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 Respondent, Craftmaster Plastering and Stucco, Inc., failed to comply with the coverage requirements of the Workers’ Compensation Law, chapter 440, Florida Statutes; and, if so, what penalty should be assessed pursuant to section 440.107, Florida Statutes (2016).
Findings Of Fact 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. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. (2017). Respondent is a Florida for-profit corporation organized on or about January 1, 2015, which was engaged in the construction industry in Florida at all times relevant hereto. According to the record evidence, Respondent was administratively dissolved on September 23, 2016. No evidence of reinstatement was introduced. According to the Secretary of State’s database, Rasheem Kincey is Respondent’s President, Mecca Kincey is its Vice President, and Ulysses Kincey is its Treasurer. On January 23, 2017, Ms. Loy received a telephone call from Department Compliance Investigator, Carl Woodall, who was onsite at a restaurant undergoing renovations at the intersection of U.S. Highway 98 and Kraft Avenue in Panama City, Florida (the worksite). Mr. Woodall reported his findings to Ms. Loy from a random workers’ compensation compliance check he had completed at the worksite. Based upon Mr. Woodall’s verbal report, Ms. Loy instructed Mr. Woodall to issue the subject Order. According to Ms. Loy, Mr. Woodall observed several workers at the worksite, interviewed them, and recorded notes on a field interview worksheet. Ms. Loy had no personal knowledge of any of the workers at the worksite, did not observe the activities of anyone at the worksite, and did not interview anyone at the worksite. Mr. Woodall did not testify at the final hearing. The Department did not introduce Mr. Woodall’s field interview worksheet into evidence. Ms. Loy reviewed the Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS), which is maintained by the Department, and confirmed Respondent did not have a valid workers’ compensation insurance policy. Mr. Hatten was assigned to calculate the penalty to be imposed for Respondent’s alleged failure to secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage for its employees. From Mr. Woodall’s field interview worksheet, Mr. Hatten retrieved the names Rasheem Kincey, Mecca Kincey, Ulysees Kincey, Brandon White, Mark Kim Wilson, Jerome Bradley, and Brandon Samuel Kincey Smith, and entered those names on his penalty calculation worksheet as Respondent’s uninsured employees for the penalty audit period. In this case, the penalty audit period included the two years immediately preceding the date on which the Order was issued: January 23, 2015 through January 23, 2017. Respondent did not comply with Petitioner’s BRR; therefore, the Department did not have sufficient records to establish Respondent’s payroll during the penalty audit period. Mr. Hatten reviewed CCAS and confirmed that Mecca Kincey, Ulysses Kincey, and Rasheem Kincey had valid workers’ compensation exemptions effective from February 3, 4, and 5, 2015, respectively, through February 2, 3, and 4, 2017, respectively. Respondent’s officers did not have exemptions from workers’ compensation insurance requirements during the audit period between January 26, 2015, and February 2, 3, and 4, 2017, respectively. Mr. Hatten entered these timeframes on the penalty calculation worksheet as periods of non-compliance for the three corporate officers. Mr. Hatten further found Respondent had a workers’ compensation insurance policy effective February through July 2015. Mr. Hatten used this information to establish periods of non-compliance during the audit period. Based upon Mr. Woodall’s notes that he observed workers engaged in stucco application and repair at the worksite, Mr. Hatten assigned the classification code 5022, Masonry, for purposes of calculating the penalty. The classification code was derived from the Scopes Manual published by the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) and adopted by the Department by Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.021. Mr. Hatten next applied the workers’ compensation insurance rates approved by the Department for workers’ compensation coverage by classification code to each worker during each period of non-compliance. Finally, because Respondent did not submit business records sufficient to establish its payroll during the audit period, Mr. Hatten assigned the statewide average weekly wage in order to calculate Respondent’s payroll to each “employee” and its corporate officers for the periods of non-compliance. Utilizing this imputed methodology, Mr. Hatten calculated a total penalty of $94,544.92 to be imposed on Respondent for failure to secure workers’ compensation insurance for its employees during the periods of non-compliance. The Department served Respondent with an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on February 23, 2017, imposing the penalty of $94,544.92. Mr. Kincey testified on Respondent’s behalf. Mr. Kincey admitted that he, Ulysses Kincey, and Mecca Kincey were performing stucco work at the worksite on January 23, 2017. Mr. Kincey denied that any of the other individuals, purportedly identified at the worksite by Mr. Woodall, were his employees. As to the individuals named in the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, Mr. Kincey testified that Jerome Bradley was a cook at the restaurant; Mark Kim Wilson was painting at the worksite, and Mr. Kincey assumed Mr. Wilson was hired by the restaurant owner, Jerry Steele; Brandon Samuel Kincey Smith was Mr. Kincey’s cousin, and he had no idea who had hired Mr. Kincey Smith or what he was doing at the worksite; and that he had never heard of Brandon White and could not identify Mr. White. The Department offered no non-hearsay evidence to rebut Mr. Kincey’s testimony. The record evidence is sufficient to support a finding that Rasheem Kincey, Mecca Kincey, and Ulysees Kincey were performing stucco work at the worksite on January 23, 2017, and were not covered by either workers’ compensation insurance or a valid exemption therefrom, for the periods of non-compliance identified in the penalty calculation worksheet. Mr. Hatton correctly applied the imputed methodology and correctly calculated a penalty of $1,259.64, for Respondent’s failure to obtain workers’ compensation coverage for the three corporate officers. The evidence is insufficient to support the remaining imputed penalty calculation applied to Respondent.
