The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Customs Logistics Services, Inc., failed to secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage for its employees in violation of chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is the state agency charged with enforcing the requirement in chapter 440 that employers in Florida secure workers' compensation coverage for their employees. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was a corporation registered to do business in Florida. Respondent is a family-owned-and-operated customs brokerage service with its principal office located at 6940 Northwest 12th Street, Miami, Florida 33126. At the time of the inspection giving rise to this proceeding, Respondent employed seven or eight employees.2/ The Compliance Inspection On September 29, 2014, Petitioner's compliance inspector, Hector Fluriach, conducted an onsite inspection at Respondent's principal office to determine whether Respondent was in compliance with the workers' compensation coverage requirements established in chapter 440. At that time, Respondent's co-owners, Astrid Escalona and Carlos Henoa, told Fluriach that Respondent employed six employees and two corporate officers, and also paid two family members who did not work at the principal office. Upon inquiry, Escalona and Henoa informed Fluriach that Respondent did not have workers' compensation insurance coverage for its employees. Using Petitioner's Coverage and Compliance Automated System ("CCAS") and the National Council for Compensation Insurance ("NCCI") insurance coverage verification system, Fluriach confirmed that Respondent had not obtained workers' compensation insurance coverage for its employees, and that it was not in compliance with chapter 440 during certain periods within the two years preceding the inspection. Under the NCCI basic occupational classification system and Scopes Manual, six of Respondent's employees are classified as clerical (Code 8810), and one is classified as a driver (Code 7380). None of Respondent's employees is classified as employed within the construction industry. As a private entity employing four or more employees in a non-construction industry occupation, Respondent was required under chapter 440 to provide workers' compensation coverage for its employees. Respondent's corporate officers were eligible under section 440.05 to elect to be exempt from the workers' compensation coverage requirements of chapter 440; however, none had elected to be exempt. Fluriach issued Stop-Work Order No. 14-329-D5 ("Stop- Work Order"), personally served it on Respondent, and explained it to Escalona. The Stop-Work Order included an Order of Penalty Assessment, ordering assessment of a penalty against Respondent in an amount equal to two times the amount Respondent would have paid in workers' compensation coverage premiums when applying the approved manual rates to Respondent's payroll during the periods for which it had failed to secure workers' compensation coverage during the preceding two years (for convenience, hereafter referred to as the "look-back period"). Fluriach also served a business records request, requesting Respondent to provide specified business records3/ for Petitioner's use in determining the penalty. In a series of submittals, Respondent provided the requested business records to Petitioner. The evidence showed that during the two-year look- back period, Respondent did not have workers' compensation coverage for its employees during a substantial portion of the period in which it employed four or more employees, and none of its corporate officers were exempt from the workers' compensation coverage requirement. As such, Respondent violated chapter 440 and, therefore, is subject to penalty under that statute. Petitioner's Computation of Penalty Amount To calculate the applicable penalty, Petitioner must determine, from a review of the employer's business records, the employer's gross payroll for the two-year look-back period. For days during the look-back 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 look-back period for purposes of calculating the applicable penalty commenced on September 30, 2012, and ended on September 29, 2014, the day on which the compliance inspection was conducted. Respondent's business records revealed that Respondent had fewer than four employees between January 1 and March 31, 2013, so Respondent was not required to have workers' compensation coverage for that period. Thus, Petitioner did not assess a penalty against Respondent for that period. For the rest of the look-back period, Respondent employed four or more employees, so was required to obtain workers' compensation coverage for those employees for that portion of the period. Respondent provided business records sufficient for Petitioner to determine Respondent's gross payroll for all but September 30, 2012. For that day, Petitioner imputed Respondent's gross payroll using Florida's statewide average weekly wage. On the basis of Respondent's business records submittals, Petitioner's auditor, Eric Ruzzo, recalculated the penalty to be assessed against Respondent. Petitioner issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on October 17, 2014, imposing a total penalty of $5,617.04. On November 7, 2014, following receipt of additional records, Petitioner issued a Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, reducing the penalty to $3,982.52. Finally, after receiving more records, Petitioner issued a Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on January 12, 2015, further reducing the penalty to $3,205.70. Each of these penalty assessments was served on Respondent. Petitioner seeks to impose a $3,205.70 penalty against Respondent in this proceeding. In calculating the penalty, Ruzzo examined three-month (i.e., quarterly) periods within the two-year look-back period. Ruzzo identified the occupational class code applicable to each of Respondent's employees. As stated above, all but one of Respondent's employees were classified as clerical, and one of Respondent's employees was classified as a driver. For each employee, Ruzzo determined the gross payroll paid to that employee for the specific quarter in which Respondent was non-compliant during the look-back period, 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 occupational class code. This calculation yielded the workers' compensation coverage premium for that specific employee for the specific quarter for which Respondent was non- compliant during the look-back 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. As previously noted, Respondent did not provide gross payroll records covering September 30, 2012; thus, for that day, Ruzzo imputed the gross payroll for each of Respondent's employees using the statewide average weekly wage as defined in section 440.12(2)4/ multiplied by two. Ruzzo then performed the same computations to yield the penalty amount to be imposed for Respondent's failure to provide workers' compensation on September 30, 2012. Ruzzo then added each penalty amount determined for each employee using actual gross payroll and imputed payroll, to yield the total penalty amount of $5,286.70. Because Respondent had not previously been issued a stop-work order, pursuant to section 440.107(7)(d)1., Petitioner applied a credit toward the penalty in the amount of the initial premium Respondent paid for workers' compensation coverage. Here, the premium payment amount for which Respondent received credit was $2,081.00. This was subtracted from the calculated penalty of $5,286.70, yielding a total penalty of $3,205.70. Respondent's Defense At the final hearing, Escalona testified that she and the other co-owners of Respondent always have attempted to fully comply with every law applicable to Respondent's business, and have never had compliance problems. She testified that neither she nor the other co-owners of Respondent realized that Respondent was required to have workers' compensation coverage for its employees, and they did not intentionally violate the law. Petitioner apparently mailed a memorandum regarding verifying workers' compensation coverage requirements to businesses in the area before it conducted compliance inspections. The memorandum was dated October 8, 2014, and Escalona testified Respondent received it on October 13, 2014, approximately two weeks after the compliance inspection that Fluriach conducted. Escalona asserted that had Respondent received the memorandum before the compliance inspection was conducted, she would have called Petitioner to determine if Respondent needed to obtain workers' compensation coverage, would have asked how to obtain it, and would have obtained coverage for its employees and exemptions for its corporate officers. Escalona testified that the $3,205.70 penalty is a substantial amount that Respondent, a small family-owned business, cannot afford to pay. Findings of Ultimate Fact Petitioner has shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent violated chapter 440, as charged in the Stop-Work Order, by failing to secure workers' compensation coverage for its employees. Petitioner has shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that the $3,205.70 penalty proposed to be assessed against Respondent pursuant to the Third Amended Penalty Assessment is the correct amount of the penalty to be assessed in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, enter a final order determining that Respondent, Customs Logistics Services, Inc., violated the requirement in chapter 440 to secure workers' compensation coverage and imposing a total penalty of $3,205.70. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of August, 2015, 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 11th day of August, 2015.
