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 owns and operates a gas station/convenience store in Miami, Florida. The Investigation. The Department received a public referral that Respondent was operating without workers' compensation coverage. The case was assigned by the Department to Compliance Investigator Julio Cabrera ("Cabrera"). Cabrera first checked the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations, Sunbiz website to verify Respondent's status as an active corporation. Cabrera 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. Cabrera's CCAS search revealed that Respondent had no coverage or exemptions during the relevant period. On February 23, 2016, Cabrera visited Respondent's place of business and observed two women, Margarita Maya ("Maya"), and Nuri Penagos ("Penagos") serving customers. Cabrera asked to speak to the owner. Maya telephoned John Obando ("Obando"). After introducing himself, Cabrera asked how many employees worked for the business. Obando indicated he needed to check with his accountant. Shortly thereafter, Obando called Cabrera back and indicated that his employees included Maya; Carolina Santos ("Santos"); his wife, Marta Ayala ("Ayala"); and himself. Obando confirmed that the business did not currently have workers' compensation insurance coverage nor did any of the members of the LLC have an exemption. The LLC had three managing members: Obando; Maria Rios ("Rios"); and Carlos Franco ("Franco"). Obando explained that Rios lived out of the country and did not provide services to Respondent. According to Obando, Franco also resides outside of the United States, but he travels to Florida and periodically assists with the running of Respondent's business enterprise. Cabrera contacted his supervisor and relayed this information. With his supervisor's approval, Cabrera issued a SWO and served a Business Records Request. Respondent provided the requested business records to the Department. The evidence showed that during the two-year look-back period, Respondent did not have workers' compensation coverage for its employees during a substantial portion of the period in which it employed four or more employees, including managing members without exemptions. As such, Respondent violated chapter 440 and, therefore, is subject to penalty under that statute. Penalty Calculation. The Department assigned Penalty Auditor Matt Jackson ("Jackson") to calculate the penalty assessed against Respondent. Jackson used the classification code 8061 listed in the Scopes® Manual, which has been adopted by the Department through Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.021(1). Classification code 8061 applies to employees of gasoline stations with convenience stores. Classification codes are four-digit codes assigned to various occupations by the National Council on Compensation Insurance to assist in the calculation of workers' compensation insurance premiums. In the penalty assessment, Jackson applied the corresponding approved manual rate for classification code 8061 for the related periods of non-compliance. The corresponding approved manual rate was correctly utilized using the methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)1. and rule 69L-6.027 to determine the final penalties. Utilizing the business records provided by Respondent, the Department determined Respondent’s gross payroll pursuant to the procedures required by section 440.107(7)(d) and rule 69L- 6.027. The Department served an Amended OPA on March 29, 2016, imposing a total penalty of $29,084.62. On May 6, 2016, following receipt of additional records, the Department issued a Second Amended OPA, reducing the penalty to $25,670.88. Because Respondent had not previously been issued a SWO, pursuant to section 440.107(7)(d)1., the Department applied a credit toward the penalty in the amount of the initial premium Respondent paid for workers' compensation coverage. Here, the premium payment amount for which Respondent received credit was $1,718.00. This was subtracted from the calculated penalty of $25,670.88, yielding a total remaining penalty of $23,952.88. No records were provided regarding the compensation of Penagos, who was observed working on the date of the inspection. According to Respondent, Penagos was present and working on that date, not as an employee, but as an unpaid volunteer who was testing out the job to see if it was to her liking. The Department imputed gross payroll for Penagos for February 23, 2016, which resulted in a penalty in the amount of $16.26 and was included in the Second Amended OPA. Respondent's Defenses. At the final hearing, Obando testified that he and the other co-owners of Respondent always attempted to fully comply with every law applicable to Respondent's business and have never had compliance problems. He testified that the business carried workers' compensation coverage until 2013, when its insurance agent advised Respondent it could go without coverage due to the size of the business, if the managing members of the LLC were to apply for, and be granted, an exemption. Obando offered no explanation why Respondent failed to secure the exemptions before letting coverage lapse during the penalty period. Obando also argues that on the date of the investigation, Penagos was not an employee, but rather his sister-in-law, who was trying out the job for a day as a volunteer to determine if she would replace Obando's wife, Ayala, who no longer wanted to work in the store. Obando asserts that only two employees were actually working in the store that day, so Respondent should not have been considered out of compliance. Obando also testified that at most, no more than three employees work at the store on any particular day. Obando testified that Respondent has ample liability coverage and that each worker has health insurance, suggesting that workers' compensation insurance coverage is unnecessary. According to Obando, the $23,952.88 penalty is a substantial amount that Respondent, a small family-owned business, cannot afford to pay. Findings of Ultimate Fact. Excluding Penagos as a volunteer, and Rios as a managing member of the LLC with no active service to Respondent, Respondent was a covered employer with four or more employees at all times during the penalty period. The Department demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent violated chapter 440, as charged in the SWO, by failing to secure workers' compensation coverage for its employees.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, enter a final order determining that Respondent, S & S of Florida, LLC, violated the requirement in chapter 440 to secure workers' compensation coverage and imposing a total penalty of $23,936.62. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of December, 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 7th day of December, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Joaquin Alvarez, Esquire Trevor Suter, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 (eServed) John J. Obando S & S of Florida, LLC 8590 Southwest Eighth Street Miami, Florida 33144 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 Thompson Enterprises of Jacksonville, LLC (Respondent), violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes,1/ by failing to secure the payment of workers' compensation, as alleged in the Stop-Work Order and 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment; and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing workers' compensation coverage requirements applicable to employers under Florida law. Respondent is a Florida limited-liability company organized on October 25, 2011. The managing members listed on Respondent’s State of Florida Articles of Organization are Thomas Thompson, Michael Thompson, and Vicky Thompson. In May 2016, Department Compliance Investigator Ann Johnson was assigned to conduct a job site visit on Respondent’s business because its name appeared on the Department’s Bureau of Compliance’s “lead list.” The “lead list” is one of the Department’s databases listing employers that are potentially out of compliance with Florida's workers' compensation insurance requirements. Prior to the job site visit, Investigator Johnson reviewed the Division of Corporations website, www.sunbiz.org, and confirmed Respondent's address, managing members' names, and that Respondent was a current, active Florida company. Respondent’s website advertised towing, wrecker, mechanic, and body shop services. On May 6, 2016, Investigator Johnson visited Respondent's principal address located at 7600 Bailey Body Road, Jacksonville, Florida 32216. She noted a large commercial sign near Respondent’s address that advertised towing and wrecker services. During her visit, Investigator Johnson spoke with Vicky Thompson and Michael Thompson, both of whom advised that they were owners of Respondent. The Thompsons informed Investigator Johnson that Respondent had six employees, including the three listed as managers on Respondent’s Articles of Organization. When Investigator Johnson asked for proof of workers’ compensation coverage, Michael Thompson admitted that Respondent had no such coverage. Under Florida law, employers in the non-construction industry, such as Respondent, must secure workers' compensation insurance if "four or more employees are employed by the same employer." §§ 440.02(17)(b) and 440.107, Fla. Stat. On the same day as her site visit, Investigator Johnson confirmed Respondent’s lack of insurance with a search of the Department's internal database, Coverage and Compliance Automated System. At the time, Respondent had no active exemptions from the requirements of obtaining workers’ compensation for its three managing members. Based on her investigation, Investigator Johnson served Respondent with the Stop-Work Order and a Request for Production on May 6, 2016. Upon serving the documents, Investigator Johnson explained the effect and purpose of the documents and how Respondent could come into compliance. Respondent came into compliance that same day by paying a $1,000 down payment, reducing Respondent's workforce to three employees, applying for exemptions for its three managing members, and executing an agreed Order of conditional release with the Department. Respondent subsequently complied with the Department’s Request for Production. In June 2016, the Department assigned Penalty Auditor Eunika Jackson to review records obtained from Respondent and calculate the penalty to be assessed against Respondent. In accordance with applicable law, the Department's audit spanned the preceding two-year period, starting from the date of the Stop-Work Order. See § 440.107(7)(d)1., Fla. Stat. The audit period in this case was from May 7, 2014, through May 6, 2016. Based on information obtained during the investigation, Auditor Jackson assigned classification codes 7219, 8380, and 8810 to those identified as employees working for Respondent during the audit period. Classification codes are four-digit codes assigned to various occupations by the National Council on Compensation Insurance ("NCCI") to assist in the calculation of workers' compensation insurance premiums. Classification code 8810 applies to clerical office employees, code 7219 applies to trucking and "towing companies," and code 8380 applies to automobile service or repair centers. According to Respondent, it was out of compliance with the coverage requirements of chapter 440 for only "368 days" during the two-year audit period. Respondent's records, however, do not support this contention. Respondent provided a detailed "Employee Earnings Summary" for each employee stating the employee’s name, pay rate, and pay period. Respondent's payroll records reflect that Respondent employed "four or more employees" during the audit period. Throughout the two-year audit period, Respondent employed four or more employees with the following duties: Anna Lee, mechanic/bodywork; Cedric Blake, mechanic/bodywork; David Raynor, mechanic/bodywork; James Budner, mechanic/bodywork; Jason Leighty, mechanic; Kevin Croker, Jr., porter/detailer; Nicholas Conway, bodywork; Ralph Tenity, bodywork; Rebecca Thompson, secretary/office help; Stephen Collins, shop helper/porter; Todd Gatshore, tow truck driver/shop helper; and Williams Reeves, tow truck driver/shop helper. Evidence further demonstrated that, during the audit period, managing member Michael Thompson worked as a wrecker truckdriver, and worked with the Sheriff's Office to clear traffic accidents. He was assigned class code 7219 — tow truck driver. Managing member Vicky Thompson was given the clerical class code 8810 because she was observed working in the office during Investigator Johnson's site visit. Managing member Thomas Thompson was assigned the clerical class code 8810 based upon the fact that he occasionally does office work for the business. The corresponding approved manual rates for classification codes 8810, 7219, and 8380 were correctly applied to each employee for the related periods of non-compliance to determine the final penalty. In accordance with the Request for Production, Respondent provided the Department payroll summary reports, tax reports, and unemployment tax reports. The payroll summary reports and records provided by Respondent listed the payroll and duties for each employee. The gross payroll amounts for each employee reflected in the penalty in this case were derived from those documents. Upon receiving those reports and records, the Department correctly determined the gross payroll for Respondent's employees. On June 13, 2016, the Department served the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on Respondent, assessing a penalty of $33,788.90. A portion of the first penalty was based on imputed payroll for Respondent’s three managing members. After service of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, Respondent provided additional records showing the payroll of its three managing members, and the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was calculated after removing the imputed payroll. On August 22, 2016, the Department served the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on Respondent, assessing a penalty of $33,112.44, which was correctly calculated in accordance with section 440.107(7)(d)1. and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.027(1). In sum, the clear and convincing evidence demonstrated that Respondent was a tow truck company engaged in the wrecker/tow truck and body shop mechanic industries in Florida during the periods of noncompliance; that Respondent failed to secure the payment of workers' compensation for its employees in violation of Florida's Workers' Compensation Law; and that the Department correctly utilized the methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)1. and rule 69L-6.027(1) to determine the appropriate penalty of $33,112.44.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order, consistent with this Recommended Order, upholding the Stop-Work Order and imposing the penalty set forth in the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment against Thompson Enterprises of Jacksonville, LLC. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of April, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III 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 27th day of April, 2017.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent was required to obtain workers' compensation coverage for himself pursuant to Section 440.107, Florida Statutes (2002), during the penalty period designated in the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment; and, if so, whether Petitioner should impose a penalty against Respondent in the amount of $120,467.88.