Recommendation Having considered 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 finding that Respondent, Craftmaster Plastering and Stucco, Inc., failed to secure and maintain required workers’ compensation insurance for its employees, and impose a penalty of $1,259.64. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of November, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of November, 2017. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Joseph Gordon, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 (eServed) Rasheem Kincey Craftmaster Plastering and Stucco, Inc. 129 Nann Street Enterprise, Alabama 36330 Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2013)1/, by failing to obtain workers? compensation insurance coverage, as alleged in the Stop-Work Order and Amended Order of Penalty Assessment; and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement that employers secure the payment of workers? compensation insurance coverage, pursuant to chapter 440, Florida Statutes, for their employees. Respondent is a Florida-limited liability company engaged in business operations for the time period of March 16, 2010, through March 15, 2013. Mark Markisen is the managing member of Respondent listed with the State of Florida, Division of Corporations. On March 15, 2013, Jack Gumph, an investigator with the Department, conducted a random on-site compliance inspection of a construction site for a single family residence. Gumph determined that the general contractor for the job was Gulf Shore Homes and that it had subcontracted with Tradewinds Design for certain work inside the home. As Gumph interviewed the different workers present on the worksite, he spoke with Mark and Brett Markisen, who informed him that they worked for Tradewinds Design. Gumph observed Brett Markisen installing a wine cabinet in the home. Gumph confirmed through the Department?s online records that Gulf Shores Homes and Tradewinds Design had current workers? compensation insurance coverage on March 15, 2013. Based on this initial information, Gumph left the worksite. On March 19, 2013, Gumph subsequently learned from a conversation with Mark Markisen that Mark and Brett Markisen were not employees of Tradewinds Design. Rather, Tradewinds had subcontracted with Respondent, Cabinetry by Design of Collier County, L.L.C., to build and install the wine cabinets. Mark Markisen stated that he was the managing member of Cabinetry by Design of Collier County, L.L.C., and that he had selected to be exempt from workers? compensation insurance coverage. Gumph confirmed that Mark Markisen had selected to be exempt from workers? compensation insurance coverage. However, because Respondent did not have worker?s compensation coverage for Brett Markisen, the Department issued a Stop-Work Order on March 19, 2013, and Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation on April 8, 2013. Mark Markisen possessed an exemption from the workers? compensation insurance coverage requirement during the penalty period of March 16, 2010, through March 15, 2013. Brett Markisen did not possess an exemption from the workers? compensation insurance coverage requirement during the penalty period. Brett Markisen was employed by Respondent throughout the penalty period. During the penalty period, Brett Markisen received approximately $187,000.00 from Respondent. The amount of this money attributed to wages is unclear, based on the fact that Mark Markisen indicated that some of the payments reflected loans, not wages. Respondent was an “employer” as defined in chapter 440, Florida Statutes, throughout the penalty period. On March 15, 2013, Brett Markisen was Respondent?s “employee” working on the installation of cabinets in the single family residence.2/ On March 15, 2013, Respondent failed to provide workers? compensation insurance coverage for Brett Markisen. Respondent also failed to provide coverage during the penalty period of March 16, 2010, through March 15, 2013. Therefore, the Department properly entered a Stop-Work Order on March 19, 2013. Respondent failed to provide sufficient business records in order to establish a payroll. Therefore, the Department correctly imputed payroll against Respondent. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment used the proper class code for the calculation of the penalty, concerning the installation of cabinets, and correctly followed the procedure set out in section 440.107(7)(d)1, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.028.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order upholding the Stop-Work Order and Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, assessing a penalty against Respondent in the amount of $21,436.61. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S THOMAS P. CRAPPS 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 30th day of December, 2013.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2014),1/ by failing to secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage as alleged in the Stop-work Order and 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and if so, the amount of the penalty that should be assessed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement in chapter 440 that employers in the state of Florida secure the payment of workers' compensation insurance covering their employees. Respondent, Bargain Bob's Carpets, Inc., is a corporation registered to do business in Florida. Its principal business address is 3954 Byron Drive, Riviera Beach, Florida. The Compliance Investigation As the result of an anonymous referral, Petitioner's compliance investigator, Peter Sileo, investigated Respondent to determine whether it had secured workers' compensation coverage for its employees as required by chapter 440. Before Sileo visited Respondent's business location, he checked the State of Florida Coverage and Compliance Automated System ("CCAS") computer database, which contains information regarding workers' compensation insurance policies that have been obtained by employers. The CCAS database showed no record of any workers' compensation policies covering Respondent's employees having been issued. On Sileo's first visit to Respondent's business location, he observed a man loading carpeting into a van. Upon being questioned, the man identified himself as Gary Persad. He told Sileo that he was a carpet installation subcontractor for Respondent. Sileo checked CCAS and determined that Persad was covered by workers' compensation insurance. On January 23, 2015, Sileo again visited Respondent's business location, which is a warehouse housing large rolls of carpeting and other flooring materials. There, Sileo met John Charles, an owner and corporate officer of Respondent. Charles claimed that he did not know that Respondent was required to have workers' compensation coverage for its employees. Charles told Sileo that Respondent sold flooring but did not install it and that all installation was performed by subcontractors. At the time of the inspection, Sileo determined that Respondent employed five employees: Charles and Calideen, each of whom own more than ten percent of Respondent's business; Alex Stark; Peter Phelps; and Anthony Frenchak. Sileo served a Stop-work Order, ordering Respondent to cease all business operations in the state pending demonstrating compliance with the workers' compensation coverage requirement. Sileo also served a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation. Respondent subsequently demonstrated compliance with the workers' compensation coverage requirement, and Petitioner lifted the Stop-work Order.2/ Respondent also produced business records consisting of spreadsheets showing quarterly payroll, transaction listings, affidavits, insurance coverage documents, and other records. The Penalty Assessment Eric Ruzzo, a penalty auditor with Petitioner, used these records to calculate the penalty to be assessed against Respondent. The $31,061.68 penalty is reflected in the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, issued April 23, 2015, that is the subject of this proceeding. To calculate the applicable penalty, Petitioner determines the employer's gross payroll for the two-year period preceding the noncompliance determination——the so-called "penalty period"——from a review of the employer's business records. For days during the penalty period for which records are not provided, Petitioner imputes the gross payroll based on the average weekly wage for the state of Florida. Here, the penalty period commenced on January 24, 2013, and ended on January 23, 2015, the day on which the compliance inspection was conducted, and Respondent was determined to not be in compliance with the workers' compensation coverage requirement. Initially, Respondent produced payroll records that did not identify the subcontractors Respondent hired to install the carpeting. Ruzzo identified the subcontractors using Respondent's transaction records. Respondent subsequently provided information, including affidavits and certificates of exemption regarding the subcontractors it had hired during the penalty period. At all times during the penalty period, Respondent employed four or more non-construction employees, including Charles and Calideen.3/ Based on the business records produced, Ruzzo compiled a list of the persons, including the subcontractors and non-construction employees who were on Respondent's payroll, but not covered by workers' compensation insurance during the penalty period. This list of employees and the penalty computation for each is set forth on the Penalty Calculation Worksheet attached to the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. Using the National Council on Compensation Insurance ("NCCI") workers' compensation insurance occupation class codes set forth in the NCCI Scopes Manual, Ruzzo determined the occupation class code applicable to each employee listed on the Penalty Calculation Worksheet. Respondent's subcontractors were classified in NCCI class code 5478, which is the class code for the flooring installation industry. This is consistent with Florida's construction industry class code rule, Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.021(2)(kk), which identifies the installation of carpet and other floor covering as NCCI class code 5478. Alex Stark, Amber Krembs, Jacquelyn Skwarek, and Monica Stahl were classified in NCCI class code 8018, which applies to workers engaged in selling merchandise, including carpeting and linoleum, at the wholesale level. Calideen, Frenchak, and Phelps were classified in NCCI class code 8742, which applies to outside salespersons primarily engaged in sales off of the employer's premises. Charles was classified in NCCI class code 8810, which applies to clerical office employees. Ruzzo then determined the period of Respondent's noncompliance for each employee listed on the Penalty Calculation Worksheet. For each of these employees, Ruzzo determined the gross payroll paid to that employee for the