Findings Of Fact 12. The factual allegations in the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment issued on February 17 2009, and the Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on September 4, 2009, which are fully incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted as the Department’s Findings of Fact in this case.
Conclusions THIS PROCEEDING came on for final agency action and Alex Sink, Chief Financial Officer of the State of Florida, or her designee, having considered the record in this case, including the Stop- Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment and the Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment served in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 09-042-D7, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby finds that: 1. On February 17, 2009, the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (hereinafter “Department”) issued a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 09-042-D7 to ROYMO, INC. The Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of rights wherein ROYMO, INC. was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. 2. On February 17, 2009, the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment was served via personal service on ROYMO, INC. A copy of the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit A” and incorporated herein by reference. 3. On February 25, 2009, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to ROYMO, INC. in Case No. 09-042-D7. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $61,692.98 against ROYMO, INC. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein ROYMO, INC. was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. 4. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served on ROYMO, INC. by personal service on February 25, 2009. A copy of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit B” and incorporated herein by reference. 5. On March 10, 2009, ROYMO, INC. filed a timely Petition for a formal administrative hearing in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. The Petition was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned Case No. 09- 1388. 6. On September 4, 2009, the Department issued a Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to ROYMO, INC. in Case No. 09-042-D7. The Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $29,911.26 against ROYMO, INC. The Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served on ROYMO, INC. through the Division of Administrative Hearings. A copy of the Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit C” and is incorporated herein by reference. 7. On November 6, 2009, ROYMO, INC. filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal in DOAH Case No. 09-1388. A copy of the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal filed by ROYMO, INC. is attached hereto as “Exhibit D.” 8. On November 9, 2009 Administrative Law Judge Daniel M. Kilbride entered an Order Closing File, relinquishing jurisdiction to the Department. A copy of the November 9, 2009 Order Closing File is attached hereto as “Exhibit E.”
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by failing to secure payment of workers’ compensation coverage, as alleged in the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment; and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Jurisdiction The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement of chapter 440 that employers in Florida secure workers’ compensation coverage for their employees and corporate officers, pursuant to section 440.107. Patrick Hoffman was the owner and sole corporate officer for American. At all times material to this proceeding, American sold materials for window screens, patio sliding doors, screws, and spline screening; and it provided window and screen installation services. Investigation On June 29, 2016, the Department commenced an investigation following the observation of Patrick Hoffman and Timothy Barnett (also known as Adam Barnett) performing window installation services at a residential property. Kent Howe, an investigator in the Department’s compliance division, conducted an investigation regarding American’s operation of its business without proper workers’ compensation coverage. On June 29, 2016, Mr. Howe personally served a Stop-Work Order requiring American to cease all business operations and Order of Penalty Assessment on Mr. Hoffman. On June 29, 2016, Mr. Howe also served Mr. Hoffman with a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Calculation, requesting records to enable the Department to calculate the appropriate penalty for the period of June 30, 2014, through June 29, 2016. On June 30, 2016, the Department issued a conditional release from the Stop-Work Order. The conditional release required Respondent to pay $1,000, and agree to pay the penalty assessment within 28 days after the penalty calculation. American paid the $1,000 payment but it disputed the calculated penalty amount. An employer is required to maintain workers’ compensation coverage for employees unless there is an exemption from coverage. In the construction industry, a company must maintain coverage if it employs one or more persons. In the non-construction industry, a company is required to maintain coverage if it employs three or more persons. A contractor serving as a corporate officer in the construction industry may obtain an exemption from coverage requirements. See § 440.05, Fla. Stat. A contractor must demonstrate compliance with the workers’ compensation requirements or produce a copy of an employee leasing agreement or exemption for each employee. If an employee is a subcontractor without their own workers’ compensation coverage or an exemption, the individual is considered an employee of the contractor. American did not dispute that Timothy Barnett and Roger Wilson were employees of the company. American also did not dispute that it did not have workers’ compensation coverage for the employees as required by chapter 440. As a corporate officer, Mr. Hoffman elected to be exempted from workers’ compensation coverage. Penalty Calculation The Department assigned Eunika Jackson, a Department penalty auditor, to calculate the appropriate penalty for American. Ms. Jackson conducts penalty audits for construction and non-construction employers. Ms. Jackson testified that workers’ compensation coverage penalties are calculated based on a statutory formula in which the auditor calculates two-times the amount of the insurance premium the employer would have paid for each employee over the two-year period preceding the Stop-Work Order. The two-year period is commonly referred to as the look-back period. The penalty calculation is based on the employer’s payroll, the classification code for the industry of operation during the audit period, and the manual rate assigned to that classification code. To determine the appropriate code, the auditor uses the classification code in the Scopes® Manual, which has been adopted by Petitioner through Florida Administrative Code Rules 69L-6.021 and 69L-6.031. Ms. Jackson used business records Mr. Hoffman provided to determine the appropriate