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 their employees. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. (2002). On February 9, 2004, while conducting a random site inspection, Department investigator, Eric Duncan, observed three men performing construction work in the form of carpentry and house-framing at 720 Southwest 10th Street, Cape Coral, Florida. One of the workers on the site was Respondent, Jeremy Butzler, a sole proprietor who had employed the other two workers. Mr. Duncan interviewed Mr. Butzler at the site and requested proof of workers' compensation coverage, which Mr. Butzler was unable to provide. Mr. Duncan then issued the first Stop Work and Penalty Assessment Order, directing Mr. Butzler to cease work and pay a civil penalty of $1000.00. Also on February 9, 2004, Mr. Duncan served Mr. Butzler with a "Request for Production of Business Records," seeking copies of business records to determine whether Mr. Butzler had secured workers' compensation coverage, whether he had a current valid workers' compensation exemption, and to determine any civil penalties that may be owed for failing to secure workers' compensation coverage. Mr. Butzler complied in a very limited way. Mr. Duncan testified that most of the documents provided by Mr. Butzler were records of electronic transfer of funds that did not identify their recipients. No company checkbook or ledger was produced. After the penalty was calculated, the Department issued the First Amended Stop Work and Penalty Assessment Order, which increased the assessed penalty to $132,027.64. This assessment was later reduced to $120,467.88 after the Department corrected the workers' compensation premium rate it employed to calculate the penalty. At the time the Stop Work Order was issued and pursuant to Subsection 440.107(5), Florida Statutes (2002), the Department had adopted Florida Administrative Code Rule 4L-6.015,1/ which stated, in relevant part: In order for the Division to determine that an employer is in compliance with the provisions of Chapter 440, F.S., every business entity conducting business within the state of Florida shall maintain for the immediately preceding three year period true and accurate records. Such business records shall include original documentation of the following, or copies, when originals are not in the possession of or under the control of the business entity: All workers’ compensation insurance policies of the business entity, and all endorsements, notices of cancellation, nonrenewal, or reinstatement of such policies. * * * Records indicating for every pay period a description of work performed and amount of pay or description of other remuneration paid or owed to each person by the business entity, such as time sheets, time cards, attendance records, earnings records, payroll summaries, payroll journals, ledgers or registers, daily logs or schedules, time and materials listings. All contracts entered into with a professional employer organization (PEO) or employee leasing company, temporary labor company, payroll or business record keeping company. If such services are not pursuant to a written contract, written documentation including the name, business address, telephone number, and FEIN or social security number of all principals if an FEIN is not held, of each such PEO, temporary labor company, payroll or business record keeping company; and For every contract with a PEO: a payroll ledger for each pay period during the contract period identifying each worker by name, address, home telephone number, and social security number or documentation showing that the worker was eligible for employment in the United States during the contract for his/her services, and a description of work performed during each pay period by each worker, and the amount paid each pay period to each worker. A business entity may maintain such records or contract for their maintenance by the PEO to which the records pertain. * * * All check ledgers and bank statements for checking, savings, credit union, or any other bank accounts established by the business entity or on its behalf; and All federal income tax forms prepared by or on behalf of the business and all State of Florida, Division of Unemployment Compensation UCT-6 forms and any other forms or reports prepared by the business or on its behalf for filing with the Florida Division of Unemployment Compensation. During the period in question, Respondent was a "sole proprietor," as that term was defined in Subsection 440.02(25), Florida Statutes (2002): "Sole proprietor" means a natural person who owns a form of business in which that person owns all the assets of the business and is solely liable for all the debts of the business. Subsection 440.02(15)(c)1., Florida Statutes (2002), in effect during the penalty assessment period, stated, in relevant part: "Employee" includes a sole proprietor . . . Partners or sole proprietors actively engaged in the construction industry are considered employees unless they elect to be excluded from the definition of employee by filing written notice of the election with the department as provided in s. 440.05 . . . A sole proprietor or partner who is actively engaged in the construction industry and who elects to be exempt from this chapter by filing a written notice of the election with the department as provided in s. 440.05 is not an employee. (Emphasis added). Section 440.05, Florida Statutes (2002), allowed an individual to apply for election to be exempt from workers' compensation benefits. Only the named individual on the application was exempt from carrying workers' compensation insurance coverage. The Department maintains a database of all workers' compensation exemptions in the State of Florida. Mr. Duncan's review of this database revealed that, although Respondent had a valid workers' compensation exemption from November 18, 1999, to November 15, 2001, there were no exemptions for Respondent for 2002, the year constituting the penalty period in this case. At the hearing, Respondent admitted that he did not obtain an exemption for the year 2002. Mr. Duncan's investigation also revealed that Respondent did not have workers compensation insurance coverage during the year 2002. During the investigation, Respondent informed Mr. Duncan that he had contracted with an employee leasing company, Southeast Personnel Services, Inc., that was responsible for paying the salaries of and providing workers' compensation insurance coverage for Respondent and his workers. Pursuant to Subsection 468.520(5), Florida Statutes (2002),2/ an employee leasing company is a business entity engaged in employee leasing. "Employee leasing" is an arrangement whereby a leasing company assigns its employees to a client and allocates the direction of, and control over, the leased employees between the leasing company and the client. § 68.520(4), Fla. Stat. (2002). When the employee leasing company accepts a client, the client becomes an employee of the leasing company. An employee leasing company is the employer of the leased employees and is responsible for providing workers' compensation pursuant to Chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2002). § 468.529(1), Fla. Stat. (2002). Additionally, an employee leasing company assumes responsibility for the payment of wages to the leased employees without regard to payments by the client and for the payment of payroll taxes and collection of taxes from the payroll of leased employees. § 468.525(4)(b) and (c), Fla. Stat. (2002). At the hearing, Respondent demonstrated that he had workers' compensation coverage as an employee of the employee leasing company. However, the Department did not utilize any payments made through the leasing company in its penalty calculation. The evidence demonstrated that Respondent received compensation directly from Holiday Builders, Inc., in the amount of $185,006.50, and Gatco Construction, in the amount of $10,590.00. These amounts, totaling $195,596.50, were utilized by the Department to calculate Respondent's penalty. Mr. Duncan explained that in order for workers' compensation coverage to apply through the employee leasing company, companies such as Gatco Construction would have to make payments to the leasing company, not directly to Respondent. The leasing company would then pay a salary to Respondent, as its employee, and Respondent would be covered by the employee leasing company's workers' compensation insurance. Payments made directly to Respondent would not be secured by the workers' compensation coverage obtained through the employee leasing company. Respondent claimed that the Division utilized the incorrect gross income amount in calculating the penalty. To support this claim, Respondent attempted to introduce what he claimed was his personal income tax return for the year 2002. Respondent claimed this return had been prepared and filed by his bookkeeper some time in February 2004, subsequent to the Department's investigation. However, the return produced at hearing was unsigned and indicated that it had been self- prepared by Respondent. Respondent could not recall the bookkeeper's name without prodding from his counsel. Respondent offered no proof that this return had ever been completed or filed with the Internal Revenue Service. The purported 2002 tax return was not admitted into evidence, and Respondent's testimony as to the information contained on the return is not reliable. The Department correctly calculated the penalty assessment based on the money paid to Respondent as a sole proprietor "employee" who failed to file for a workers' compensation exemption for the year 2002. The Department calculated the total penalty based on Respondent's gross payroll, the class code assigned to Respondent utilizing the SCOPES Manual (a standard classification tool published by the National Council on Compensation Insurance), and the statutory guidelines in Subsection 440.107(7), Florida Statutes (2002). Based on that calculation, the correct penalty assessment in this case is $120,467.88.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, enter a final order confirming the Amended Stop Work Order and imposing a penalty in the amount of $120,467.88. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of May, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of May, 2005.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is liable for a penalty of $44,794.51 for the alleged failure to maintain workers' compensation insurance for two employees in violation of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2008).1