period during which Respondent was noncompliant, divided the employee's gross payroll by 100 pursuant to Petitioner's calculation methodology, then multiplied that amount by the numeric rate set by NCCI for that employee's specific occupation class code. This calculation yielded the workers' compensation coverage premium for that specific employee for which Respondent was noncompliant during the penalty period. The premium amount then was multiplied by two, as required by statute, to yield the penalty to be imposed for failure to provide workers' compensation coverage for that specific employee. Respondent did not provide records covering Charles, Calideen, Stark, Frenchak, or Phelps for the period between January 1, 2015, and January 23, 2015. For this period, Ruzzo imputed the gross payroll for each of these employees using the statewide average weekly wage as defined in section 440.12(2),4/ multiplied by two. Ruzzo then performed the same computations discussed above to determine the penalty amount to be imposed for Respondent's failure to provide workers' compensation for those employees during this time period. Ruzzo added the penalty determined for each employee using actual gross payroll and imputed payroll, as applicable, to arrive at the total penalty assessment amount of $31,061.68. Respondent's Defense Respondent is engaged in the retail sale of various types of flooring, such as carpeting, and hires subcontractors to install the flooring. The evidence did not establish that Respondent engaged in wholesale sales of flooring. Charles testified that Respondent had attempted to operate its business as a "cash and carry" operation in which Respondent would sell the flooring to retail customers, who would take the purchased flooring from Respondent's premises and would be solely responsible for securing their own installation services. In Charles' words, "[t]hat didn't work. The public demanded that we provide them, as part of the sale, installers—— I might be saying it wrong legally, but they demanded that it all be done in one shot." Thus, Respondent began hiring subcontractors to do the installation work. Charles explained that Respondent makes retail sales of flooring to customers, either on Respondent's premises or at the customer's premises through its outside sales people. The flooring is then cut from the roll on Respondent's premises and placed in the installer's vehicle. The installer transports the purchased flooring to, and installs it at, the customer's premises. Charles estimated that Respondent currently does approximately five percent of its business as "cash and carry" sales, and the remaining 95 percent consists of sales requiring installation. Charles testified that he and Calideen, as corporate officers of Respondent, previously had obtained exemptions from the workers' compensation coverage requirements for themselves; however, they were unaware that the exemptions had to be renewed, so their exemptions had expired. As of the date of the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, neither Charles nor Calideen possessed valid certificates of exemption from the workers' compensation coverage requirement. Charles testified that Respondent always had tried to operate in compliance with the law. He was of the view that because he and Calideen were exempt from the worker's compensation coverage requirement, Respondent effectively employed only three employees——one fewer than the workers' compensation coverage requirement threshold of four employees applicable to non-construction industry businesses. Charles and Calideen testified that when Respondent initially hired subcontractors, they required copies of their insurance policies, including proof of workers' compensation coverage or exemption therefrom. Calideen testified that thereafter, he and Charles assumed that the subcontractors were in compliance with the workers' compensation laws, and they did not know that they needed to obtain updated certificates of workers' compensation exemption or coverage from the subcontractors. On that basis, Charles asserted that Respondent should not be required to "babysit" its subcontractors to ensure that they are in compliance with the workers' compensation law. Respondent thus asserts that it should not be responsible for securing workers' compensation coverage for subcontractors whose workers' compensation policies or exemptions had expired during the penalty period. The undisputed evidence establishes that Charles' employment entails clerical work. Calideen testified, credibly, that Stark's employment duties entail selling flooring on Respondent's business premises, and that he does not engage in sales off the premises. Calideen testified, credibly, that Frenchak and Phelps primarily are engaged in outside sales off of Respondent's premises. Calideen testified, credibly, that he performs clerical duties rather than sales duties. Calideen and Charles both testified, credibly, that employees Krembs, Skwarek, and Stahl performed computer-related duties for Respondent, such as entering business information into Respondent's computer databases, and that they did not work on Respondent's business premises. Calideen testified, credibly, that subcontractor Mike Smith was hired on a one-time basis to paint parking place stripes at the newly-repaved parking lot behind Respondent's business premises. Findings of Ultimate Fact The credible, persuasive evidence establishes that Respondent is engaged in the retail sale of carpeting and other flooring materials and that Respondent itself does not install the flooring. The credible, persuasive evidence establishes, and the parties stipulated, that Respondent is not a member of the construction industry. The credible, persuasive evidence establishes that at all times during the penalty period, Respondent employed more than four employees who were engaged in non-construction employment. Accordingly, Respondent was required to secure workers' compensation coverage for its employees, including Charles and Calideen, whose previously-issued certificates of exemption had expired and were not in effect during the penalty period. The undisputed evidence establishes that at certain times during the penalty period, Respondent employed subcontractors who performed floor installation. The evidence clearly establishes that the subcontractors, in installing the flooring, perform a service that is integral to Respondent's business and that they work specifically at Respondent's direction for each particular installation job. Even though Respondent is not classified as a member of the construction industry, it nonetheless is a "statutory employer" of its subcontractors, who are members of the construction industry. Thus, Respondent is responsible for securing workers' compensation coverage for its subcontractors who failed to secure an exemption or coverage for themselves.5/ The credible, persuasive evidence establishes that Petitioner correctly calculated the penalty attributable to flooring installation subcontractors for which Respondent was noncompliant during the penalty period. However, the unrebutted evidence establishes that subcontractor Mike Smith was hired on a one-time basis to paint parking lot stripes in Respondent's parking lot. Thus, Petitioner's classification of Smith in NCCI class code 5478—— which is a construction industry code that applies to workers engaged in flooring installation——obviously is incorrect, and no evidence was presented showing the correct NCCI class code in which Smith should be classified. Accordingly, Smith should not be included in Petitioner's calculation of the penalty to be assessed against Respondent. The credible, persuasive evidence establishes that Petitioner correctly calculated the penalty attributable to Respondent's noncompliance with respect to Charles, Frenchak, and Phelps during the penalty period. The credible, persuasive evidence establishes that Stark is engaged in retail sales on Respondent's business premises. However, in calculating the penalty, Petitioner classified Stark in NCCI class code 8018, which applies to salespersons engaged in selling merchandise at the wholesale level, rather than at the retail level. Thus, Petitioner incorrectly classified Stark in NCCI class code 8018. There is no evidence in the record identifying the correct NCCI class code in which Stark should be classified. Accordingly, Stark should not be included in Petitioner's calculation of the penalty to be assessed against Respondent. The credible, persuasive evidence establishes that Calideen performs clerical employment duties and does not perform sales duties, so he should be classified in NCCI class code 8810, rather than in class code 8742. Accordingly, Petitioner should recalculate the portion of the penalty attributable to Respondent's noncompliance for Calideen using NCCI class code 8810. The credible, persuasive evidence establishes that Krembs, Skwarek, and Stahl are not employed as salespersons at the wholesale level. Thus, Petitioner incorrectly classified these employees in NCCI class code 8018. In its Proposed Recommended Order, Petitioner contends that because Respondent disputes the classification of these employees in class code 8018, Respondent is responsible for identifying the correct applicable class code, which it has not done. This position disregards that in this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proof, by clear and convincing evidence, to show that its proposed penalty assessment against Respondent is accurate. Thus, Petitioner——not Respondent——is responsible for correctly identifying the NCCI class codes applicable to Respondent's employees. Here, the credible, persuasive evidence establishes that in calculating the penalty, Petitioner incorrectly classified Krembs, Skwarek, and Stahl in class code 8018,6/ and no evidence was presented showing the correct NCCI class code applicable to these employees. Accordingly, Krembs, Skwarek, and Stahl should not be included in Petitioner's calculation of the penalty to be assessed against Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, issue a final order amending the penalty to be assessed against Respondent as follows: Subtracting the penalty assessed for subcontractor Mike Smith, as shown on the Penalty Calculation Worksheet; and Subtracting the penalties assessed for Respondent's alleged noncompliance with respect to employees Amber Krembs, Jacquelyn Skwarek, and Monica Stahl, as shown on the Penalty Calculation Worksheet; and Reclassifying employee Andy Calideen in NCCI class code 8810 and recalculating the portion of the penalty attributable to Respondent's noncompliance for Calideen using this class code; and Reclassifying employee Alexander Stark in NCCI class code 5784 and recalculating the portion of the penalty attributable to Respondent's noncompliance for Stark using this class code. DONE AND ENTERED this 22 day of January, 2016, 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 22 day of January, 2016.
