at the job site on September 8, 2008, and is, therefore, not credible. Petitioner had no workers’ compensation coverage other than that provided though ELS, and no active exemptions. James Loubert is the only officer of Petitioner, and did not have an exemption from coverage as of September 4, 2008. At the work-site, a Stop-Work Order 08-234-D7 was issued and personally served upon James Loubert based upon Petitioner’s failure to secure the payment of workers’ compensation for its employees Josue Sanchez Bautista, Luis Aguilar, and Alejandro Osorio. A business records request was also served on Loubert in order to obtain the records necessary to calculate and assess a penalty on Petitioner based upon its failure to comply with the coverage requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to Section 440.107(5), Florida Statutes, Petitioner’s business records were requested back to September 5, 2005, or three years prior to the issuance of the Stop-Work Order. Petitioner produced the register for its primary checking account to Respondent on September 4, 2008, in response to Respondent’s request for business records. Lynne Murcia is a compliance specialist for Respondent. She reviews business records produced by employers to determine the amount of payroll on which workers’ compensation premium was not paid, in order to calculate an appropriate penalty for violations of the coverage requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. Upon review of the business records initially produced by Petitioner, it was determined that the register from one of Petitioner’s two business checking accounts was missing. The records initially produced by Petitioner were, therefore, insufficient for the calculation of an appropriate penalty. It was requested that Petitioner produce the register for the second checking account, and those records were quickly produced. Thereafter, a 45-page summary of all transactions potentially meeting the definitions of payroll set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.035 (the Rule), was prepared and an Order of Penalty Assessment issued. In determining which payments should potentially be considered payroll, pursuant to the Rule, all payments made by Petitioner directly to its employees that did not pass through ELS were included. To the extent that those direct payments meet the definition of payroll, they were subject to workers’ compensation premium and would be properly included in an assessed penalty. Petitioner also made direct “per diem” payments to reimburse its employees for the cost of meals and lodging which they incurred during the times that they were required to travel away from home to perform their jobs. The per diem rates were calculated pursuant to Internal Revenue Service guidelines, and were deducted as a business expense on Petitioner’s income tax returns for the years 2005-2007. The Rule requires that expense reimbursements by an employer to employees be included as payroll subject to workers’ compensation premium to the extent that the business records of the employer do not confirm that the expenses were incurred as valid business expenses. All per diem payments made by Petitioner to its employees were included in the calculations, because Petitioner did not produce the receipts reflecting that its employees had actually incurred meal and lodging expenses in those amounts. However, following the December 15, 2009, hearing, Respondent examined the issue further and concluded that Petitioner’s per diem payments to its employees were properly documented as business expenses on Petitioner’s income tax returns. Respondent thereafter sought leave to file its Fifth Amended Order of Penalty Assessment deleting all per diem payments from the assessed penalty. Petitioner made numerous payments to third parties who provided construction, maintenance, or janitorial services at the homes of James Loubert, his father, Adrian Loubert, and his wife, April White, or who provided child care services for the Loubert family. For example, Petitioner paid $1,500.00 for tile work performed at James Loubert’s residence; $478.00 to Alex Ortiz, Antonio Elias, and Candy Ortiz for pressure-washing the homes of James Loubert and April White; $2,548.14 to Pedro Delgano for building cabinets for the homes of James Loubert and his father; $11,326.40 to Rick Wilson for painting the houses of James and Adrian Loubert; and beginning August 23, 2007, through December 20, 2007, $1,433.66 to Diane Berger for cleaning James Loubert’s home. Petitioner also paid $3,402.00 to Cinta Smollis for babysitting services provided to Loubert. These individuals do not appear on the penalty work sheet of the Fifth Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, since they do not meet the statutory definition of employees. Petitioner also paid large sums of money to Adrian Loubert for the purchase of a farm in Canada. In addition, James Loubert testified that some of the payments to his father represented expense reimbursements, suggesting that, at some point, Adrian Loubert had been an employee of Petitioner. Petitioner did