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure the payment of workers' compensation insurance for the benefit of their employees in accordance with Section 440.107. Respondent is a Florida corporation engaged in the construction business. Respondent utilizes a payroll service company, identified in the record as Frank Crum Leasing (Frank Crum). Frank Crum pays Respondent's employees and collects premiums for workers' compensation insurance based on payroll and employee hours that Respondent reports to Frank Crum each week. Frank Crum maintains a list of the reported employees that is updated weekly (the weekly Frank Crum list). Respondent reports payroll and employee hours to Frank Crum in arrears. On Wednesday afternoon of each week, Respondent reports payroll and employee hours to Frank Crum for the preceding Wednesday through Tuesday. Frank Crum publishes a weekly Frank Crum list each Thursday. New employees that begin work on Wednesday through Tuesday appear on the next weekly Frank Crum list. For example, new employees that began work anytime from Wednesday, February 18, 2009, through Tuesday, February 24, 2009, are reported on February 25, 2009, and appear on the weekly Frank Crum list dated February 26, 2009. New employees that began work anytime from Wednesday, February 25, 2009, through Tuesday, March 3, 2009, are reported on March 4, 2009, and appear on the weekly Frank Crum list dated March 5, 2009.2 Frank Crum collects workers' compensation insurance premiums from Respondent in arrears based on the payroll and employee hours reported each Wednesday for the previous week. The reporting of payroll and employee hours and the payment of insurance premiums in arrears has been Respondent's customary business practice for the past 13 years. On February 26, 2009, one of Petitioner's investigators conducted a random construction site visit at 6417 Grand Island Road, Apollo Beach, Florida. Four workers, who are identified by name in exhibits of record, were laying a concrete sidewalk at the site. The four workers laying the sidewalk were employees of Respondent. Two of the workers were on the weekly Frank Crum list dated February 26, 2006. The other two workers were not on the same list. The two workers who were not on the Frank Crum list dated February 26, 2006, are identified in the record as Mr. Ricardo Hurtado and Mr. Evelio Bueno. On February 26, 2009, Petitioner issued a Stop-Work Order and Penalty Assessment and requested business records from Respondent. Petitioner reviewed the business records and, on April 10, 2009, issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in the amount of $44,794.51 for failure to maintain workers' compensation insurance coverage for the two workers who were not listed on the weekly Frank Crum list dated February 26, 2009, and identified in record as Mr. Hurtado and Mr. Bueno. Respondent does not dispute the accuracy of the penalty calculation. However, Respondent does dispute that Respondent is liable for the penalty assessment. Respondent maintains that the two unlisted workers were covered by workers' compensation insurance on February 26, 2009. The two unlisted workers began their employment with Respondent on February 25, 2009. On March 4, 2009, Respondent reported the new employees to Frank Crum. Respondent paid premiums to Frank Crum for workers' compensation insurance covering the two workers for the dates of employment on February 25 and 26, 2009. The two unlisted workers were covered by workers' compensation insurance on February 25 and 26, 2009. The weekly Frank Crum lists in Petitioner's exhibits are not clear and convincing evidence of the effective date of workers' compensation insurance coverage. The testimony of Respondent's witness at the hearing was clear and convincing that the two workers were covered by workers' compensation insurance in accordance with the customary business practice of Respondent and Frank Crum for the last 16 years. The terms of the workers' compensation insurance policies would have assisted the fact-finder in resolving any evidential conflicts concerning the effective date of workers' compensation insurance coverage. However, Petitioner did not submit copies of the insurance policies and did not submit the testimony of a representative of the workers' compensation insurance company. In support of Petitioner's assertion that Mr. Hurtado and Mr. Bueno were not covered by workers' compensation insurance, Petitioner cites, in paragraph number 13 of its PRO, the testimony of the general counsel of Frank Crum. Petitioner points to the deposition testimony of the general counsel which, in relevant part, states that she did not know whether the insurance company covered the two unlisted workers. The general counsel explained that such a determination would be up to the insurance company and not the general counsel for Frank Crum. The general counsel is correct. Petitioner submitted no evidence to show that the general counsel of Frank Crum is competent to testify for the insurance company. The evidence is clear that Respondent paid insurance premiums in arrears. The evidence is less than clear that insurance coverage was not in effect before the payment of the premium.3 The pretermitted insurance policy or competent testimony from an insurance representative may have clarified the issue. However, the only testimony concerning the effective date of workers' compensation coverage for the two unlisted workers comes from Respondent's live witness. The fact-finder finds her testimony to be credible and persuasive.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner issue a final order dismissing the Stop-Work Order and Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of August, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of August, 2009.
The Issue The issues in this matter are whether Countrywide Siding and Windows, Inc., failed to secure workers compensation that meets the requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and, if so was correctly assessed a penalty for violating, the workers’ compensation laws of Florida.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure workers’ compensation for the benefit of their employees. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. (2009). Respondent is a corporation domiciled in Florida and engaged in the construction industry. On February 13, 2009, Petitioner’s investigator, Carl Woodall, stopped to spot check a house in the Cabrille Lane area of Panama City, Florida, where he saw workers installing siding. Petitioner’s investigator is the only employee for Petitioner who investigated and developed the substantive evidence in this case. Other employees, who have no direct knowledge of the underlying facts, calculated the amounts of the proposed penalties. Mr. Woodall inquired of the workers and ascertained that they worked for Respondent. The investigator then contacted the Respondent to determine whether Respondent had secured or obtained workers’ compensation insurance under Florida’s workers’ compensation law. Respondent’s representative indicated that it maintained workers’ compensation insurance through Employee Leasing Service (ELS), an employee-leasing company. There is no dispute that in February 2009, Respondent leased its workers from ELS and that under the lease agreement, ELS provided workers’ compensation coverage to Respondent and its leased workers. Other evidence suggested that in past years, Respondent had leased its workers from other employee-leasing companies. The evidence was not specific as to who those companies were. The evidence, while not specific, also suggested that Respondent paid its leased employees bonuses and sometimes loaned them money.1/ In general, employee-leasing agreements provide clerical duties to client companies including tax deduction and workers’ compensation, in exchange for a fee. Client companies’ workers who are registered with the leasing company are employees of the leasing company, not the client company. In this case, the specific contract between ELS and Respondent was not introduced into evidence. Likewise, neither the contract nor the proof of coverage between ELS and its workers’ compensation insurer was introduced into evidence and it is unknown who the actual workers’ compensation insurer was or is. Therefore, there is no credible evidence regarding the specific terms of the contract between ELS, Respondent or the workers’ compensation insurer. Importantly, there is no evidence regarding any fee arrangement between ELS and Respondent showing that workers’ compensation coverage was provided based on payroll or that direct payments to Respondent’s workers constituted payroll under the terms of the lease contract for which workers’ compensation had not been secured. Petitioner’s investigator telephoned ELS and learned from some person (purportedly Ellen Clark) that it did have an employee-leasing contract with Respondent and did maintain workers’ compensation on Respondent’s workers. The investigator was also told that ELS intended to or had cancelled its employee-leasing contract with Respondent effective either February 14 or 15, 2009. No one from ELS testified at the hearing and the substance of the above conversation, as with all the testimony about purported ELS statements, constitutes hearsay that was not corroborated by other credible evidence in the record. As such, the substance of these conversations is not found as facts, other than to establish that Petitioner’s investigator had a conversation with a person purporting to Represent ELS. However, on February 14, 2010, the investigator did not take any action against Respondent since he felt Respondent was in compliance with Florida’s workers’ compensation law. On February 17, 2009, Mr. Woodall again returned to the Cabrille Lane area and observed Respondent’s workers installing siding on a house. One of the workers, Mike Moore, revealed to Mr. Woodall that he was a subcontractor of Respondent, but that the other worker, Ryan Grantham, was Respondent’s employee. The subcontractor was in compliance with Florida’s workers’ compensation laws. In order to find out if the other worker was covered by workers’ compensation insurance, Mr. Woodall met with Ronnie Creed, Respondent’s owner and officer, who was exempt under Florida’s workers’ compensation law. Mr. Creed was unaware