The Issue Whether Respondent, John H. Woods, d/b/a Woods Construction, conducted operations in the State of Florida without obtaining workers’ compensation coverage which meets the requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2008)1, in violation of Subsection 440.107(2), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Amended Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment and Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. If so, what penalty should be assessed by Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, pursuant to Section 440.107, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of enforcing the requirement of Section 440.107, Florida Statutes, that employers in Florida secure the payment of workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Workers’ compensation coverage is required if a business entity is engaged in the construction industry in Florida. Securing the payment of workers’ compensation coverage can be achieved via three different methods: purchase a workers’ compensation insurance policy; ensure that workers are paid and workers’ compensation coverage is provided by a third party entity called a Professional Employment Organization (PEO); or apply for a Certificate of Exemption from Workers’ Compensation Coverage (Exemption Certificate) assuming certain statutorily mandated criteria are met. These methods are not mutually exclusive of each other. On August 14, 2008, a workers’ compensation compliance investigator employed by Petitioner, visited a construction site in Lee County, Florida. On the site, she observed several groups of men conducting various construction activities including the laying of a sidewalk along Lexington Street in Fort Myers. The work performed involved construction activities as contemplated under the applicable agency rule. Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.021. By a preponderance of evidence, it is determined that among the entities on the worksite was a group of three laborers who worked for Woods Construction. There was no proof of coverage for workers’ compensation for the Woods Construction Company, neither an insurance policy, nor any exemption certificate for the individuals encountered on the worksite. Woods Construction assumed that the three laborers were covered by Able Body Labor, a PEO. The evidence confirmed that two of the three laborers were covered. However, the third laborer, Filberto Castro, was unable to be included on the work roster due to his lack of corresponding documentation necessary for employment in the United States. Therefore, Castro was working without coverage. An SWO was issued and a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Calculation (BRR) was served on J. Woods Construction, Corp. [sic] on August 14, 2008. The SWO was later amended to conform to the correct name of the company, which is not a corporation. The amended SWO was served on John H. Woods on August 22, 2008, via certified mail. Pursuant to the BRR, Respondent provided business records to Petitioner. Petitioner’s Penalty Calculator’s duties are to receive records from the employer, and organize, identify, and audit those records which indicate payroll activities, while delineating other business activities, which may be related to the non-payroll activities of the business such as purchasing supplies, maintaining a place of business, etc. The characterization of the voluminous records received from Respondent were categorized into three distinct categories: reliable, somewhat reliable, and unreliable records. The records were characterized as “reliable” if they were records from an independent third party or the bank with whom Respondent conducted business, and were thus extremely difficult to alter without a high level of expertise. They are considered “source documentation.” The bank records capture the transactions as they occurred, to whom money was paid, and for what amount. The next category of records deemed “somewhat reliable” were those records which, on their face appear to be legitimate records, such as copies of the checks with corresponding amounts and dates to those in the “reliable” category. However, certain inconsistencies in these records demonstrated that they were less than reliable. These records were only used in select instances when there was corresponding source documentation supporting their veracity. A prime example, among many, is check number 1078 for $100.00 indicating a payment for a credit card; the corresponding checkstub indicates that the payment went to “Whitney,” a grand-child of John H. Woods. In toto, the documents illustrated that Respondent failed to follow generally accepted accounting principles by mislabeling or mischaracterizing funds on a regular basis. The third category of records were records which were considered “unreliable” as these records lacked any corresponding source documentation and they could not be considered in assessing the payroll activities of the firm. In the construction industry, there are instruments called “draw requests.” The draw request is an item that a subcontractor or builder will utilize to show partial completion of a project and concurrently request more funds (the draw) to complete the remaining portion of the project. The draw requests are often utilized at pre-measured stages of the project, e.g.: 25 percent completion, 50 percent completion, etc. The draw requests would have attached source documentation such as receipts from suppliers, servicers, and other miscellanea to show that the project is worked upon as opposed to the funds being siphoned off elsewhere. Nowhere, in the box full of records produced, was a proper draw request found with attached receipts. Therefore, none of the records produced could be considered as reliable documents. Many irregularities in Respondent’s methodology of accounting were also noted; as an example, there were numerous times that company checks from Respondent were deposited by an entity known as “Hendry Contracting,” without explanation. Respondent personally held the license as a General Contractor, and would utilize Hendry Contracting as a subcontractor. Hendry Contracting did not have any license whatsoever. It utilized Respondent’s license while performing construction activities. Brad Hendry, the principal of Hendry Contracting, is married to Janice Hendry, the daughter of John H. Woods, the owner of Respondent, Woods Construction. Janice Hendry administered Respondent’s company account and the company account of Hendry Contracting. The evidence is clear that no separation of duties was attempted. Furthermore, Hendry admitted that she did not exercise any sense of separation between the two different accounts (Woods Construction and/or Hendry Contracting). The two businesses were “commingled,” and the ability to retain any form of standard accounting requirement of checks and balances has been nullified. Numerous irregularities that defied “generally accepted accounting principles” appeared, including personal loans to family members, wholesale transfers of monies from Respondent to Hendry Contracting without explanation, and checks drafted to Brad Hendry (personally). Further, Woods testified that he exercised little or no control over his company in the last ten years. Hendry also confirmed the haphazard method of managing the two firms’ different accounts by writing checks from one firm to another, when the other firm’s account was running low. Hendry’s testimony regarding the financial cooperation of Respondent and Hendry Contracting is indicative of the commingling of accounts, as well. Hendry testified that each entity would draw on each other’s accounts depending on the cash levels within each respective account. Hendry also testified that Hendry Contracting was utilized for obtaining bank loans and utilizing Hendry’s name to purchase materials when the other accounts were depleted. By utilizing only the bank records, a general ledger for Respondent was constructed which derived the amounts that came into the business and the amounts paid out for labor. The fact that Respondent had no general ledger meant that some items would never be accounted for, such as building supply costs. Based on that caveat, Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L- 6.035(i) was applied to the total payroll derived from the bank records. This had the effect of reducing total payroll by twenty percent to account for building supplies (which were never accounted for due to the non-existent business ledger of Respondent). The amount of money flowing and commingling between the two firms (Respondent and Hendry Contracting) and among family members, numbered in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. The commingled money was utilized for all manners of payments: loans (not expected to be paid back) to family members, inflated wages to family members for de minimis services, or payment for services/goods for family members’ personal residences. A proposed penalty in the amount of $365,876.82 was originally assessed, as reflected in the AOPA, and served on Respondent on August 26, 2008. Based on further records produced and the understanding that Respondent was a construction firm but was unable to show any receipts of building supplies, the proposed penalty, utilizing Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L- 6.035(i), decreased the payroll by 20 percent to account for building supplies that were not documented. After consideration of the documents provided and application of the rule, a Second AOPA was prepared showing an assessment in the amount of $306,876.82. With Hendry as the sole financial officer of Respondent, approximately $351,632.43 of payroll was allocated to various family members. There was unambiguous testimony from Woods and Hendry that family members were employed in various roles, most notably the grand-daughters who were earning wages while conducting secretarial duties. A further $472,292.94 was paid to Hendry Contracting during the three-year audit time- period. Hendry Contracting never had any discernible workers’ compensation coverage for this amount of payroll, rendering Respondent liable for failure to secure workers’ compensation coverage for the monies paid. The remainder of the unsecured payroll assessed to Respondent was for various non-family workers for whom no proof of workers’ compensation coverage could be ascertained. The Second AOPA was computed by calculating Respondent’s payroll for the past three years using the business records Respondent provided. The payroll was then divided for each year by 100 and that figure was multiplied by an approved manual rate assigned to the classification codes (class codes) found in the National Council on Compensation Insurance’s Scope of Trade Manual (Scopes Manual). Class codes were assigned to the individuals listed on the penalty worksheet according to their historical duties. The grand-daughters and other female employees of Respondent were listed as clerical employees (classification code 8810), while the remaining names were listed as general carpentry workers (classification code 5645). Next, the product of the approved manual rate and the payroll for each year divided by 100 was then multiplied by 1.5, pursuant to statute, to derive the penalty for each year or part of a year. The penalties for each employee and year or part of a year were then added together to come up with a total penalty of $306,213.78. Based on the assessment of the financial records in conjunction with the documents admitted into evidence, the grand total of $306,213.78 is a true and correct penalty amount for Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Chief Financial Officer of the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, enter a final order: Finding that Respondent failed to secure the payment of workers’ compensation insurance coverage for its employees in violation of Subsections 440.10(1)(a) and 440.38(1), Florida Statutes; and Assessing a penalty against Respondent in the amount of $306,213.78, which is equal to 1.5 times the evaded premium based on the payroll records provided by Respondent and on the applicable approved manual rates and classification codes for the period extending from August 15, 2005, through August 14, 2008, as provided in Subsection 440.107(7), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of July, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of July, 2009.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether the Respondent, Marvin's Electric Service, Inc. ("Marvin's Electric"), failed to abide by the coverage requirements of the Workers' Compensation Law, chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2014), by not obtaining workers' compensation insurance for its employees, and, if so, whether the Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation ("Department"), properly assessed a penalty against the Respondent pursuant to section 440.107.