industry code and the penalty amount for each employee. Ms. Jackson reviewed bank statements to determine the gross payroll paid to Mr. Wilson and Mr. Barnett during the two-year non-compliance period. The records demonstrated that Roger Wilson received payment during the period of June 30, 2014, through December 31, 2015. Timothy (Adam) Barnett received payment during the period of January 1, 2015, through June 29, 2016. Ms. Jackson determined that American operated in the construction industry and initially assigned each employee a classification code of 5102. On August 11, 2016, the Department issued the Amended Order that assessed a total penalty of $10,785.04. The Amended Order was personally served on Mr. Hoffman on August 16, 2016. In response to the Amended Order, Respondent disputed the classification code assigned to Mr. Wilson. Mr. Hoffman testified that Mr. Wilson did not perform construction work, but rather worked as a retail employee selling merchandise in the store front. Mr. Hoffman further testified that contractors purchased items at American for use in their businesses. Mr. Hoffman’s description of Mr. Wilson’s job responsibilities and description of merchandise sold at American clearly demonstrates that Mr. Wilson did not perform construction work. Ms. Jackson correctly determined that the classification code 8018, which applies to retail and wholesale salespersons, was the appropriate code for Mr. Wilson. The classification code change resulted in a manual rate reduction and a reduced assessment applied to Mr. Wilson. On November 18, 2016, the Department filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Order of Penalty Assessment, which the undersigned granted. The Second Amended Order reduced the penalty assessment to $6,818.00. During the hearing, American continued to dispute the calculation of the penalty for Mr. Hoffman because he maintained an exemption as a corporate officer. The Department ultimately agreed to remove Mr. Hoffman from the penalty assessment worksheet and reduced the penalty assessment to $6,764.96. At hearing, there was no dispute regarding the penalty assessment related to Mr. Barnett. However, Respondent argued in the post-hearing statement for the first time that Timothy Barnett had an exemption. There was no evidence to support Respondent’s assertion. Therefore, Ms. Jackson correctly included payment to Mr. Barnett as payroll for purposes of calculating the penalty. Regarding Mr. Wilson, Mr. Hoffman argued that Mr. Wilson had an exemption from workers’ compensation coverage when he began working for American.1/ However, Mr. Hoffman could not produce a copy of the exemption and Mr. Wilson was not present at the hearing for testimony. Ms. Jackson conducted research using the Coverage Compliance Automated System (“CCAS”), a database used by the Department to maintain information regarding workers’ compensation policies, employee leasing plans, and exemptions for employees. Ms. Jackson found no record of an exemption for Mr. Wilson in CCAS. While Ms. Jackson did not exhaust all efforts to locate an exemption for Mr. Wilson, it was American’s burden to produce evidence of an exemption. Mr. Hoffman’s testimony with nothing more was insufficient to demonstrate that Mr. Wilson had an exemption and as such, Ms. Jackson appropriately included payments to Mr. Wilson as payroll to calculate the penalty. The calculation of the penalty for Mr. Wilson in the amount of $2,784.58 is correct. However, the penalty calculation for Mr. Barnett is incorrect. The amount should be $3,872.27. Therefore, the amount of the penalty should be reduced to $6,656.85. Ultimate Findings of Fact American was actively involved in business operations within the construction industry during the audit period of June 30, 2014, through June 29, 2016. Based upon the description of American’s business and the duties performed, Mr. Wilson was properly classified with a code 8018. Ms. Jackson used the correct manual rates and methodology to determine the appropriate penalty.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, enter a final order determining that: Respondent, American Aluminum Concepts, Inc., violated the requirement in chapter 440, by failing to secure workers’ compensation coverage for its employees; and Imposing a total penalty assessment of $6,656.85. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of December, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of December, 2016.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Gulf Coast Site Prep, Inc., failed to comply with the coverage requirements of the Workers’ Compensation Law, chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by not obtaining workers’ compensation insurance for its employees, and, if so, what penalty should be assessed against Respondent pursuant to section 440.107, Florida Statutes (2014).1/
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 and corporate officers. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. Respondent, Gulf Coast Site Prep., Inc., is a Florida for-profit corporation organized on March 3, 2008. Respondent’s registered business address is 952 TR Miller Road, Defuniak Springs, Florida. Ashley Adams is Respondent’s President and Registered Agent. On March 27, 2015, the Department’s investigator-in- training, Jill Scogland, and lead investigator, Sharon Kelson, conducted a random workers’ compensation compliance check at Lot 34 in the Driftwood Estates residential subdivision in Santa Rosa Beach, Florida. Ms. Scogland observed two men on site. David Wayne Gibson was operating a front-end loader spreading dirt on site. Colby Smith was shoveling dirt on site. While Ms. Scogland was inspecting the site, a third man, Ashley Adams, arrived driving a dump truck with a load of dirt. Mr. Adams identified himself as the owner of Gulf Coast, and stated that he had an exemption from the requirement for workers’ compensation insurance and that he thought Mr. Gibson did as well. Mr. Adams advised Ms. Scogland that he hired both Mr. Gibson and Mr. Smith to work at the site.2/ At hearing, Respondent challenged the evidence supporting a finding that Respondent hired Mr. Gibson.3/ Specifically, Respondent argues that Ms. Scogland’s testimony that Mr. Adams told her he hired Mr. Gibson is unreliable because Ms. Scogland did not include that information in her field notes. Respondent claims that Ms. Scogland’s status as investigator-in-training on the date of the inspection is indicative of her unreliability. To the contrary, Ms. Scogland’s testimony regarding both the persons and events on the date of the inspection was clear and unequivocal. While Ms. Scogland admitted her field notes were not as detailed on the date in question as they are for more recent inspections, she was confident that her investigation of the facts was thorough. The fact that Ms. Scogland did not write down what Mr. Adams said does not render her testimony unreliable. The undersigned finds Ms. Scogland’s testimony to be clear and convincing. Ms. Scogland reviewed the Department of State, Division of Corporations’ online information and identified Mr. Gibson as President and Registered Agent