of Respondent’s workers’ compensation status but put Mr. Woodall in contact with his wife, India Creed, who was also exempt from Florida’s workers’ compensation law. Ms. Creed told Mr. Woodall that Respondent had received a letter from ELS that day, purportedly notifying it that ELS intended to cancel or had cancelled its employee-leasing contract with Respondent. The letter was not introduced into evidence and it is unclear whether the letter discussed the workers’ compensation insurance coverage ELS maintained on its employees that it leased to Respondent. Again, no one from ELS or its workers’ compensation insurer testified at the hearing regarding its lease or which workers were covered under the lease. The record is devoid of any evidence that these employees were no longer employed by ELS and, more importantly, not covered by ELS’s workers’ compensation coverage on February 17, 2009.2/ Mr. Woodall also checked the Department’s Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) database. CCAS is a database that maintains information on business entities in Florida and whether they have secured workers’ compensation and /or whether exemptions from workers’ compensation have been granted to eligible company officers. CCAS did not reflect that Respondent had a workers’ compensation insurance policy in place. However, the investigator did not check to see if ELS or another employee-leasing company had such a policy. Similarly, the investigator did not investigate the terms of those contracts and whether those contracts considered any bonuses or loans paid by Petitioner to its employees to be payroll, and if it was, whether any workers’ compensation coverage was dependent on such payments being reported to these companies. As such, the information in that system is hearsay which may or may not indicate a need to investigate further. Moreover, CCAS is simply a database of information reported by others and maintained by the Petitioner. Its reliability is questionable in this case given the multiple contractual entities involved in the provision of workers’ compensation to Respondent and the lack of any direct evidence from those contractual entities. Therefore, the fact that CCAS did not reflect that Respondent had workers’ compensation insurance is not given weight in this Order and is neither clear nor convincing evidence demonstrating that Respondent failed to secure workers’ compensation insurance on February 17, 2009, or for prior years. Based on his belief that Respondent had not secured workers’ compensation on its workers, Mr. Woodall issued a Stop- Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment and a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation to Respondent (Request) asking for Respondent’s business and financial records related to Respondent’s business and employee leasing for the last 3 years. The records were requested to construct Respondent’s alleged payroll and determine the employees of Respondent. There was no evidence that there was any inquiry into past employment leasing companies that Petitioner contracted with or the terms of those contracts. As with the contract with ELS, there was no inquiry into whether loans or bonuses or any other money paid by Respondent to its workers was considered payroll, required to be reported, or had any impact on workers’ compensation coverage that the leasing companies provided on the employees they leased to Respondent. Respondent complied with the Request and provided the requested business records to Petitioner. Mr. Woodall forwarded the financial records to Petitioner’s penalty calculator, Monica Moye. Beyond checking CCAS, Ms. Moye was not responsible for factually determining whether Respondent had properly secured workers’ compensation insurance during the period under review. Using Respondent’s financial records, Ms. Moye calculated a penalty to be assessed to Respondent based on class code 5645 for siding installation as established by the National Council on Compensation Insurance in the Scopes Manual. She also separated Respondent’s periods of alleged noncompliance based on periodically changing approved manual rates. Approved manual rates are set by the National Council on Compensation Insurance and represent the amounts employers would pay in workers’ compensation premiums for tasks performed by their employees. On March 13, 2009, Petitioner issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, assessing a penalty of $159,002.46 to Respondent. Based on additional records submitted by Respondent, Petitioner recalculated the previously-assessed penalty and issued a 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to Respondent on June 9, 2009, reducing the assessed penalty to $130,914.99. Additionally, following the hearing, the Department revised the assessed penalty and issued a 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment (3rd Amended Order) reducing the assessed penalty to $130,135.03.3/ The list of employees attached to the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment contains several incidents of imputed employment listed as “cash,” “unknown” or “Star H.” There is nothing in the record that supports a finding that these amounts were paid for employment purposes. However, the evidence did not establish that Petitioner did not secure workers’ compensation coverage and the issues regarding the correctness of the amount of penalty assessed against Respondent is not addressed in this Recommended Order. Since the evidence did not establish that Respondent failed to secure workers’ compensation, the Stop-work order should be cancelled and the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a Final Order that Petitioner failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner failed to secure workers’ compensation to its employees and canceling the Stop Work Order and dismissing the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 April, 2010.
The Issue Whether Respondents,1/ David Feliciano, d/b/a D and S Handyman, Inc., a Dissolved Florida Corporation, and D and S Handyman, Inc., 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. The testimony and evidence substantiates that D and S Handyman, Inc., a Dissolved Florida Corporation, is engaged in the construction industry in Florida as D and S Handyman, Inc., and that David Feliciano is its sole proprietor. On September 7, 2016, Investigator Murvin conducted a random jobsite workers’ compensation compliance investigation (Compliance Investigation). Investigator Murvin spoke with Mr. Feliciano who was working at a jobsite at 713 Lake Cummings Boulevard, Lake Alfred, Florida. During their discussion, Mr. Feliciano stated he had his own corporation (Respondent), and that Respondent was a subcontractor of ANS Plumbing to this job. Respondent was to install the plumbing at this jobsite. Mr. Feliciano claimed he had an exemption. Investigator Murvin checked the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations’, Sunbiz website to verify Respondent’s status. Mr. Murvin determined that David Feliciano, d/b/a D and S Handyman, Inc., was no longer an active corporation but that when it was active, Mr. Feliciano was the sole corporate officer and registered agent. Investigator Murvin then checked the Department’s Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) to see whether Respondent had a workers’ compensation insurance policy or any current exemptions. 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. Investigator Murvin’s CCAS search revealed that Respondent had no workers’ compensation coverage or exemptions during the relevant period. An exemption is a method by which a corporate officer can exempt himself from the requirements of chapter 440. See § 440.05, Fla. Stat. Mr. Feliciano held an exemption as Respondent’s owner from December 11, 2013, until it expired on December 11, 2015. Investigator Murvin then contacted ANS Plumbing and confirmed that Respondent was subcontracted to install the plumbing at the jobsite. ANS Plumbing also confirmed that Mr. Feliciano of Respondent had an “exemption on file.”3/ Finding no insurance in place, Investigator Murvin contacted his supervisor, who directed him to issue the SWO. The SWO was issued and served on Mr. Feliciano/Respondent on September 7, 2016. Additionally, a business records request (BRR) was also served on Mr. Feliciano for Respondent’s business records. This BRR sought additional information concerning Respondent’s construction business between December 12, 2015 (the day after Mr. Feliciano’s exemption expired), through September 7, 2016 (the date the SWO issued). Respondent did not provide any business records to the Department in response to the BRR. The lack of business records compelled the Department to use the imputation formula to determine Respondent’s payroll. The Department assigned PA Richardson to calculate the appropriate penalty. For the penalty assessment calculation, PA Richardson consulted the classification codes listed in the 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 the calculation of workers’ compensation insurance premiums. Based on the information obtained from the jobsite, PA Richardson assigned the appropriate class code for plumbing, 5183.4/ PA Richardson determined the gross payroll for Respondent for the entire period of non-compliance, which included two separate periods of non-compliance, i.e., December 12, 2015, through December 31, 2015, and January 1 through September 2016. There were different rates for each period. PA Richardson then utilized the corresponding approved manual rates for those classification codes and the related periods of non-compliance. PA 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 of $6,859.70. The Department has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent was engaged in the construction industry (specifically plumbing) in Florida between December 12, 2015, and September 7, 2016; that Respondent employed Mr. Feliciano; and that Respondent did not have the requisite workers’ compensation insurance or an exemption to cover Mr. Feliciano during the applicable period.
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 imposing a penalty of $6,859.70 against Respondent, David Feliciano, d/b/a D and S Handyman, Inc., a Dissolved Florida Corporation, and D and S Handyman, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of February, 2017, 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 28th day of February, 2017.