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, Fla. Stat. Marvin's Electric is a corporation based in Cantonment, Florida. The Division of Corporations' "Sunbiz" website indicates that Marvin's Electric was first incorporated on December 15, 2003, and remained an active corporation until September 23, 2011, when it was administratively dissolved for failure to file an Annual Report. The corporation continued to hold itself out as eligible to do business throughout the period relevant to this proceeding. Sunbiz records indicate that the corporation filed new articles of incorporation on April 9, 2015, and is currently an active corporation. The principal office of Marvin's Electric is at 2647 Stefani Road in Cantonment. Marvin's Electric is solely owned and operated by Marvin Mobley. It has no regular employees aside from Mr. Mobley. Marvin's Electric was actively engaged in performing electrical work during the two-year audit period from November 19, 2012, through November 18, 2014. Kali King is a Department compliance investigator assigned to Escambia County. Ms. King testified that her job includes driving around the county conducting random compliance investigations and investigating referrals made to her office by members of the public. On November 18, 2014, Ms. King drove to a residence off Pale Moon Drive in Pensacola to investigate a public referral made against a different business entity that happened to be working on the same single-family residence as Mr. Mobley. Ms. King testified that when she arrived at the residence, she saw Mr. Mobley and two other workers on the site before she ever spoke to the employees of the business she was there to investigate. Mr. Mobley and the two other men were digging a shallow trench from the home to a shed on the back of the property. The homeowner told Ms. King that Mr. Mobley was installing electricity in the shed. Ms. King approached the three men and identified herself. She asked who was in charge, who hired them, and whether they were working as a business. Mr. Mobley replied that he was in charge, he had been hired by the homeowner, and he was working in the name of his business, Marvin's Electric. Ms. King asked how he was providing workers' compensation insurance for his business. Mr. Mobley answered that he had an exemption for himself and that he did not have insurance for the other two workers because they were not employees of his business. One of the men was his foster child who was working for Mr. Mobley in exchange for room and board. The other man was returning a favor to Mr. Mobley, who had helped the man with some construction work on his property in Alabama. The other men confirmed Mr. Mobley's story when Ms. King separately interviewed them. Ms. King went inside the house to speak with the contractor she had been sent out to investigate, then she returned to her vehicle to perform computer research on Marvin's Electric. She consulted the Sunbiz website for information about the company and its officers. Her search confirmed that Marvin's Electric was an inactive Florida corporation, having been administratively dissolved for failure to file an Annual Report in 2011. Marvin Mobley was listed as its registered agent and as president of the corporation. No other corporate officers were listed. Ms. King also checked the Department's Coverage and Compliance Automated System ("CCAS") database to determine whether Marvin's Electric had secured the payment of workers' compensation insurance coverage or had obtained an exemption from the requirements of chapter 440. CCAS is a database that Department investigators routinely consult during their investigations to check for compliance, exemptions, and other workers' compensation related items. CCAS revealed that Marvin's Electric had no active workers' compensation insurance coverage for its employees and that no insurance had ever been reported to the state for Marvin's Electric. There was no evidence that Marvin's Electric used an employee leasing service. Mr. Mobley had, in the past, elected an exemption as an officer of the corporation pursuant to section 440.05 and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.012, but the exemption had expired as of the date of the investigation. Based on his jobsite interviews with the employees and Mr. Mobley, and her Sunbiz and CCAS computer searches, Ms. King concluded that as of November 18, 2014, Marvin's Electric had three employees working in the construction industry and that the company had failed to procure workers' compensation coverage for these employees in violation of chapter 440. Ms. King, consequently, issued a Stop-Work Order that she personally served on Mr. Mobley on November 18, 2014. Also on November 18, 2014, Ms. King served Marvin's Electric with a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation, asking for documents pertaining to the identification of the employer, the employer's payroll, business accounts, disbursements, workers' compensation insurance coverage records, professional employer organization records, temporary labor service records, documentation of exemptions, documents relating to subcontractors, documents of subcontractors' workers' compensation insurance coverage, and other business records to enable the Department to determine the appropriate penalty owed by Marvin's Electric. Ms. King testified that Mr. Mobley provided records in response to the Request for Production. The records were scanned into the Department's internal auditing system, and the file was placed into a queue to be assigned to a penalty calculator, who reviews the records and calculates the penalty imposed on the business. Ms. King could not recall the name of the person assigned to calculate the penalty in this case. Anita Proano, penalty audit supervisor for the Department, later performed her own calculation of the penalty as a check on the work of the penalty calculator. Ms. Proano testified as to the process of penalty calculation. Penalties for workers' compensation insurance violations are based on doubling the amount of evaded insurance premiums over the two-year period preceding the Stop-Work Order, which in this case was the period from November 19, 2012, through November 18, 2014. § 440.107(7)(d), Fla. Stat. Because Mr. Mobley had no payroll records for the two men who worked for him on November 18, 2014, the penalty calculator lacked sufficient business records to determine the company's actual gross payroll on that date. Section 440.107(7)(e) provides that where an employer fails to provide business records sufficient to enable the Department to determine the employer's actual payroll for the penalty period, the Department will impute the weekly payroll at the statewide average weekly wage as defined in section 440.12(2), multiplied by two.1/ In the penalty assessment calculation, the Department consulted the classification codes and definitions set forth in the SCOPES of Basic Manual Classifications ("Scopes Manual") published by the National Council on Compensation Insurance ("NCCI"). The Scopes Manual has been adopted by reference in rule 69L-6.021. Classification codes are four-digit codes assigned to occupations by the NCCI to assist in the calculation of workers' compensation insurance premiums. Rule 69L- 6.028(3)(d) provides that "[t]he imputed weekly payroll for each employee . . . shall be assigned to the highest rated workers' compensation classification code for an employee based upon records or the investigator's physical observation of that employee's activities." Ms. Proano testified that the penalty calculator correctly applied NCCI Class Code 5190, titled "Electrical Wiring—-Within Buildings & Drivers," which "applies to the installation of electrical wiring systems within buildings." The corresponding rule provision is rule 69L-6.021(2)(u). The penalty calculator used the approved manual rates corresponding to Class Code 5190 for the periods of non-compliance to calculate the penalty. On February 3, 2015, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in the amount of $1,381.58, based upon Mr. Mobley's actual wages during the penalty period, plus an imputation of wages for the date of November 18, 2014, for Mr. Mobley and the two men who were working for him on that date. After Mr. Mobley clarified that one item treated as payroll by the Department was actually a refund to a customer, the Department on June 10, 2015, was able to issue a Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in the amount of $1,373.56, based on the mixture of actual payroll information and imputation referenced above. Ms. Proano persuasively testified that the administrative dissolution of the corporate status of Marvin's Electric had no bearing on the question of the company's responsibility to provide workers' compensation insurance for its employees or to establish an exemption. After dissolution, the company continued to hold itself out as a corporate entity prepared to do business and, in fact, accepted work and was paid as a corporation. Therefore, the Department investigated Marvin's Electric as a corporate entity. In any event, under the facts of this case, the penalty calculation would have been the same had the Department treated Mr. Mobley as a sole proprietor, rather than as the president of a corporate entity. The evidence produced at the hearing established that Ms. Proano utilized the correct class codes, average weekly wages, and manual rates in her calculation of the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. The Department has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Marvin's Electric was in violation of the workers' compensation coverage requirements of chapter 440. Justice Kirchhevel and Wayne Richardson were employees of Marvin's Electric on November 18, 2014, performing services in the construction industry without valid workers' compensation insurance coverage.2/ The Department has also demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the penalty was correctly calculated through the use of the approved manual rates, business records provided by Marvin's Electric, and the penalty calculation worksheet adopted by the Department in rule 69L-6.027. Ms. Proano's recalculation of the penalty confirmed the correctness of the penalty calculator's work. Marvin's Electric could point to no exemption, insurance policy, or employee leasing arrangement that would operate to lessen or extinguish the assessed penalty. At the hearing, Mr. Mobley testified that he has always been the sole proprietor of Marvin's Electric and that he has never had to pay employees. The two men with him on November 18, 2014, were there because Mr. Mobley was in poor health and needed help digging the trench from the house to the shed. He testified that he never received notice from the Department that his exemption was expiring and that, in the midst of several major surgeries, he forgot that it was time to renew his exemption. Mr. Mobley's testimony was eloquent and credible, but the equitable considerations that he raised have no effect on the operation of chapter 440 or the imposition of the penalty assessed pursuant thereto.