of David Wayne Gibson Tractor Service, Inc. According to Ms. Scogland, the online records indicated the corporation had been administratively dissolved in September 2013. Ms. Scogland next accessed the Department’s Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) and determined that Mr. Gibson had obtained a workers’ compensation coverage exemption for himself, but the exemption had expired on February 15, 2015. The information contained in CCAS is information on new policies, cancellations, etc., reported to the Department by insurance agencies as required by administrative rule. Next, Ms. Scogland accessed the Division of Corporations’ website, verified Gulf Coast as an active corporation, and identified Mr. Adams as the sole officer of Gulf Coast. Ms. Scogland then accessed CCAS and determined that, although Gulf Coast did not have workers’ compensation coverage, Mr. Adams had an active exemption effective from February 12, 2014 through February 12, 2016. Mr. Adams had a prior exemption that expired on April 14, 2013, but had no valid exemption in place between April 14, 2013 and February 12, 2014. After contacting her supervisor, Michelle Lloyd, Ms. Scogland served Mr. Adams, on behalf of Gulf Coast, with a site-specific Stop-Work Order for failure to ensure workers’ compensation coverage for its employees. Ms. Scogland also served Mr. Adams with a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation. The request was for Gulf Coast’s payroll, account, and disbursement records, as well as records identifying its subcontractors, payments thereto, and workers’ compensation coverage thereof, from March 28, 2013 through March 27, 2015 (the penalty period).4/ Mr. Adams did not provide any records to the Department in response to the records request. The Department’s penalty auditor, Eunika Jackson, was assigned to calculate the penalty to be assessed against Gulf Coast for failure to secure workers’ compensation insurance during the penalty period. The penalty to be assessed against an employer for failure to secure workers’ compensation coverage is two times the amount the employer would have paid in workers’ compensation insurance premiums when applying approved manual rates to the employer’s payroll during the penalty period. § 440.107(7)(d), Fla. Stat. Ms. Jackson consulted the Scopes Manual, which is published by the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI), and identified class code 6217--Excavation and Drivers-- as the appropriate construction class code for the work being performed at the worksite. Respondent contests the assignment of class code 6217 to Mr. Adams, who was driving a dump truck and delivering a load of dirt to the site. Respondent admits that Mr. Gibson’s operation of the front-end loader was properly classified as Excavation and Drivers. NCCI Scopes Manual provides the following with regard to classification code 6217: Includes burrowing, filling or backfilling. * * * Code 6217 is applied to specialist contractors engaged in general excavation including ditch digging, burrowing, filling or backfilling provided such operations are not otherwise classified in the manual. The operations involve the removal of earth, small boulders and rocks by power shovels, trench diggers or bulldozers and piling it at the jobsite for backfill. The material may also be removed by dump trucks for fill in some other area. Code 6217 includes excavation in connection with building foundations, swimming pools, landscape gardening and waterproofing operations. * * * This classification also is applied to specialist contractors engaged in grading land and landfilling, provided these operations are not otherwise classified in this manual. This classification includes ditch digging, burrowing, filling or backfilling, and operations such as scraping, cutting, piling or pushing the earth to rearrange the terrain. These operations utilize equipment such as bulldozers, motor graders and carryalls. [emphasis supplied]. Mr. Adams’ operation of the dump truck falls squarely within the definition of Excavation and Drivers. The material in the dump truck was fill for the site under excavation, a purpose which is directly addressed in the manual under code 6217. Under Respondent’s interpretation, fill removed from the site by a dump truck would be an excavation activity, but would no longer be excavation when the dump truck arrived at another site (or at another location on the same site) with the fill. That interpretation is illogical. No evidence was introduced to support a finding that typical operation of a dump truck in preconstruction was classified by a different code in the Scopes Manual. It is found that Ms. Jackson properly applied the Scopes Manual in assigning code 6217 to the work being performed by Mr. Adams on the site. Having no payroll records from Gulf Coast, Ms. Jackson had to impute the statewide average weekly wage as Respondent’s payroll for Mr. Adams and his subcontractor, Mr. Gibson. The average weekly wages were calculated based on the Workers’ Compensation and Employers Liability approved rate manual also published by NCCI and adopted by the Department by administrative rule. Ms. Jackson calculated a penalty of two times the workers’ compensation insurance premiums that would have applied to the purchase of insurance for Mr. Adams and Mr. Gibson during periods of non-compliance during the penalty. The period of non-compliance for Mr. Adams was April 15, 2013 to February 11, 2014, during which time his exemption had lapsed. The period of non-compliance for Mr. Gibson was February 16, 2015 to March 27, 2015, during which his exemption had expired. § 440.107(7)(e), Fla. Stat. Utilizing the penalty calculation worksheet adopted by Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.027, Ms. Scogland calculated a penalty of $12,181.42. On May 20, 2015, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment against Gulf Coast in the amount of $12,181.42. The Department correctly calculated the penalty based on the statutory formulas and adopted rules governing workers’ compensation insurance.
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 upholding the Stop-Work Order and Amended Penalty Assessment against Respondent, Gulf Coast Site Prep., Inc., for its failure to secure and maintain required workers’ compensation insurance for its employees. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of January, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of January, 2016.
Findings Of Fact 12. The factual allegations in the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment issued on December 30 2008, and the Seventh Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on August 31, 2009, which are fully incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted as the Department’s Findings of Fact in this case.
Findings Of Fact 9. The factual allegations in the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment issued on August 23, 2010, and the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on March 10, 2011, which are fully incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted as the Department’s Findings of Fact in this case.