The Issue The issues in this proceeding are whether Respondent, Mark Dunlap, d/b/a Mark Dunlap Masonry of Central Florida, Inc., a dissolved Florida corporation, and Mark Dunlap Masonry of Central Florida, Inc. ("Respondent") failed to abide by the coverage requirements of the Workers' Compensation Law, chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by not obtaining workers' compensation insurance for its employees; and whether the Petitioner properly assessed a penalty against the Respondent pursuant to section 440.107, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement of the workers' compensation law that employers secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage for their employees and corporate officers. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Respondent operates a masonry business located in Paisley, and is therefore engaged in the construction industry. On January 8, 2010, Hector Beauchamp, the Department's investigator, received a referral alleging that Respondent was working at 1601 Tillery Drive in Deltona, in violation of the Workers' Compensation Law. Mr. Beauchamp visited the plans examiner for the City of Deltona, who confirmed that a building permit had been issued for the cited address. Mr. Beauchamp drove to 1601 Tillery Drive in Deltona, where he found four people behind the house building a block wall as part of an addition to the single-family house at that address. Mark Dunlap was on the site, and told Mr. Beauchamp that the four men worked for his business, Mark Dunlap Masonry of Central Florida, Inc. Mr. Dunlap subsequently identified the four persons working on the site as Wayne Sochocki, Kevin Copeland, Annie Blackburn, and David Allen Baxley. Mr. Beauchamp researched the database maintained by the Department of State, Division of Corporations (accessible at www.sunbiz.org) and learned that Mark Dunlap Masonry of Central Florida, Inc. had been administratively dissolved for failure to file an annual report on September 25, 2009. Mr. Beauchamp also learned that Mr. Dunlap had owned another Florida corporation, Mark Dunlap Masonry, Inc., that had been administratively dissolved for failure to file an annual report on September 16, 2005. According to the Division of Corporations' information, both Mark Dunlap Masonry of Central Florida, Inc., and Mark Dunlap Masonry, Inc., had the same Federal Employer Identification Number ("FEIN") of 030531755. Mr. Dunlap claimed to Mr. Beauchamp that he was himself exempted from carrying workers' compensation coverage, but admitted that he had not secured coverage for the four employees building the block wall at 1601 Tillery Drive. Mr. Beauchamp consulted the Department's Coverage and Compliance Automated System ("CCAS") database, which lists the workers' compensation insurance policy information for each business as provided by the insurance companies, as well as any workers' compensation exemptions for corporate officers. CCAS indicated that in previous years Respondent had secured workers' compensation insurance through a leasing arrangement with Employee Leasing Solutions ("ELS"). In an employee leasing arrangement, the leasing company hires an employer's workers and leases them back to the employer. The leasing company provides payroll services and workers' compensation insurance coverage to the leased employees in exchange for a fee paid by the employer. However, only those employees specifically placed in the leasing arrangement by the employer and accepted as employees by the leasing company are covered by the leasing company's workers' compensation insurance. Mr. Beauchamp's investigation confirmed that Respondent's workers' compensation coverage obtained through the leasing agreement with ELS had been terminated as of July 8, 2008. The CCAS database confirmed that Mr. Dunlap had an active exemption from the requirement to obtain workers' compensation coverage. It also confirmed that none of the four employees whom Mr. Beauchamp found building the block wall at 1601 Tillery Drive were exempt. Mr. Beauchamp concluded that Respondent had failed to secure workers' compensation insurance coverage that met the requirements of chapter 440. Mr. Beauchamp therefore issued an SWO to Respondent on January 8, 2010, and personally served the SWO on Mr. Dunlap on the same date. Also on January 8, 2010, Mr. Beauchamp served Respondent with the Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation. The purpose of this request was to obtain the business records necessary to determine the appropriate penalty to be assessed against Respondent for violating the coverage requirements of chapter 440. Because section 440.107(7)(d)1. provides that the Department's assessment of a penalty covers the preceding three-year period, the request for production asked for Respondent's business records from January 9, 2007, through January 8, 2010. If an employer fails to produce business records sufficient to allow for the calculation of the appropriate penalty, the Department must calculate the applicable penalty by imputing the employer's payroll using the statewide average weekly wage for the type of work performed by the employee and multiplying that payroll by 1.5. The statewide average wage is derived by use of the occupation classification codes established by the proprietary Scopes Manual developed by the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc. ("NCCI"). The Scopes Manual has been adopted by reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.031(6). For Respondent's employees, Mr. Beauchamp applied the occupation classification code 5022, for masonry. Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L- 6.031(6)(b)9. The Department's Amended Order, assessing an imputed penalty in the amount of $121,001.30 against Respondent, was issued on February 12, 2010, and served on Mr. Dunlap by process server on March 5, 2010. Following service of the Amended Order, Respondent supplied the Department with additional business records, including Respondent's payroll runs from ELS and W-2's for the year 2007. However, even these records were not sufficient to permit the Department to calculate a penalty based on Respondent's actual payroll. The additional business records produced by Respondent did show that Mark Dunlap Masonry, Inc., had a policy of workers' compensation insurance in place with Business First Insurance Company from September 9, 2004, through February 22, 2008. Mr. Beauchamp had not previously found this coverage because the FEIN number listed by the Division of Corporations for Mark Dunlap Masonry, Inc., was incorrect. The Department issued the Second Amended Order on August 18, 2010, lowering the penalty assessment to $64,315.28. Although the Business First Insurance Company policy had been issued to Mark Dunlap Masonry, Inc., and not to Respondent, the Department nonetheless concluded that the policy brought Respondent into compliance with chapter 440 until February 22, 2008, and adjusted the penalty assessment accordingly. Respondent's workers' compensation coverage through the leasing agreement with ELS became effective on March 20, 2008, and was terminated on July 7, 2008. Of the four workers whom Mr. Beauchamp found at the work site on January 8, 2010, only Wayne Sochocki was listed on the ELS employee roster. Thus, Respondent was in compliance with respect to Mr. Sochocki for the period from March 20, 2008, through July 7, 2008. However, the records indicate that Respondent was not in compliance through the ELS leasing agreement with respect to its employees Kevin Copeland, Annie Blackburn, or David Allen Baxley because they had never been tendered to ELS as leased employees. The Department correctly imputed the penalty against Respondent for the four employees found at the work site on January 8, 2010, for all periods of noncompliance. The Department correctly determined the period of noncompliance for Mr. Sochocki to run from July 8, 2008 to January 8, 2010, and for Mr. Copeland, Ms. Blackburn and Mr. Baxley to run from February 22, 2008, to January 8, 2010. The Department utilized the correct occupation classification code for the four employees. The Department correctly utilized the procedure set forth by section 440.107(7)(d) and (e), and the penalty calculation worksheet incorporated by reference into Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.027(1), to calculate the penalty assessed against Respondent by the Second Amended Order.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, assessing a penalty of $64,315.28 against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of March, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of March, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Dunlap Mark Dunlap Masonry, Inc. 45806 Lake Street Paisley, Florida 32767 Justin H. Faulkner, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Julie Jones, Agency Clerk Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 P. K. Jameson, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Honorable Jeff Atwater Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The issues in this case are whether SDPhotonics, LLC (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, Florida Statutes. Section 440.107 mandates, in relevant part, that employers in Florida must secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage for their employees. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. At all times relevant, Respondent was a limited liability company, organized under the laws of the State of Florida, with its principal office currently located at 4304 Scorpius Street, UCF High Technology Incubator, Orlando, Florida. Dennis Deppe is the founder and CEO of SDPhotonics, LLC, which is a research and development company. Respondent is a non-construction type entity. Mr. Marquez is an insurance analysist II/investigator for the Department in the central part of the state. He has 12 years of experience in this position. His duties include making sure that businesses comply with the workers’ compensation laws of Florida. In order to perform his duties, Mr. Marquez has several methods to check for particular workers’ compensation coverage. Initially, Mr. Marquez may check the Division of Corporations website, “Sunbiz.org,” to obtain the name of the corporation; its federal identification number; the mailing and principle address(es), the registered agent; and corporate officer information. With this information, Mr. Marquez may check Petitioner’s internal database called: coverage and compliance automated system (CCAS). Using a corporate name, Mr. Marquez could check CCAS to see whether a corporation has workers’ compensation coverage. Insurance companies are also required to submit workers’ compensation coverage information, and Mr. Marquez could check that registry. Corporate officers may request an exemption from workers’ compensation coverage; however, the officer must apply for the exemption. Mr. Marquez could check that registry as well. In mid-December 2015, Mr. Marquez was assigned to check on Respondent’s workers’ compensation coverage. Mr. Marquez checked Petitioner’s CCAS system and determined that Respondent did not have a workers’ compensation policy or any active exemptions for its officers. On December 16, 2015, Mr. Marquez went to Respondent’s physical location and discovered that no one was present. He left a business card with a written request for someone to contact him. On December 17, 2015, Dr. Deppe contacted Mr. Marquez via telephone. Mr. Marquez identified himself and explained the reason for the call to Dr. Deppe. As was his custom, Mr. Marquez requested the name of Respondent’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier, the policy number and the effective date of the coverage. Dr. Deppe thought there was coverage through Paychex,3/ but he was unable to provide the requested information. Dr. Deppe stated he would look into it and return the call. On December 18, 2016, Mr. Marquez spoke with Dr. Deppe again. During that conversation, Dr. Deppe confirmed that Respondent did not have workers’ compensation coverage, but that he was working to have it by the end of the day. Later that same morning, Mr. Marquez met with Dr. Deppe and again requested the name of Respondent’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier, the policy number and the effective date of the coverage. Dr. Deppe was unable to provide the requested information, although he did provide the name of his insurance agent. Additionally, Dr. Deppe provided the names of Respondent’s five employees: James Beadsworth, Jason Leshin, Nick Cox, Jeremy Leshin, and Dennis Deppe. Mr. Marquez then stepped outside to his vehicle, and via his computer consulted the CCAS database to determine whether Respondent had secured workers’ compensation coverage or an exemption from the requirements for coverage for his employees. At that time, Mr. Marquez determined that Respondent did not have any current workers’ compensation coverage for its employees and Respondent did not have an exemption from such coverage from the Department. Mr. Marquez telephoned his supervisor, Robert Cerrone, who authorized the service of a Stop-Work Order along with a Request for Production of Business Records (Request) on Dr. Deppe on December 18, 2015. Both were served on Respondent at approximately 11:30 a.m. on December 18, 2015. The following Monday, Dr. Deppe presented to Petitioner’s Orlando field office, paid $1,000.00 towards the penalty and provided proof of coverage with the Hartford Casualty Insurance Company. Ms. Proano confirmed that the appropriate classification code for Respondent’s CEO was 8810 (for a clerical position) and for Respondent’s employees was 4511 (for “analytical laboratories, including laboratory, outside employees, collectors of samples”). These codes were derived from the Scopes Manual, which lists all of the various jobs that may be performed in the context of workers’ compensation. The manual is produced by the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc., the nation’s most authoritative data collecting and disseminating organization for workers’ compensation. The corresponding approved manual rates for the classification codes 8810 and 4511 were applied using the methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)1. and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.027 to determine the appropriate penalty. Petitioner is statutorily authorized to use an audit period of two years from the issuance of the Stop-Work Order. Respondent employed less than four employees during 2013 and 2014, and did not have to have worker’s compensation cover. Petitioner only computed the penalty for 2015 because Respondent had five employees during that time. Petitioner has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent failed to secure workers’ compensation for its employees as required by chapter 440, Florida Statutes. Petitioner determined the appropriate penalty using section 440.107(7)(d)1. The amount of Respondent’s penalty, $6,092.10, is subject to a reduction of $3,843.23, which is the amount it paid to obtain the appropriate insurance. The amended penalty amount is $2,248.87.