not introduce any exhibits into evidence reflecting the nature or amount of the reimbursements allegedly being made to Adrian Loubert. James Loubert was actively involved in the carpentry work performed by Petitioner, on the project on which the stop- work order was issued as well as on prior projects. Nevertheless, he received only a minimal salary through Petitioner’s employee leasing company, ELS. In 2007, Loubert received a total salary of $11,000.00 through ELS. In 2008, he received a total salary through ELS of only $7,200.00. Any payments that James Loubert received directly from Petitioner, that meet the definition of payroll set forth in the Rule, were subject to workers’ compensation premium, and are therefore subject to penalty. During the three-year penalty period specified by the statute, Petitioner made many cash payments to, or for the benefit of, James Loubert. The business records produced by Petitioner indicate that these cash payments were made to payees such as Blockbuster Video, Toys-R-Us, and PetsMart, as well as for vacation expenses. In addition, James Loubert took large amounts of cash from Petitioner to facilitate his hobby of racing cars. Throughout the penalty period, Petitioner also made numerous payments to Loubert’s wife, April White, and to his daughter, Alexa Seagate. Petitioner also made numerous payments to Gary White, his father-in-law and one of Petitioner’s employees. James Loubert testified that the payments made to, or on behalf of, family members, the payments made to third- party payees, and the cash payments which he took from Petitioner reflected shareholder distributions. However, the memo lines on those payment entries do not indicate that those payments were intended to be shareholder distributions. Petitioner’s business records reflect that the memo line on a check would indicate that it was a shareholder distribution, if that was what it was intended to be. This was the practice on other transactions. In addition, James Loubert testified that the memos for his Quick Books entries reflect “exactly what” each payment was for. Presumably those memo entries are the same as the memo entries on the corresponding checks. The payments made by Petitioner to third parties from which it appears that Petitioner did not receive services or a benefit, including but not limited to the payments made to family members of James Loubert, and the cash payments made by Petitioner to finance James Loubert’s auto racing hobby, do not constitute legitimate business expenses. Petitioner frequently made loans or wage advances to its employees. Although Loubert testified that those loans were repaid to him, he later acknowledged that a $2,000.00 loan to employee Rachel Broulet was never paid back, and that a $975.00 loan to Nicholas Susa was never repaid. Petitioner did not produce business records or documentary evidence at the hearing that indicates that any of the loans which it made to employees were repaid. The State of Florida has adopted a classification code developed by the National Council of Compensation Insurance (NCCI), which assigns individual four digit codes to various classes of labor. This classification code is utilized to segregate different categories of labor by risk and to determine appropriate workers’ compensation premiums for those classes of labor in Florida. Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.021. As noted above, Petitioner was performing framing work at the time of the September 4, 2008, inspection. Because Petitioner’s employees were observed at work constructing residential homes, classification code 5645, detached one or two family dwellings, was correctly applied to Petitioner’s employees directly engaged in construction activities. This includes Javier Perez, as he was working along with and directly supervising the other seven carpenters who were working on site when the inspection took place. Classification code 8742, outside sales, has been applied to James Loubert, as he was not observed working on September 4, 2008. However, Loubert did testify at his deposition that he usually performed construction work along side Petitioner’s other employees, but Respondent did not apply the construction code to him in the Fifth Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. Classification code 8810 was correctly applied to those employees of Petitioner who performed clerical work in the office. The appropriate manual rates for each year of the penalty period of September 5, 2005, through September 4, 2008, was applied for each classification code assigned to Petitioner’s employees. In preparing the Fifth Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, the amount of unsecured payroll attributable to each employee of Petitioner listed on the penalty worksheet was correctly calculated. From the evidence, Luis Aguilar and Alejandro Osorio were to be paid $10.00 per hour. There was no evidence that Aguilar and Osorio had worked prior to the issuance of the Stop-Work Order, and therefore, earnings of $80.00 assigned, reflecting eight hours at $10.00 per hour for September 4, 2008, was correct. Petitioner failed to provide any business records or other information concerning the rate of pay for Josue Sanchez Bautista, the third non-compliant worker. Bautista’s wages for September 4, 2008, can be imputed utilizing the statewide average wage pursuant to Subsection 440.107(7)(e), Florida Statutes.