Conclusions THIS PROCEEDING came on for final agency action and Jeff Atwater, Chief Financial Officer of the State of Florida, or his designee, having considered the record in this case, including the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment, the Amended Order of Penalty Assesment, and the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment served in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 10-216-D7, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby finds that: 1. On August 23, 2010, the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (hereinafter “Department”) issued a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 10-216-D7 to Chastang & Siegel Custom Builders, LLC (Chastang). The Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein Chastang was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Stop- Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. 2. On September 7, 2010, the Stop- Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment was served on Chastang by certified mail. A copy of the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit A” and incorporated herein by reference. 3. On October 5, 2010, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to Chastang in Case No. 10-216-D7. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $82,917.81 against Chastang. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein Chastang was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. 4. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served on Chastang by certified mail on October 23, 2010. A copy of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit B” and incorporated herein by reference. 5. On or about November 8, 2010, Chastang filed a timely Petition for formal administrative hearing in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. The Petition was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned Case No. 10- 10826. 6. On March 10, 2011, the Department issued a 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to Chastang in Case No. 10-216-D7. The 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $1,000.00 against Chastang. The 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served on Chastang on March 14, 2011 through the Division of Administrative Hearings. A copy of the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit C” and is incorporated herein by reference. 7. On March 28, 2011, the Department filed a Notice of Settlement in DOAH Case No. 10-10826. A copy of the Notice of Settlement filed by the Department is attached hereto as “Exhibit D.” 8. On March 28, 2011, Administrative Law Judge W. David Watkins entered an Order Closing File, relinquishing jurisdiction to the Department. A copy of the March 28, 2011 Order Closing File is attached hereto as “Exhibit E.”
The Issue The issue to determine in this matter is whether equitable tolling applies to excuse Respondent Mac Mar, LLC’s, late-filed petition for administrative review.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with enforcing the requirement of chapter 440, Florida Statutes, that employers in Florida secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage for their employees. See § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Respondent is a corporation located in Clermont, Florida, engaged in the roofing industry. On March 5, 2018, Department Investigator Keith Howe conducted a workers’ compensation compliance check at a residence located in Daytona Beach, Florida, where Petitioner was installing a new roof. The purpose of Mr. Howe’s visit was to determine whether Petitioner had workers’ compensation coverage for its employees, as required under chapter 440. Mr. Howe made a preliminary determination that persons working at the residence were not covered by workers’ compensation insurance. After Mr. Howe’s visit, on March 6, 2018, the Department issued and served on Respondent (via hand-delivery) a Stop-Work Order and Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation. The Stop-Work Order alleged that Respondent failed to secure the payment of workers’ compensation insurance for those individuals at the Daytona Beach worksite, in violation of sections 440.10(1), 440.38(1), and 440.107(2). On June 27, 2018, the Department served Respondent with the Amended Order via certified mail. The Amended Order includes two deadlines. The deadline referenced on the first page of the Amended Order states: Pursuant to Rule 69L-6.028, Florida Administrative Code, if the Division imputes the employer’s payroll, the employer shall have twenty days after service of the first amended order of penalty assessment to provide business records sufficient for the Division to determine the employer’s payroll for the period requested in the business records request for the calculation of the penalty. The employer’s penalty will be recalculated pursuant to subsection 440.107(7)(d), F.S., only if the employer provides all such business records within the twenty days after service of the first amended order of penalty assessment. Otherwise, the first amended order of penalty assessment will remain in effect. The Amended Order’s other deadline is found in the “Notice of Rights” on the second page, and states: You must file the petition for hearing so that it is received within twenty-one (21) calendar days of this agency action. The petition must be filed with Julie Jones, DFS Agency Clerk, Department of Financial Services, 612 Larson Building, 200 East Gaines Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399- 0390. FAILURE TO FILE A PETITION WITHIN THE TWENTY- ONE (21) DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THIS AGENCY ACTION CONSTITUTES A WAIVER OF YOUR RIGHT TO ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OF THE AGENCY ACTION. Ms. Anderson, who previously served as an attorney for the Department, testified that the Department assigned her to a separate workers’ compensation matter involving Respondent (case 18-069-D7). Ms. Anderson testified that she contacted Ms. Lairsey, Respondent’s chief operating officer, on July 20, 2018, to discuss whether Respondent would agree to waive the 21- day deadline to file the petition in that matter. By that date more than 21 days had already passed from Respondent’s receipt of the Amended Order. Ms. Lairsey’s testimony confirms this conversation. Ms. Lairsey testified that she returned Ms. Anderson’s call, to discuss case 18-069-D7, as well as the instant case. At the time and date of this phone call, Respondent had not filed a petition for relief in the instant case, and the Department had therefore not assigned it to a Department attorney. During this telephone conversation, both Ms. Anderson and Ms. Lairsey testified that they discussed the potential for settlement in case 18-069-D7, and that Ms. Lairsey asked Ms. Anderson if the Department would consider consolidating that case with the instant case. Ms. Anderson testified that, during this telephone conversation, she was unaware of the instant case because Respondent had not yet filed a petition. After reviewing the Department’s database, Ms. Anderson testified that she discovered the Amended Order, but noted to Ms. Lairsey that Respondent had not yet filed a petition, and that if it did, the Department would consider it to be beyond the 21-day deadline, and thus late. Ms. Lairsey’s testimony is consistent with Ms. Anderson’s testimony concerning the discussion of the presumed lateness of the yet-to-be-filed petition in the instant case. Ms. Lairsey testified: So I understood that I was going to be late with the petition, or actually, I didn’t realize—I don’t remember—I didn’t know until that time that I was going to be late, but I wanted to