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 Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and assess a penalty in the amount of $2,248.87.5/ DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of July, 2016, 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 22nd day of July, 2016.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent had workers' compensation insurance coverage for the relevant time period as required by Sections 440.10(1)(a) and 440.38(1), Florida Statutes, and if not, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency responsible for enforcing the requirement that employers secure the payment of workers' compensation insurance for their employees. Respondent is a Florida corporation, incorporated on October 3, 2001. Paul Gilbert is Respondent's only officer and the corporation's managing member. Zurich-American Insurance Group (Zurich) issued a workers' compensation and employer's liability insurance policy (Policy No. WC 3617144) to Mitchell Construction Company (Mitchell) in October 1999. Zurich also provided Mitchell with general liability and business automobile insurance. At that time, Paul Gilbert was the risk manager for Mitchell, which was a large commercial contractor doing business in several states. Mitchell's offices were located in Vidalia, Georgia. In October 2000, Zurich renewed Mitchell's workers' compensation policy (Policy No. WC 3617144-01) for the period October 1, 2000 through October 1, 2001. The original and renewed policies listed other combinable entities as named insureds. Mitchell owned at least 51 percent of its combinable companies, one of which was Wood-Hopkins Contracting Company of Georgia, LLC. The company was also registered in Florida as Wood-Hopkins Contracting Company, LLC. The company was located in Jacksonville, Florida, with a mailing address in Vidalia, Georgia. The type of workers' compensation insurance that Zurich provided to Mitchell was known as a rolling contractor- controlled insurance policy (CCIP). It had endorsements for large deductible reimbursements for paid losses and a set monthly premium based in part on the projected payroll and experience rating modifiers for Mitchell and its combinable entities. The CCIP also covered subcontractors that had a contract with Mitchell for such coverage. The CCIP was renewable on an annual basis. Zurich did not need to re-underwrite the policy each year because the policy was created using three-year parameters. Additionally, Zurich had the option of auditing Mitchell's operations to determine whether there was a substantial change in the business. Palmer and Cay of Georgia (Palmer and Cay) was the producer and the broker of record for Mitchell's original and renewed CCIP. Stephen McMillan, an associate with Palmer and Cay at its offices in Savannah, Georgia, was the insurance agent that helped Mr. Gilbert negotiate and service Mitchell's CCIP with Zurich. In the Fall of 2001, Mr. Gilbert and Mr. McMillan contacted Zurich about renewing Mitchell's CCIP for the period October 1, 2001 through October 1, 2002. In a meeting with Zurich's representatives at its offices in Atlanta, Georgia, Mr. Gilbert advised Zurich that a company bearing the Wood-Hopkins name was going to complete Mitchell's then on-going projects. Zurich's employees believed Mr. Gilbert was referring to Wood- Hopkins Contracting Company, LLC. During the trip to Atlanta, Mr. Gilbert told Mr. McMillan that he was attempting to form a new company. However, Mr. Gilbert did not make it clear in the meeting with the Zurich representatives that he intended to incorporate Respondent, an independent company with a similar name to Wood- Hopkins Contracting Company, LLC, but unrelated to Mitchell. After the meeting in the Fall of 2001, Zurich was unaware that Mitchell and its combinable entities were or soon would be out of business as a general contracting group. Zurich's employees mistakenly believed that Mr. Gilbert continued to work for Mitchell. Mr. Gilbert resigned his position with Mitchell on September 1, 2001. After he incorporated Respondent, it purchased the assets of Mitchell and Wood-Hopkins Contracting Company, LLC, and hired about 100 of Mitchell's employees. Respondent planned to complete Mitchell's on-going projects and then operate primarily as a marine and civil contractor. Respondent was a new company, smaller than Mitchell, with a different risk exposure. Mr. Gilbert provided Zurich's underwriters with the payroll projections and other information necessary to renew Mitchell's CCIP. The data related to Mitchell's on-going projects and loss history as well as Respondent's planned projects. Zurich subsequently issued Policy No. WC 3617144-02 for the period October 1, 2001 through October 1, 2002. The policy designated Mitchell as the primary named insured and Wood-Hopkins Contracting Company, LLC, as one of the combinable entities and an additional named insured. The policy listed Palmer and Cay as the broker of record. The policy did not list Respondent as a named insured. Mr. Gilbert did not receive a copy of the policy until March 2002. However, Mr. Gilbert learned that Zurich had not added Respondent as a named insured to Mitchell's CCIP at least by February 2002. After learning that Zurich had not named Respondent as an insured, Mr. Gilbert continued to operate Respondent as if it had workers' compensation insurance. He was convinced that Respondent's assumption of Mitchell's business presented no additional risk exposure to Zurich. In fact, Mr. Gilbert had a history of spending sufficient funds on safety to reduce a company's loss ratio by half. Additionally, Respondent had suffered no workers' compensation losses. For these reasons, Mr. Gilbert hoped to persuade Zurich to add Respondent retrospectively as a named insured on Mitchell's CCIP policy. Towards the end of 2001 or the beginning of 2002, Zurich learned that Mitchell was going out of business or was no longer in business. Michael Esposito, Mitchell's account manager at Zurich, began to realize that something was wrong when Zurich received a premium payment for Mitchell's CCIP drawn on Respondent's bank account. At that time, Mitchell was behind in making deductible and premium payments to Zurich. Mitchell also was behind in paying Palmer and Cay its fees. On or about January 2, 2002, Mr. Gilbert signed one of Respondent's checks made payable to Palmer and Cay in the amount of $28,740.23. The check included a premium payment in the amount of $3,818.00 for October 2001 workers' compensation insurance. Mr. Gilbert wrote the check pursuant to a Palmer and Cay invoice addressed to The Mitchell Group. The record indicates that Respondent sent its check to Palmer and Cay's lockbox in Atlanta, Georgia, and that it was cashed. By letter dated February 7, 2002, Palmer and Cay advised Mitchell that it resigned as broker of record for The Mitchell Group. The most persuasive evidence indicates that Palmer and Cay resigned due to a dispute with Respondent over fees, not premium payments. By the end of February 2002, Mr. Esposito became aware that Mr. Gilbert wanted Zurich to continue Mitchell's CCIP with Respondent, a totally new company, listed as a named insured. Mr. Esposito then told Mr. Gilbert that Respondent would have to pay Mitchell's past-due premiums and provide Zurich with the necessary information to re-underwrite the policy, reflecting the change in ownership and operations. There is no persuasive evidence that Palmer and Cay or Mr. Gilbert ever provided Zurich with this information. Despite its resignation as broker of record for Mitchell's CCIP, Palmer and Cay agreed to continue servicing the policies until Zurich advised otherwise. For example, on or about February 22, 2002, Mr. Gilbert asked Palmer and Cay to add Respondent as a named insured, along with Wood-Hopkins Contracting Company, LLC, to Mitchell's railroad protection policies. Palmer and Cay referred this request to Zurich. Effective February 26, 2002, Zurich issued a Notice of Cancellation for Mitchell's Policy No. WC 3617144-02. The notice indicates that the policy was cancelled due to nonpayment of premium. About that time, Mr. Gilbert began trying to find a replacement for Palmer and Cay as broker of record. Willis of Florida, an affiliate of Willis of North America, Inc. (Willis), is an insurance broker with offices located in Tampa, Florida. Robert Allen is an insurance agent associated with Willis of Florida. Mr. Allen and Mr. Gilbert had a social and business relationship for many years prior to the time frame at issue here. Toward the end of February 2002, Mr. Allen and Mr. Gilbert had a telephone conference with Mr. Esposito. During that conversation, Mr. Allen indicated that his company was not interested in becoming the broker of record for Mitchell. However, Mr. Allen agreed that, in order to assist Zurich, Willis would issue Certificates of Liability Insurance for Respondent. At that time, Mr. Allen was under the impression that Respondent was a named insured