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 Millenium Homes, Inc., failed to secure the payment of workers’ compensation insurance coverage for its employees, in violation of Section 440.38(1), Florida Statutes, and that a penalty in the amount of $66,099.37 should be imposed for the failure to provide the required workers’ compensation insurance coverage. DONE AND ORDERED this 28th day of May, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of May, 2010.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by failing to secure the payment of workers’ compensation as alleged in the Stop-Work Order and 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and, if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for the enforcement of the workers’ compensation insurance coverage requirements established in chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2014).1/ On March 6, 2006, the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations, issued articles of corporation to Respondent. Respondent’s address of record is 4441 Radio Avenue, Sanford, Florida 32773. Respondent’s mailing address is 3779 Eagle Preserve Point, Sanford, Florida 32773. On October 22, 2014, Investigator Etheredge conducted a random workers' compensation compliance check at 107 East Circle Drive, New Smyrna Beach, Florida 32169. During the course of the compliance check, Investigator Etheredge observed Matthew Nobles supervising William Boling, who was operating a miter saw, and James Clogston, Jr., who was moving construction materials to the house. These individuals were building a deck on the house in question. Upon questioning by Investigator Etheredge, Matthew Nobles advised that William Boling and James Clogston both worked as employees for Respondent. Matthew Nobles further advised that workers’ compensation exemptions were in effect for himself and James Clogston. Matthew Nobles also informed investigator Etheredge that Respondent did not have a workers' compensation policy. Armed with this information, Investigator Etheredge returned to his vehicle and searched the corporate database of the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations. The search revealed that Respondent's corporate officers are Matthew S. Nobles, Timothy J. Nobles, and James Clogston. Investigator Etheredge then consulted the Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS). CCAS is the workers’ compensation compliance database for the State of Florida. Through CCAS, insurance companies and employee leasing companies submit to the State insurance information regarding new policies, amendments to existing policies, and cancellations of policies. CCAS also lists any exemptions currently or previously held by any member of a registered company.2/ According to Investigator Etheredge, in reviewing the CCAS database, he did not locate a workers' compensation policy or employee leasing notice for Respondent. CCAS did show, however, that Matthew Nobles had a then-current exemption for the period June 19, 2014, through June 19, 2016. Prior to this exemption, CCAS also showed that Matthew Nobles had an exemption for the period April 3, 2012, through April 3, 2014. CCAS showed that Timothy Nobles had an exemption for the period March 18, 2014, through October 24, 2014. For James Clogston, Jr., CCAS showed an exemption for the period December 10, 2013, through December 10, 2015. Finally, for William E. Boling, CCAS showed an exemption for the period December 10, 2013, through March 17, 2014. On October 22, 2014, William Boling was neither covered by a workers’ compensation policy, nor exempt from being covered by the same. Accordingly, on October 22, 2014, the Department issued to Respondent a Stop-Work Order and a written request for copies of Respondent’s business/payroll records for the two-year period covering October 23, 2012, through October 22, 2014. In response to the Department’s request for business records, Respondent provided approximately a year’s worth of payroll records for the period October 25, 2013, through October 15, 2014. These payroll records are sufficiently detailed, as reflected in the summary of payroll records (Ex. 6), so as to allow the Department to calculate Respondent’s weekly payroll for this period with respect to all employees and corporate officers other than William Boling. Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.028(2) provides as follows: The employer’s period of non-compliance shall be either the same as the time period requested in the business records request for the calculation of penalty or an alternative period of non-compliance as determined by the department, whichever is less. The department shall determine an alternative period of non-compliance by obtaining records from other sources, including, but not limited to, the Department of State, Division of Corporations, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, licensing offices, building permitting offices and contracts, that evidence a period of non- compliance different than the time period requested in the business records request for the calculation of penalty. For purposes of this rule, “non-compliance” means the employer’s failure to secure the payment of workers’ compensation pursuant to Chapter 440, F.S. (emphasis added). The payroll records provided by Respondent to the Department establish October 25, 2013, through October 22, 2014, as Respondent’s period of non-compliance. The Department failed to offer other evidence sufficient to establish a period of non- compliance commencing prior to October 25, 2013. However, since Respondent did not provide payroll records for the period October 16, 2014, through October 22, 2014, wages for this period shall be imputed for each of Respondent’s employees and corporate officers, as appropriate. Accordingly, Respondent’s penalty shall be calculated based on the above-established period of non- compliance. In support of its 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, the Department prepared a penalty calculation worksheet showing a total penalty owed of $61,175.36. While the evidence does establish that a penalty amount is owed, the evidence does not support the total penalty amount claimed by the Department. As previously noted, CCAS, as to William Boling, showed an exemption for the period December 10, 2013, through March 17, 2014. The evidence also established that Mr. Boling was observed operating a miter saw at the referenced job site on October 22, 2014. Given that Mr. Boling’s exemption expired on March 17, 2014, and that he was observed working for Respondent on October 22, 2014, Mr. Boling’s wages should be imputed for the period March 18, 2014, through October 22, 2014. The penalty calculation worksheet correctly reflects a penalty, based on imputed wages, in the amount of $539.58 for Mr. Boling for the period October 16, 2014, through October 22, 2014. The worksheet fails, however, to calculate a penalty for Mr. Boling based on imputed wages for the period March 18, 2014, through October 15, 2014. Furthermore, the worksheet entries for Mr. Boling showing penalties totaling $21,940.16 are not supported by the evidence as these penalty entries are based on imputed wages for a time not within the period of Respondent’s non-compliance. The entry on the penalty calculation worksheet for Timothy Nobles and Matthew Nobles correctly reflects a total penalty of $1,217.92 and $1,004.02, respectively, based on information gleaned from Respondent’s payroll records. The penalty calculation worksheet entries for Harold Nobles showing penalties totaling $13,106.38 are not supported by the evidence as these penalty entries are based on imputed wages for a time not within the period of Respondent’s non-compliance. As previously noted, James Clogston had an exemption for the period December 10, 2013, through December 10, 2015. There is no evidence establishing that Mr. Clogston had a business relationship with Respondent prior to the effective date of his exemption. The penalty calculation worksheet entries for James Clogston showing penalties totaling $21,940.16 are not supported by the evidence as these penalty entries are based on imputed wages for a time not within the period of Respondent’s non-compliance. The penalty calculation worksheet for the other listed employees (Messrs. Lisk, Knudsen, Taylor, Pingerin, Farrar and Donat (collectively referred to as “other employees”)) correctly reflects penalties totaling $1,427.14 based on information gleaned from Respondent’s payroll records. Auditor Ruzzo was assigned by the Department to calculate the penalty owed by Respondent. Auditor Ruzzo consulted the classification codes listed in the Scopes® Manual, which has been incorporated by reference into the Department’s rules. Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.021 and 69L-6.031. The classification codes are four-digit numbers assigned to occupations by the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc. (NCCI), to assist in the calculation of workers' compensation insurance premiums. Auditor Ruzzo correctly assigned to Mr. Boling, and the other corporate officers and employees listed on the penalty calculation worksheet, NCCI class code 5654, which is for the area of carpentry. Auditor Ruzzo utilized the appropriate formula in calculating the penalty owed by Respondent for failing to secure the payment of worker’s compensation during the determined period of non-compliance.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, enter a final order finding that Respondent, Nobles Quality Services, LLC, violated the provisions of chapter 440 by failing to secure the payment of workers’ compensation and assessing against Respondent a penalty in an amount consistent with the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of December, 2015 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of December, 2015.