know if I could get an extension of time or somehow find out a way to respond with why it was going to be late because of all the documentation that I needed to create the response. Ms. Anderson testified that she explained to Ms. Lairsey that because the Department would consider a petition in the instant case to be late-filed, it would issue an order to show cause, which “would give her a chance to respond to the Department and tell us why she believed her petition was late and to see if any of those reasons would amount to anything under the law where the Department could, in fact, look at the petition.” Ms. Lairsey testified that she believed that Ms. Anderson told her that a “response” would be accepted after the filing deadline. Ms. Lairsey also testified that she needed to obtain, review, and provide documentation concerning the allegations in the Amended Order to provide the Department with an “honest answer.” Ms. Lairsey also testified that she did not understand the deadlines stated in the Amended Order, although she ultimately testified, “Yes. I knew that it was—this is the one that was the 21 days from filing[.]”1/ Ms. Anderson testified that Respondent’s deadline for filing a petition in the instant matter was July 18, 2018. The undersigned finds that the Department served the Amended Order by certified mail that was received on June 27, 2018, and that July 18, 2018, is 21 days after the service of the Amended Order. The Department received Respondent’s petition for hearing on July 25, 2018, which was seven days after the filing deadline.2/ Thereafter, on August 7, 2018, the Division issued an Order to Show Cause, providing Respondent 21 days to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed as untimely, and to address whether any basis existed for the Department to equitably toll the 21-day deadline for filing the petition. On August 28, 2018, Respondent responded to the Order to Show Cause. The response states, in part: In this instance, there is sufficient evidence to support equitable tolling. Amanda Lairsey, Chief Operations Officer of MAC MAR, LLC, has been in continuous contact with the Division of Worker’s Compensation regarding matters that had arisen with MAC MAR, LLC. Specifically, Ms. Lairsey had been in communication with Taylor R. Anderson, Attorney for Workers Compensation. It is imperative that it be stressed in abundant clarity that MAC MAR, LLC does not believe that there was any responsibility or inaction or inappropriate action undertaken by Attorney Anderson. In Ms. Lairsey’s experience, she had been extremely helpful and professional in helping MAC MAR, LLC resolve its issues for which she was representing the Division. No representative of the Division was appointed or communicated for MAC MAR, LLC for the present matter. When Ms. Lairsey received the amended Order of Penalty Assessment on June 27, 2018, she asked Attorney Anderson whether or not she could be the assigned representative for the Division in this matter and explained that MAC MAR, LLC would need additional time to provide adequate information to the Division. Attorney Anderson indicated that she could not be the representative. Attorney Anderson stated that Ms. Lairsey would need to respond to the Order and that, if she failed to do so timely, that MAC MAR, LLC would receive a letter (which is apparently the Order to Show Cause) and would have to explain why it was filed untimely. Although it is apparent now that Attorney Anderson was properly communicating the requirements, Ms. Lairsey understood the statement to mean that MAC MAR, LLC could respond, and if it failed to do so timely, an explanation would be sufficient. Although it appears that it was not Attorney Anderson’s intention to lull Ms. Lairsey into thinking she could respond even if it was untimely, that is the unfortunate effect of Ms. Lairsey’s understanding of the communication from Ms. Anderson. Ms. Lairsey is not an attorney and did not appreciate the significance of the requirements of Equitable Tolling. The undersigned finds that Ms. Lairsey’s testimony at the final hearing contradicts Respondent’s response to the Order to Show Cause. Ms. Lairsey testified that she understood that Respondent’s petition in the instant matter was late. She testified that she did not understand the deadlines contained in the Amended Order, although Respondent apparently was able to timely file a petition in case 18-069-D7. And, Ms. Lairsey testified that she was aware that she would have an opportunity to respond to the Department’s Order to Show Cause to explain why the Respondent was filing a late petition--not that she believed she had the opportunity to have the Department accept a late- filed petition. Ms. Lairsey testified that she needed additional time to obtain, review, and provide documentation concerning the allegations in the Amended Order, in order to submit an accurate petition. However, the undersigned finds that Florida Administrative Code Rule 28-106.2015(5)(a) through (e) sets forth the substantive requirements for a petition for hearing. The subsections of this rule do not require a respondent to submit or identify documents or records relevant to the dispute. The undersigned finds that neither the Department nor Ms. Anderson lulled Respondent into inaction. Rather, the evidence adduced at hearing demonstrated that Ms. Anderson adequately explained to Ms. Lairsey that any petition filed in this matter was beyond the filing deadline, which Ms. Lairsey acknowledged she understood. Ms. Anderson explained that if Respondent filed a petition beyond the deadline, it would have an opportunity to respond to an Order to Show Cause, which it did. The undersigned further finds that Respondent has provided no evidence that it was, in some extraordinary way, prevented from exercising its rights, or that it timely asserted its rights mistakenly in a wrong forum.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Department dismiss Respondent’s petition for hearing as untimely. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT J. TELFER III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of May, 2019.
The Issue The issues are as follows: (a) whether Respondent failed to secure the payment of workers’ compensation for its employees; and if so, (b) whether Petitioner assessed an appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency that is responsible for enforcing the requirements Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, requiring employers to secure the payment of workers’ compensation for their employees. At all times relevant here, Respondent has been an active Florida corporation. Respondent’s business involves the installation of acoustic ceiling tiles. Respondent’s work in this regard constitutes construction. On March 16, 2010, Carl Woodall, Petitioner’s workers’ compensation compliance investigator, conducted a random compliance check at a construction site. The site was located at 707 Jenks Avenue in Panama City, Florida. Upon his arrival in the construction site, Mr. Woodall observed two individuals, Robin and Todd Calhoun, installing acoustic ceiling tiles in a commercial office building. The individuals informed Mr. Woodall that they were working for Jackie Shores. The individuals provided Mr. Woodall with contact information for Mr. Shores. Mr. Woodall initially contacted Mr. Shores by phone. Later, Mr. Woodall and Mr. Shores spoke in person at the construction site. Mr. Shores informed Mr. Woodall that he was employed by Respondent as a job supervisor. Mr. Shores also identified Robin and Todd Calhoun as Respondent’s employees. Mr. Shores informed Mr. Woodall that Respondent used Southeast Employee Leasing for workers’ compensation coverage, but