under the Mitchell CCIP. As authorized by Zurich, Palmer and Cay issued three Certificates of Liability Insurance to the Florida Department of Transportation on March 4, 2002. The certificates indicate that Zurich provided commercial general liability and railroad protection insurance for CSX Transportation, Inc., Norfolk Southern Corporation, and Florida East Coast Railway as the named insureds. The certificates state that Wood-Hopkins Contracting Company, LLC, and Respondent were the contractors. Palmer and Cay issued these certificates for the Beaver Street viaduct bridge replacement in Jacksonville, Florida, a project begun by Wood-Hopkins Contracting Company, LLC, during the time that Palmer and Cay was acting as Mitchell's broker of record. On or about March 6, 2002, Mr. Gilbert signed one of Respondent's checks made payable directly to Zurich in the amount of $24,848.00. The check included premium payments in the amount of $3,818.00 for Policy No. WC 3617144-02 for the months of February and March 2002. The record indicates that this check was sent to Zurich's lockbox in Chicago, Illinois, and that it was cashed. On or about March 7, 2002, Zurich reinstated Policy No. WC 3617144-02 without lapse of coverage. The Notice of Reinstatement indicates that Mitchell was the named insured and that Palmer and Cay was the broker of record. On or about March 20, 2002, Zurich sent Mitchell a Notice of Cancellation. The notice states that Mitchell's Policy No. WC 3617144-02 would be cancelled effective June 8, 2002, due to a material change in exposures. Mr. Gilbert did not receive a copy of this cancellation notice. Mr. Gilbert and Mr. Allen did not learn about the cancellation until November 2002. On or about April 17, 2002, Mr. Gilbert signed one of Respondent's checks made payable directly to Zurich in the amount of $12,424.00. The check included a premium payment in the amount of $3,818.00 for Policy No. WC 3617144-02 for the month of April 2002. The record indicates that this check was sent to Zurich's Illinois lockbox and cashed. On April 25, 2002, Willis issued a Certificate of Liability Insurance to American Home Assurance with Respondent as the named insured. The certificate indicates that Zurich provided commercial general liability, automobile liability, and workers' compensation insurance for Respondent on the Beaver Street viaduct bridge replacement project with American Home Assurance and the Florida Department of Transportation as additional named insureds with respect to the general liability coverage. Mr. Allen signed this certificate. On May 6, 2002, Willis issued a Certificate of Liability Insurance to the University of Georgia Athletic Association with Respondent as the named insured. The certificate indicates that Zurich provided commercial general liability, automobile liability, and workers' compensation insurance for Respondent on an academic achievement center project. Mr. Allen signed this certificate. On or about June 13, 2002, Mr. Gilbert signed one of Respondent's checks made payable directly to Zurich in the amount of $12,424.00. The check included a premium payment in the amount of $3,818.00 for Policy No. WC 3617144-02 for the month of May 2002. The record indicates that this check was sent to Zurich's Illinois lockbox and cashed. On July 18, 2002, Willis issued a Certificate of Liability Insurance to Crowley Maritime Corporation with Respondent as the named insured. The certificate indicates that Zurich provided general liability, automobile liability, and workers' compensation insurance to Respondent for a barge loading ramp concrete removal and replacement in Jacksonville, Florida, and that Crowley Maritime Corporation was an additional named insured with respect to general liability coverage. Mr. Allen did not know the policy was cancelled when he signed this certificate. On August 12, 2002, Willis issued a Certificate of Liability Insurance to Martin K. Eby Construction Company with Respondent as the named insured. The certificate indicates that Zurich provided general liability, automobile liability, and workers' compensation insurance for Respondent on the Wonderwood Expressway channel excavation with the Jacksonville Transit Authority and J. E. Sverdrup (Engineer) as additional named insureds as to general liability coverage. Mr. Allen did not know the policy was cancelled when he signed this certificate. On or about August 15, 2002, Mr. Gilbert signed one of Respondent's checks made payable directly to Zurich in the amount of $12,424.00. The check included a premium payment in the amount of $3,818.00 for Policy No. WC 3617144-02 for the month of June 2002. The record indicates that this check was sent to Zurich's Illinois lockbox and cashed. On or about October 1, 2002, Mr. Gilbert signed one of Respondent's checks made payable directly to Zurich in the amount of $12,424.00. The check included a premium payment in the amount of $3,818.00 for Policy No. WC 3617144-02 for the month of September 2002. The record indicates that this check was sent to Zurich's lockbox in Illinois and cashed. In November 2002, Petitioner issued a Stop Work and Penalty Assessment Order for failing to secure workers' compensation insurance. In November and December 2002, Mr. Gilbert and Mr. Allen attempted to persuade Seth Hausman, Zurich's regional manager, to provide retroactive coverage for Respondent under the Mitchell workers' compensation policy, to reinstate the coverage, and to let the policy continue until it lapsed at expiration. Mr. Hausman concluded that Zurich could not assume the exposure without an underwriting evaluation. Mr. Hausman told Mr. Gilbert what information he had to provide in order for Zurich to conduct such an evaluation. In January 2003, Mr. Hausman advised Mr. Gilbert that Zurich had been unable to collect on a surety bond and that Mitchell owed Zurich approximately $750,000.00 in uncollected deductible payments. Mr. Hausman stated that in order to amend the workers' compensation policy to include Respondent as a named insured and to rescind the cancellation retroactively to allow the policy to run full term, Zurich would have to be paid for all outstanding balances. In that event, Zurich was willing to talk about extending workers' compensation coverage to Respondent as requested. When Petitioner issued the Stop Work and Penalty Assessment Order in November 2002, Respondent had about 20 employees. For the period October 1, 2001 through December 31, 2001, Respondent had the following amounts of payroll by class code: Class Code Payroll 5213 $126,739.96 5606 $170,615.31 5610 $5,391.51 6003 $5,777.00 6217 $62,691.54 7335 $73,434.08 8227 $135,572.71 8810 $27,503.88 41. For the period October 1, 2001 through December 31, 2001, the workers' compensation premium rates per $100.00 of payroll for each relevant Class Code class code were as follows: Premium Rates 5213 $33.02 5606 $4.76 5610 $18.08 6003 $62.53 6217 $14.27 7335 $25.97 8227 $9.80 8810 $0.59 For the period October 1, 2001 through December 31, 2001, the premium Respondent would have paid for workers' compensation coverage Class Code by class codes was as follows: Premium 5213 $41,849.53 5606 $8,121.29 5610 $974.79 6003 $3,612.36 6217 $8,946.08 7335 $19,070.83 8227 $13,286.13 8810 $162.27 For the period January 1, 2002 through November 5, 2002, Respondent had the following amounts of payroll by class code: Class Code Payroll 5213 $360,825.22 5403 $7,969.23 5606 $355,253.16 5610 $93,981.09 6003 $17,977.19 6217 $237,889.32 7335 $212,654.00 8227 $261,091.70 8810 $162,068.41 For the period January 1, 2002 through November 5, 2002, the workers' compensation premium rates per $100.00 of payroll for each relevant Class Code class code were as follows: Premium Rates 5213 $32.31 5403 $30.39 5606 $4.91 5610 $17.91 6003 $57.57 6217 $13.52 7335 $29.60 8227 $10.80 8810 $0.65 For the period January 1, 2002 through November 5, 2002, the premium Respondent would have paid for workers' compensation coverage by class codes was as follows: Class Code Premium 5213 $116,582.63 5403 $2,421.85 5606 $17,442.93 5610 $16,832.01 6003 $10,349.46 6217 $32,162.64 7335 $62,945.58 8227 $28,197.90 8810 $1,053.44 Respondent was out of compliance with the workers' compensation law for 398 calendar days between October 1, 2001 and November 5, 2002. Petitioner properly assessed penalty of $100.00 per day, totaling $39,800.00. Respondent would have paid a premium of $384,011.72 to secure workers' compensation insurance for its employees and owes a $39,800.00 penalty for the days it operated without coverage during the period October 1, 2001 through November 5, 2002. Accordingly, Respondent owes a total penalty in the amount of $423,811.72.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order affirming the Amended Stop Work Penalty Assessment Order and directing Respondent to pay a penalty in the amount of $423,811.72. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of November, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of November, 2003.