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 $1,373.56 against Marvin's Electric Service, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of August, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of August, 2015.
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.
The Issue Whether Petitioner failed to obtain workers’ compensation insurance meeting the requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Olender is a Delaware corporation that is registered to do business in Florida and engaged in the business of construction. Primarily, Olender frames the walls of structures and installs siding, windows and moisture barriers to such structures. Such activities are construction activities under the Florida’s workers’ compensation law. See Ch. 440, Fla. Stat., and Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6. On June 22, 2006, an investigator for the Department visited the Alta Westgate Apartment complex construction project, located at 6872 Alta Westgate Drive, Orlando, Florida. The visit was prompted by a “confidential tip” received by the Department from Tyler Balsinger, a former employee of Petitioner. The Alta Westgate complex is owned by Alta Westgate, LLC. The general contractor responsible for the construction of the complex was W.P. South Builders. The overall project manager for the general contractor was Robert Beliveau. The on-site representative for the general contractor was Danny Campbell. Mr. Campbell provided the Department’s investigator with a list of subcontractors on the project worksite. The list reflected that the subcontractor for framing was Olender and that John Olender was the person in charge of the company’s work at the project site. Among other things, the contract also included the installation of a moisture barrier, generally known as Tyvek, on the framed structures. Because of the nature of construction work, it is not unusual to have several subcontractors on a construction worksite at the same time. It is unlikely that Olender was the only subcontractor working on the day the Department’s investigator visited the Alta Westgate project. The subcontract required that Olender secure the payment of workers’ compensation on its employees. The evidence was not clear regarding whether the general contractor, under its subcontract with Olender, would provide workers’ compensation insurance on the employees of Olender’s subcontractors. However, the evidence was clear that J.P. Builders did not secure such workers’ compensation insurance on the employees of Olender’s subcontractors. Mr. Campbell also provided the certificate of insurance for Petitioner. The certificate reflected that Modern Business Associates, Inc. (MBA), an employee leasing company, provided workers’ compensation for Olender’s leased employees. See § 468.520, Fla. Stat. MBA entered into a client service agreement with Olender. Under the agreement, Olender would lease employees from MBA and MBA would provide payroll services and workers’ compensation coverage for the employees it leased to Petitioner. The agreement terminated on August 30, 2006. MBA’s Client Service Agreement with Petitioner states on p. 3: Insurance Coverage. MBA is responsible for providing Workers’ Compensation coverage to workers employed by MBA and assigned to Client, in compliance with applicable law, and as specified in the Proposal. Workers performing services for Client not covered by this Agreement and not on MBA’s payroll shall not be covered by the workers’ compensation insurance. Client understands, agrees, and acknowledges that MBA shall not cover any workers with workers’ compensation coverage who has not completed and submitted to MBA an employment application and tri- fold, and which applicant has not been reviewed and approved for hire by MBA. (emphasis supplied) Other than information necessary to supply its services, MBA was not aware of any specific project or projects on which Olender was working when it leased employees from MBA. John Olender and Ruben Rojo were two employees that Olender leased from MBA and for whom MBA provided workers’ compensation insurance. The workers’ compensation policy complied with Florida’s workers’ compensation requirements. After speaking with Mr. Campbell, the Department’s investigator, who is fluent in Spanish, walked around the complex’s worksite. She did not have a hardhat on. She eventually saw about 10 to 12 workers on the third floor of one of the buildings under construction (Building 8 or 9). The Department’s investigator could not say if they were framing. At some point, John Olender, the company’s project superintendent, saw the Department’s investigator, noticed she did not have any safety equipment on, and went to meet her. The investigator yelled to the workers on the third floor and showed her Department badge or identification. She was speaking Spanish to them. The workers ran in an effort to avoid the Department’s investigator. Mr. Olender, who does not speak or understand Spanish, sent for Ruben Rojo. Mr. Rojo is the assistant superintendent for Olender and works under John Olender. He is fluent in Spanish. He does not hire employees for Olender, but oversees the work being performed under Olender’s subcontracts. The Department’s investigator continued to attempt to explain to the workers that she was not interested in their immigration status, but was there to make sure they were covered by workers’ compensation insurance. At least some of the workers came down to talk to her. Mr. Rojo thought the investigator was asking about the workers’ immigration status and told them that they did not have to talk to her. However, apparently some workers very reluctantly gave her limited information. The workers who talked to her were Pedro Antonio Mendez, Jaco Sarmentio, Juan Cardenas, Alvaro Don Juan Diaz, Jose Varela Orellana, Nesto Suarez Ventura, Miguel Martinez Diaz, Jose Perez Renaldo and Antonio Hernandez. She did not obtain any addresses, phone numbers or other identifying information from the employees. The evidence did not show whether these individuals gave the Department’s investigator the correct information. Importantly, they did not tell her who their employer was or what duties they were performing. None of these individuals testified at the hearing. John Olender did not recognize these workers. Mr. Rojo told the investigator that Olender subcontracted the framing portion of its contract to “T-Bo”. T-Bo was also known as Primitivo Torres. In his deposition testimony, Mr. Torres did not recognize these workers’ names. He also thought that most of the workers he employed for his framing subcontract with Olender were illegal immigrants. Mr. Torres was unclear in his testimony regarding his status with Olender. He did indicate that he worked in both Orlando and Tampa. Apparently, at times, he was an employee and at other times he was a subcontractor. He was listed as a leased employee under MBA’s contract with Olender. The evidence suggests, but does not prove, that Mr. Torres was a person who supplied immigrant workers to construction sites. In Orlando, Mr. Torres lived in an apartment complex in the Rosemond area with his employees. The rent was sometimes paid by Olender and then deducted from the remuneration paid to Mr. Torres. Mr. Torres paid his employees from the money he received under his subcontract with Olender. Mr. Torres also testified that when the Department’s investigator contacted him in June 2006, to discuss workers’ compensation insurance, he told her that he neither secured the payment of workers’ compensation for himself nor for the other workers in both Tampa and Orlando. Donna Knoblauch, who oversaw Olender’s main office, received a faxed copy of a certificate of workers’ compensation insurance from Mr. Torres. However, the faxed certificate was an illegible copy of what appeared to be a certificate of liability insurance issued by a company in Texas. The certificate does not have a legible “sent date,” a legible workers’ compensation policy number, legible dates of coverage, a legible producer name, or any information indicating that coverage includes the State of Florida. The document is insufficient to demonstrate that Mr. Torres provided workers’ compensation coverage for his employees that worked under his subcontract with Olender. John Olender testified that Mr. Torres utilized, at most, 20 framers for the construction at Alta Westgate. Mr. Torres corroborates that number and indicates that various people worked in crews of around five. On the other hand, Danny Campbell testified that Olender had approximately 20 workers when the project started, increased to approximately 75 people performing framing duties on the worksite and decreased to about 20 workers by the time the Department’s investigator visited the worksite. Mr. Campbell testified that on January 22, 2006, he believed that Olender had approximately five individuals for the punch-out group, three–to-five cleaners, a forklift operator, approximately two individuals installing the Tyvek moisture- barrier paper, two individuals performing