that Robin and Todd Calhoun had not been signed up for coverage. Mr. Woodall then contacted George Kaspers from Southeast Employee Leasing to verify whether Respondent had secured workers’ compensation for Robin and Todd Calhoun. Mr. Kaspers confirmed that the Calhouns were not covered and that they did not have pending employee applications. On March 16, 2010, Mr. Kaspers faxed Mr. Woodall a list of Respondent’s employees that were covered by workers’ compensation insurance. The list did not name the Calhouns. Mr. Woodall next searched Petitioner’s Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) for proof of a workers’ compensation policy or officer exemptions. CCAS is a database that lists workers’ compensation insurance policy information and all workers’ compensation exemptions. The database did not list a current policy for Respondent or any valid exemptions. Mr. Woodall also reviewed the website maintained by the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations. The review showed that Respondent had been an active corporation since May 7, 2002. Based on his investigation, Mr. Woodall determined that Respondent had not secured workers’ compensation coverage for all of its employees as required by Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. On March 16, 2010, Petitioner issued, and served on Respondent, a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment, together with a Request for the Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation. The business records request applied to the period of March 17, 2007, through March 16, 2010. The request sought production of payroll records, workers’ compensation policy documents, employee leasing documents, temporary labor service documents, and workers’ compensation exemption documents. Mr. Woodall did not initially request subcontractor payroll and workers’ compensation documentation from Respondent because he did not see any subcontractors on site. He did not want to burden Respondent with a request for more documents that were necessary to determine a proper penalty. However, after Respondent failed to produce the requested records within the required time-period, the case was assigned to Monica Moye, Respondent’s penalty calculator, to prepare a penalty based on Respondent’s imputed payroll. On April 8, 2010, Mr. Woodall personally served an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on Respondent. The Order assessed a total penalty in the amount of $77,492.93 against Respondent for failure to secure workers’ compensation coverage for its employees. On April 5, 2010, and April 7, 2010, Respondent provided bank records with check images to Petitioner for the period of March 1, 2007, through March 31, 2010. Ms. Moye used these records to calculate a 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. The second order was based on payments to employees and subcontractors that were not covered by workers’ compensation insurance or an exemption there from. The second order assessed a penalty in the amount of $13,018.63. After service of the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, Ms. Moye received additional information from Respondent regarding a subcontractor that was covered by its own workers’ compensation policy. After confirming the subcontractor's coverage, Ms. Moye removed all payments to that subcontractor from Respondent's penalty. Mr. Woodall subsequently issued a 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to Respondent, assessing a penalty in the amount of $7,105.35. Later, Ms. Moye received information from Respondent, indicating that two additional subcontractors had workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. This information resulted in the issuance of a 4th Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, assessing a penalty in the amount of $6,675.91. Classification codes are four digit codes assigned to occupation by the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc. (NCCI) to assist in the calculation of workers’ compensation insurance premiums. The codes are listed in the Scopes® Manual, which Petitioner has adopted by rule. After discovery was completed in this case, Petitioner determined that some of Respondent’s employees had been assigned an improper construction classification code of 5348 on the 4th Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. Code 5348 encompasses ceramic tile, indoor stone, and marble installation. The proper code for Respondent’s employees was 5020, which encompasses the installation of suspended acoustical ceilings. Based on information provided by Respondent during discovery, Petitioner also determined that one of Respondent’s clerical employees should be assigned classification code 8810 rather than construction code 5348. Additionally, Petitioner discovered that payments to two entities were payments for material rather than labor. Based on information learned during discovery, Petitioner prepared a 5th Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, assessing a total penalty in the amount of $8,621.46. To calculate the penalty of the 5th Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, Petitioner totaled the gross payroll paid to Respondent’s employees and subcontractors that were not covered by workers’ compensation for each period of non-compliance. Respondent conceded that all of the individuals and entities listed on the penalty worksheet performed services for Respondent during the time periods listed. Respondent also conceded that the gross payroll amounts were correctly calculated, that none of the individuals listed had secured an exemption, and that none of the payments to employees or subcontractors included in the penalty calculation were covered by a workers’ compensation policy. Approved manual rates are established by NCCI and adopted by Petitioner. The approved manual rates are calculated upon the risk assigned to the type of employment reflected by each classification code. Using the penalty calculation worksheet, Petitioner divided the gross payroll amount for each employee and subcontractor in each period of non-compliance by 100 and multiplied that figure by the approved manual rate for the classification code assigned to that employee or subcontractor. The product was the amount of workers’ compensation premium Respondent should have paid for each employee and subcontractor if Respondent had been compliant. The premium amounts were then multiplied by 1.5 to arrive at the penalty for each employee and subcontractor. The penalties for each employee and subcontractor for each period of non-compliance were then added together to come up with a total penalty of $8,621.48.
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, affirming, approving, and adopting the 5th Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of December, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Jackie Shores M & M Coop Construction Co., Inc. 1401 Minnesota Avenue Lynn Haven, Florida 32444 Holly R. Werkema, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Julie Jones, CP, FRP Agency Clerk Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 Benjamin Diamond, General Counsel Department of Financial Services’ The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Honorable Alex Sink Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner was operating its restaurant business in violation of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, the Florida Workers' Compensation Law, by failing to have required workers' compensation coverage. The related issues are whether the Department should therefore issue a Stop Work Order, whether a penalty should be imposed for so operating and what the correct penalty should be.