The Issue The issues in this case are: (1) whether Respondent, PFR Services Corp., failed to secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage for its employees in violation of chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2017)2/; and (2) if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement that employers in the State of Florida secure the payment of workers' compensation insurance covering their employees, pursuant to chapter 440. Respondent is a Florida corporation. At all times relevant to this proceeding, its business address was 8040 Northwest 95th Street, Hialeah, Florida. The evidence establishes that Respondent was actively engaged in business during the two-year audit period, from October 17, 2015, through October 16, 2017, pertinent to this proceeding.3/ The Compliance Investigation On October 16, 2017, Petitioner's compliance investigator, Cesar Tolentino, conducted a workers' compensation compliance investigation at a business located at 8040 Northwest 95th Street, Hialeah, Florida. The business was being operated as a restaurant, to which National Council on Compensation Insurance ("NCCI") class code 9082 applies. Tolentino observed Maria Morales, Gabriela Nava, and Geraldine Rodriquez performing waitressing job duties and Rafael Briceno performing chef job duties. The evidence established that these four persons were employed by Respondent. Additionally, the evidence established that corporate officers Rosanna Gutierrez and Mary Pineda were employed by Respondent.4/ The evidence established that neither had elected to be exempt from the workers' compensation coverage requirement. In sum, the evidence established that Respondent employed six employees, none of whom were independent contractors, and none of whom were exempt from the workers' compensation coverage requirement. Tolentino conducted a search of Petitioner's Coverage and Compensation Compliance Automated System, which consists of a database of workers' compensation insurance coverage policies issued for businesses in Florida, and all elections of exemptions filed by corporate officers of businesses in Florida. Tolentino's search revealed that Respondent had never purchased workers' compensation coverage for its employees; that its corporate officers had not elected to be exempt from the workers' compensation coverage requirement; and that Respondent did not lease employees from an employee leasing company. Gutierrez acknowledged that Respondent had not purchased workers' compensation coverage for its employees, and told Tolentino that she did not know it was required. Based on Tolentino's investigation, on October 16, 2017, Petitioner served Stop-Work Order No. 17-384 ("Stop-Work Order") on Respondent. At the time Tolentino served the Stop-Work Order, he informed Gutierrez that if Respondent obtained a workers' compensation policy and provided Petitioner a receipt of the amount paid to activate the policy within 28 days of issuance of the Stop-Work Order, Respondent's penalty would be reduced by the amount paid to activate the policy. On October 16, 2017, Petitioner, through Tolentino, also served on Respondent a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation ("Business Records Request"), requesting Respondent provide several categories of business records covering the two-year audit period from October 16, 2015, to October 16, 2017. Specifically, Petitioner requested that Respondent provide its payroll documents consisting of time sheets, time cards, attendance records, earnings records, check stubs, check images, and payroll summaries, as applicable. Petitioner also requested that Respondent provide, as applicable, its federal income tax documents; account documents, including business check journals and statements and cleared checks for all open or closed business accounts; cash and check disbursements records; workers' compensation coverage records; and independent contractor records. At the time Tolentino served the Business Records Request, he informed Gutierrez that if Respondent obtained a workers' compensation policy and provided Petitioner the complete business records requested within ten business days, Respondent's penalty would be reduced by 25 percent. The evidence establishes that Respondent did not provide any business records within that time period, so is not entitled to receive that penalty reduction. On November 16, 2017, Petitioner issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, assessing a total penalty of $35,262.32 against Respondent for having failed to secure workers' compensation coverage for its employees during the audit period. On December 14, 2017, Gutierrez met with Tolentino and, at that time, provided documentation to Petitioner showing that Respondent had acquired workers' compensation coverage for its employees, effective October 28, 2017, and had paid $3,966.00 for the policy. At the December 14, 2017, meeting, Gutierrez presented an envelope postmarked October 30, 2017, showing that Respondent had mailed Petitioner proof of having obtained the workers' compensation coverage within 28 days of the date the Stop-Work Order was issued; however, this mail was returned, so Petitioner did not receive such proof within 28 days. The evidence established that this mail was returned to Respondent on December 4, 2017——several days after the 28-day period had expired, and too late for Respondent to take additional steps to deliver to Petitioner the proof of its having purchased the workers' compensation policy.5/ Because Petitioner did not receive Respondent's proof of having purchased a workers' compensation policy within 28 days of issuance of the Stop-Work Order, it did not reduce the penalty imposed on Respondent by the amount that Respondent had paid for the premium. The evidence also establishes that at the December 14, 2017, meeting, Respondent tendered to Petitioner a cashier's check in the amount of $1,000.00. As a result of having received proof of workers' compensation coverage for Respondent's employees, Petitioner issued an Agreed Order of Conditional Release from Stop-Work Order ("Order of Conditional Release") on December 14, 2017, releasing Respondent from the Stop-Work Order. The Order of Conditional Release expressly recognized that Respondent "paid $1,000.00 as a down payment for a penalty calculated pursuant to F.S. 440.107(7)(d)1." Additionally, page 1 of 3 of the Penalty Calculation Worksheet attached to the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment admitted into evidence at the final hearing reflects that Respondent paid $1,000.00 toward the assessed penalty of $35,262.32. This document shows $34,262.32 as the "Balance Due." Calculation of Penalty to be Assessed Petitioner penalizes employers based on the amount of workers' compensation insurance premiums the employer has avoided paying. The amount of the evaded premium is determined by reviewing the employer's business records. In the Business Records Request served on October 16, 2017, Petitioner specifically requested that Respondent provide its payroll documents, federal income tax documents, disbursements records, workers' compensation coverage records, and other specified documents. When Gutierrez met with Tolentino on December 14, 2017, she provided some, but not all, of the business records that Petitioner had requested. Respondent subsequently provided additional business records to Petitioner, on the eve of the final hearing. Petitioner reviewed all of the business records that Respondent provided. However, these business records were incomplete because they did not include check images, as specifically required to be maintained and provided to Petitioner pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.015(6). Check images are required under Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.015(6) because such images reveal the payees, which can help Petitioner identify the employees on the employer's payroll at any given time. This information is vital to determining whether the employer complied with the requirement to have workers' compensation coverage for all of its employees. Because Respondent did not provide the required check images, the records were insufficient to enable Petitioner to calculate Respondent's payroll for the audit period. Under section 440.107(7)(e), business records provided by the employer are insufficient to enable Petitioner to calculate the employer's payroll for the period for which the records are requested, Petitioner is authorized to impute the weekly payroll for each employee as constituting the statewide average weekly wage multiplied by 1.5. To calculate the amount of the penalty due using the imputed method, Petitioner imputes the gross payroll for each employee for each period during which that employee was not covered by required workers' compensation insurance. To facilitate calculation, Petitioner divides the gross payroll amount for each employee for the specific non-compliance period by 100.6/ Petitioner then multiplies this amount by the approved NCCI Scopes Manual rate——here, 2.34, which applies to restaurants——to determine the amount of the avoided premium for each employee for each non-compliance period. This premium amount is then multiplied by two to determine the penalty amount to be assessed for each employee not covered by required workers' compensation insurance for each specific period of non- compliance. Performing these calculations, Petitioner determined that a penalty in the amount of $35,262.32 should be assessed against Respondent for failing to provide workers' compensation insurance for its employees, as required by chapter 440, for the period from October 17, 2015, through October 16, 2017. As discussed above, on December 14, 2017, Respondent paid a down payment of $1,000.00 toward the penalty, and this was expressly recognized in the Stop-Work Order that was issued that same day. Thus, the amount of the penalty to be assessed against Respondent should be reduced by $1,000.00, to $34,262.32. As previously noted, this amount is identified on page 1 of 3 of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment as the "Balance Due." As discussed in paragraphs 17 and 18, above, the evidence establishes that Respondent purchased a workers' compensation policy to cover its employees within 11 days of issuance of the Stop-Work Order, and mailed to Petitioner proof of having purchased such policy on October 30, 2017——well within the 28-day period for providing such proof. However, as discussed above, this mail was returned to Respondent on December 4, 2017——too late for Respondent to take additional steps to provide such proof to Petitioner within the 28-day period. There is no evidence in the record showing that failure of the mailed proof to be received by Petitioner was due to any fault on Respondent's part. Respondent's Defenses On behalf of Respondent, Gutierrez testified that Respondent did everything that Tolentino had told them to do. Respondent purchased workers' compensation insurance and provided proof to Petitioner that its employees were covered.7/ Gutierrez also testified that although Respondent's business was created in May 2013, it did not begin operating and, therefore, did not have any employees, until January 2016.8/ However, as previously noted, the persuasive evidence does not support this assertion.
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 PFR Services Corp. violated the requirement in chapter 440, Florida Statutes, to secure workers' compensation coverage for its employees during the audit period, and imposing a penalty of $30,296.32. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of January, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS 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 14th day of January, 2019.