window installation and approximately 15–to-20 individuals installing siding at the worksite. No other testimony supports the number of workers Mr. Campbell believed to be at the jobsite on June 22. On balance, the best evidence of the approximate number of workers was that of Mr. Olender and Mr. Torres. However, these figures were only estimates of the actual number which may have been less than 20 workers. In any event, the employment of these 12 workers on the third floor was not demonstrated by the evidence. Their names did not appear on the list of employees leased by Olender from MBA and were otherwise, unknown to the Mr. Olender, Rojo and Torres. While at the jobsite, the Department’s investigator also spoke with Victor Ibarra. Mr. Ibarra drove a forklift and indicated that he worked for Olender. Again, no address or other identifying information was supplied to the investigator. Later, the investigator spoke with a woman who purported to be Mr. Ibarra’s wife. There was no information on the forklift indicating that it belonged to Olender and Olender denies employing a person named Victor Ibarra. Mr. Campbell testified in his deposition that Olender had forklifts on the jobsite. However, he did not testify that the forklift Victor Ibarra drove on June 22, 2006, was owned by Olender. Likewise, Mr. Campbell did not testify that Mr. Ibarra was an employee of Olender. Mr. Ibarra’s name did not appear on the list of leased employees provided by MBA. The Department's investigator included Mr. Ibarra as an employee of Olender based on Mr. Ibarra’s statements. However, the evidence presented by the Department is not sufficient to establish that Mr. Ibarra was an employee of Olender, since Mr. Ibarra did not testify at the hearing. Mr. Campbell’s testimony does not corroborate the hearsay statements of Mr. Ibarra since the testimony does not indicate the forklift Mr. Ibarra drove belonged to Olender or to another subcontractor on the project. After talking to Mr. Ibarra, the Department’s investigator met Rosa Barden, Martha Alvarado and Ismael Ortiz, who were applying a moisture barrier paper known as “Tyvek” to a building at the construction site. The three individuals told the investigator that that they had been hired by Mr. Rojo on behalf of Olender and had only worked for about a day. The investigator included these three individuals as employees of Olender. No addresses or other contact information was obtained by the investigator. None of these individuals testified at the hearing. Mr. Rojo testified that he did not know the three individuals on the “paper crew” and did not hire them. None of the three individuals were listed as leased employees with MBA. However, Olender’s subcontract clearly lists the application of Tyvek as a part of its contract. Additionally, the payment information supplied by the general contractor shows that Olender was paid for Tyvek application on all the buildings in the complex. Unlike Mr. Ibarro’s testimony, the contract and payment evidence independently corroborates the otherwise hearsay statements of these three individuals and Olender should have provided workers compensation insurance on them. There was no evidence that Olender provided such workers’ compensation insurance; such failure violates Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. See §§ 440.10(1)(g) and 440.38(7), Fla. Stat., and Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.019. In total, the Department’s inspector met with John Olender for approximately one hour discussing the work performed by Olender and the employees retained by Olender. During this meeting, Mr. Olender, identified members of a “punch-out” crew who had worked on the project. The punch-out crew repaired any defects in framing prior to inspection. The names supplied by Mr. Olender were Juan Gonzalez, Miguel, Sal, William, WI Gerardo (noted as El Guardo in the third Amended Order of Penalty assessment), Pedro, Jacobo and Boso. Mr. Olender did not know their last names. The evidence did not show the period of time that the punch-out crew would have been working at the project site. Presumably, they would have begun some time after the initial building was framed. The Department’s investigator did not personally see the punch-out crew at the project. Mr. Olender also informed the Department’s investigator that he did not handle matters concerning workers’ compensation insurance and that she would have to contact the Company’s main office in Missouri. He provided the number for the office. He also gave the investigator the number for Michael Olender, the president of the company and the number for Mr. Torres. The investigator issued a Workers’ Compensation Request for Production of Business Records to Olender. She left the Request with John Olender. The request for records asked for certain categories of Olender’s business records for the period of January 22, 2004 to June 22, 2004. Of importance here, the Department requested records in categories 1, 4, 5 and 6. In general, category 1 covers all payroll records, including checks and check stubs, time sheets, attendance records and cash payment records. Categories 4, 5 and 6 cover all records that relate to subcontractors, including their identity, contract, payment thereof, workers compensation coverage for all the subcontractor’s employees, and/ or the employees’ exemption status. These records are required to be maintained by a company doing business in Florida. Mr. Campbell testified that some members of the punch- out crew often approached him about whether he had paid Olender so that they in turn could be paid. Again, none of these individuals testified at the hearing. However, given the admissions of Olender’s employee and Mr. Campbell’s testimony, the evidence supports the conclusion that the eight individuals on the punch-out crew were employed by Olender. None of these employees were leased employees and therefore, were not covered by the workers’ compensation policy provided by MBA. There was no evidence that Olender secured any workers' compensation insurance on these eight employees. Such failure violates Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. See §§ 440.10(1)(g) and 440.38(7), Fla. Stat., and Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.019. The Department’s investigator contacted Ms. Knoblauch while she was on her way to a medical appointment. The investigator requested Olender’s proof of workers’ compensation insurance. Ms. Knoblauch told the investigator that she was not at the office where the records were kept, but on the way to a medical appointment. She said she would be returning to the office after the appointment. The investigator said she needed the records immediately. Ms. Knoblauch offered to skip her appointment and requested time to turn around and return to the office. The investigator refused to permit her the time to return to the office. At some point, MBA supplied the Department’s investigator with a list of Olender’s leased employees. The list did not contain any of the names she had gathered during her visit to the worksite. Within a few hours from the beginning of the investigation, the Department's investigator issued a Stop Work Order and an Order of Penalty Assessment on June 22, 2006. The Order was served via certified mail on Michael Olender and Olender’s legal counsel. The Stop Work Order required that Olender "cease all business operations in this state" and advised that a penalty of $1,000.00 per day would be imposed if Olender were to conduct any business in violation of the Stop Work Order. Additionally, along with the Order, the Department issued and served on Petitioner via certified mail a Division of Workers’ Compensation Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Calculation, requesting records for a period of three years. The request, made pursuant to Section 440.107(7), Florida Statutes, asked the employer to produce, for the preceding three years, documents that reflected payroll, proof of insurance, workers’ compensation audit reports, identity, duration, contracts, invoices and check stubs reflecting payment to subcontractors, proof of workers’ compensation coverage for those subcontractors, employee leasing company information, temporary labor service information, and any certificate of workers’ compensation exemption. The request asked for the same type of records that had been requested earlier. Neither request for records was specific to a particular construction job that Olender may have performed work on. The investigator informed Mr. Campbell that Petitioner was being issued a Stop-Work Order and gave him a copy of the Order. Mr. Campbell faxed the Order to Olender’s office in Missouri. The Department’s investigator also checked the Department’s Coverage and Compliance Automated System (“CCAS”) database. The system tracks workers' compensation insurance policy information provided by workers’ compensation carriers on an insured employer. The database did not contain an entry that reflected a current State of Florida workers' compensation insurance policy for Olender. The database did reference that Olender had a stop-work order served on it on July 12, 2002, which had been lifted on July 31, 2002, with payment of the penalty. Florida law requires that employers maintain a variety of business records involving their business. See § 440.107(5), Fla. Stat., and Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.015. The Rule is limited to records regarding a business’ employees and any payout by the employer to any person. In this case, under the Rule, the only records Olender was required to maintain related to its employees and its subcontractor, Mr. Torres. There was no evidence regarding any other subcontractors Olender may have contracted with. The only records supplied by Olender to the Department were the records from MBA that included workers’ compensation information and W-2 forms for Olender’s leased employees, the illegible proof of insurance for Mr. Torres and copies of checks from Olender to Mr. Torres for the subcontract. Those records reflected that John Olender, Ruben Rojo and Primitivo Torres were leased employees and covered by workers’ compensation insurance under Olender’s contract with MBA. Olender supplied no records regarding workers’ compensation coverage for the eight employees who were members of the punch- out crew, the three workers who were members of the paper crew or the 12 workers who were on the third floor. When an employer fails to provide requested business records that the statute requires it to maintain, the Department is required to impute the employer's payroll using "the statewide average weekly wage as defined in Section 440.12(2)." § 440.107(7)(e), Fla. Stat., and Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.028. The penalty for failure to secure the workers' compensation insurance coverage required by Florida law is 1.5 times the premium that would have been charged for such coverage for each employee identified by the Department. The premium is calculated by applying the approved manual rate for workers' compensation insurance coverage for each employee to each $100.00 of the gross payroll for each employee. In this case, the Department, after several amended assessments, imputed the payroll for Olender for the period beginning January 22, 2004, Petitioner’s date of incorporation, and ending June 26, 2006. Included in the calculation were the eight individuals on the punch-out crew identified by John Olender, the 12 employees who were working on the third floor, the forklift driver Victor Ibarra, and the three individuals on the paper crew. In calculating the premium for workers' compensation insurance coverage, the Department's investigator used the risk classifications and definitions of the National Council of Compensation Insurance, Inc. ("NCCI") SCOPES Manual. The appropriate code for Olender’s employees was classification code 5561 which covers framing of multiple family dwellings. The gross payroll imputed to each of the 27 employees was $683.00 per week. The Department then utilized the imputed payroll for same employees for the years 2004 and 2005. The Department’s calculation resulted in an assessed penalty of $1,205,535.40. However, the evidence establishes that Olender had 11 direct employees rather than 27 employees during the period of the Alta Westgate contract. Olender’s performance under that contract began on April 3, 2006. Other than the period of time involved with the Alta Westgate project, there was no evidence regarding the period of time Olender conducted business in Florida that would require it to comply with Florida law. The date of incorporation of Olender is insufficient to demonstrate that Olender engaged in any business in Florida that would require it to comply with Florida’s workers’ compensation law. Therefore, the penalty calculation must be modified to reflect only those eleven employees for the time period Olender performed under its contract on the Alta Westgate project.
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: Finding that Olender Construction Co., Inc., failed to have Florida workers' compensation insurance coverage for 11 of its employees, in violation of Sections 440.10(1)(a) and 440.38(1), Florida Statutes; and Recalculating the penalty against Olender. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of March, 2008, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of March, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Colin M. Roopnarine, Esquire Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers Compensation 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 Jeremy T. Springhart, Esquire Broad and Cassel 390 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1500 Orlando, Florida 32801 Honorable Alex Sink Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Daniel Y. Sumner, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
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 issues in this case are whether Respondent, Axiom Construction Design Corporation (Axiom), failed to provide workers' compensation coverage, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the various requirements of chapter 440, Florida Statutes. Section 440.107(3) mandates, in relevant part, that employers in Florida must secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage for their employees. At all times relevant, Axiom was a small Florida corporation engaged in the construction industry, principally installing drywall. Axiom’s principal office is located at 1067 Walt Williams Road, Lakeland, Florida. Mr. Pratt is Axiom’s owner, sole corporate officer, and registered agent. On July 23, 2014, Randall Durham conducted a job site workers’ compensation compliance investigation (Compliance Investigation). Mr. Durham spoke with Mr. Pratt at a job site at 109 Cattleman Road, the new Sarasota mall. Mr. Pratt and Al Lappohn were working the job site at the new mall. Mr. Pratt had a workers’ compensation policy in place with Southeast Personnel Leasing. Mr. Lappohn did not have an exemption from workers’ compensation coverage, and he was not covered by Axiom’s Southeast Personnel Leasing policy. On July 23, 2014, Mr. Pratt, as Axiom’s representative, was hand-served a Stop-Work Order1/ and a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation (Request). This Request encompassed all of Axiom’s payroll documents, account documents, disbursements, workers’ compensation coverage policies, and professional employer organization records from January 4, 2013, through July 23, 2014. Mr. Pratt provided the certificates of liabilities, payroll and tax records for 2013, and additional business records to the Department. These records were given to Mr. Knopke to calculate the penalty. In reviewing the records, Mr. Knopke determined that Mr. Pratt, Mr. Lappohn and Frank Cutts were employees of Axiom, and that Axiom did not provide workers’ compensation coverage for them. Mr. Cutts worked for Axiom at a Family Dollar Store build-out in Orlando in early 2014. Mr. Cutts swept up after the drywall was installed in the store, and was paid $125. Axiom conceded it owed the workers’ compensation penalty based on the work Mr. Lappohn and Mr. Cutts performed. The business records provided that during the audit period Mr. Pratt had dual employment, payment being paid outside of leasing. Dual employment is when a business has a leasing policy and there is extraneous payroll that is paid outside of the leasing policy. Payments received outside of a leasing policy are considered unsecured payroll for the purposes of calculating a penalty against an employer. Mr. Knopke included Mr. Pratt’s outside distributions in the penalty calculation. The “Scopes Manual” is published by the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc. (NCCI), the nation’s most authoritative data collecting and disseminating organization for workers’ compensation. The manual contains certain codes related to the construction industry and trades considered to be within that industry. The installation of drywall, wallboard, sheetrock, plasterboard or cement board is considered to be “construction” under the relevant codes in the manual. The manual, with its codes and classifications, is relied upon in the insurance industry and has been adopted by the Department in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.021. Mr. Knopke, using the manual, determined the appropriate classification code for Respondent’s employees was 5445. Mr. Knopke applied the correct rates and used the methodology found in section 440.107(7)(d)1., and Florida Administrative Code Rules 69L-6.027 and 69L-6.028 to calculate the penalty assessment. Based upon the testimony and exhibits, the 3rd Amended Penalty Assessment in the amount of $20,221.62 is accurate and correct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, issue a final order upholding the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and assess a penalty in the amount of $20,221.62. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of June, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of June, 2015.