Findings Of Fact The Department is an Agency of the State of Florida charged with enforcing the statutory requirement, specifically Section 440.107, Florida Statutes, which mandates that employers in Florida secure the payment of workers' compensation insurance coverage for the benefit of employees. The Petitioner is a restaurant operating in the vicinity of Crystal River, Florida, which opened for business sometime in the year 2005. At certain times during its operation, which are those times relevant to this proceeding, the restaurant had four or more employees, and was thus subject to the requirement to secure payment of workers' compensation for those employees. Wanda Rivera is an investigator for the Division's Bureau of Compliance. On January 12, 2007, she was referred to investigate a restaurant in Crystal River, Florida. There was another restaurant nearby, the La Paz Mexican Grill, the Petitioner's business. Because she was in the area she made a routine visit to that restaurant as well. When Ms. Rivera entered the restaurant she saw two waitresses as well as another employee and the owner of the restaurant. She made a report of her visit as well as other events and observed facts from her investigation and included them as part of a narrative in her initial investigative report. Ms. Rivera checked the Department's Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) data base by first looking up the name La Paz Mexican Grill. She spoke to the restaurant's owner, Aswaldo Vazquez, and learned that the actual corporate name was 2 Friends, Inc. She researched that name in the Division's data base and found no indication of workers' compensation coverage for that corporation. She also interviewed workers present at the restaurant. Mr. Vazquez told Ms. Rivera that there were five employees and that the restaurant did not have workers' compensation coverage. Ms. Rivera also checked the CCAS data base, as well as the Department of State, Division of Corporation's data base. She thereby discovered that Mr. Vazquez was an officer of the corporation, but that he did not have an exemption from workers' compensation coverage which corporate officers may apply for and obtain. Ms. Rivera presented her investigative findings to her supervisor and after having done so issued a Stop Work Order, Number 07-012-D3, and served it upon Mr. Vazquez. She hand wrote the Stop Work Order Number on that form, having received that number from her supervisor. She served it on Mr. Vazquez personally on that same day, January 12, 2007. Part of her training as an investigator had emphasized serving documents personally on employers. The Stop Work Order was a three part form; she gave the yellow carbon copy of the Stop Work Order to Mr. Vazquez by hand delivery and, in checking her official file in the case in preparation for hearing, she found that her file contained no yellow copy of the Stop Work Order Form, corroborating her testimony that she had personally served the yellow copy of the Stop Work Order on Mr. Vazquez on January 12, 2007. The Stop Work Order specifically stated that all business operations had to cease immediately and could not resume until the Department issued an order releasing the Stop Work Order. The Order also stated that a penalty of $1,000.00 a day would be assessed the employer who conducted business operations in violation of the Stop Work Order. Ms. Rivera and Mr. Vazquez are fluent Spanish speakers. Ms. Rivera therefore conducted her interview with Mr. Vazquez in Spanish to assure that he understood all facets of the Division's position in his situation. She answered his questions and explained to him that the Stop Work Order was to take effect immediately and that there would be a $1,000.00 dollar per day fine for working in violation of the Stop Work Order. She also issued and served a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation. The records were to be produced within five business days. Two types of records were requested: those that would show how much payroll the establishment had paid over the previous three years and those that would show exemptions. The request for records allows the employer five days to provide the documents; if no records were received within 15 days of the request, the Department could impute the gross payroll. Three weeks after serving the request on Mr. Vazquez, Ms. Rivera received some records by mail on February 2, 2007. They were insufficient for her investigation. Thus, not having received records from which she could calculate payroll and determine when the restaurant had four or more employees, Ms. Rivera, in accordance with statute, imputed the payroll and thereupon calculated a penalty of $34,240.30 based upon the imputed amount. She issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to that effect on February 5, 2007, and it was served by certified mail on Mr. Vazquez on February 7, 2007. It was also served by a process server on February 13, 2007. That Amended Order of Penalty Assessment did not reference the Stop Work Order Number nor did it reflect the date it was issued. Ms. Rivera forgot to include this information when she filled out the Order. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment did, however, have the following language: The Stop Work Order issued in this case shall remain in effect until either (a) the Division issues an order releasing the Stop Work Order upon finding that the employer has come into compliance with the coverage requirements of the workers' compensation law and pays the total penalty in full, or (b) the Division issues an Order of Conditional Release from Stop Work Order pursuant to the employer coming into compliance with the coverage requirements of the workers' compensation law and entering into a payment agreement schedule for periodic payment of penalty. On February 7, 2007, Mr. Vazquez phoned Ms. Rivera asking why his penalty was that high, stating that his accountant could provide additional records. Ms. Rivera had telephone contact at least twice with Mr. Vazquez between February 7, and March 29, 2007. When she contacted him at the restaurant, a voice would answer, "La Paz Mexican Restaurant, how may I help you?" She asked Mr. Vazquez if the restaurant was actually operating, and told him that he could not open for business while a Stop Work Order was in effect. She was assured that the restaurant was not working. Mr. Vazquez also told her that more records would be produced. On March 29, 2007, however, Ms. Rivera had not received any new records, so she visited the restaurant and found that it was open for business in violation of the Stop Work Order. Because the restaurant is open seven days a week, Ms. Rivera assessed an additional penalty of $1,000.00 per day since the Stop Work Order had been issued. She thus issued a Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment for the sum of $110,240.30. The Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment referred to Stop Work Order Number 07-012-D3, stating that the Stop Work Order had been filed on January 12, 2007, and noting that the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was dated February 5, 2007, and the Order showed an issuance date of March 29, 2007. On the next day, March 30, 2007, Ms. Rivera received more business records, from which she could calculate a penalty without imputing the payroll. Ms. Rivera calculated the new penalty at $79,690.36. Before she could issue a new penalty order, however, Mr. Vazquez contacted her and said that his restaurant had been closed for several days while he was traveling. He subsequently provided documents to Ms. Rivera that showed that he was out of the country for nine days. While 76 days had elapsed between the date the Stop Work Order was issued and the date Ms. Rivera found the restaurant had been open, Ms. Rivera determined that she would assess the penalty for only 67 days of that period. This decision was based upon Mr. Vazquez's documentation and her giving him the benefit of the doubt in accepting his representation that he had been out of the country for nine days and not operating. She then re-calculated the penalty as being $70,060.36 and issued a Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to that effect. The Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment made reference to Stop Work Order Number 07-012-D3, and notes that the Stop Work Order was issued on January 12, 2007. The Third Amended Order has "February 5, 2007," in the line on the order for "issuance date." The entry for "issuance date" on the Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is incorrect and it should have been April 3, 2007, the date the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was issued. The penalty worksheet for the Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment shows that there was $25,793.55 in payroll for the relevant portions of 2005; $8,635.30 for relevant portions of 2006 during which times the restaurant had four employees. There was $1,370.21 in payroll for the relevant first 12 days of 2007, which was up until the time the Stop Work Order was issued. Ms. Rivera did not include the payroll for periods of time when the record showed the restaurant did not have four employees and her work papers so reflect. The payroll was calculated from 2005 forward because the business opened that year. On April 4, 2007, Mr. Vazquez brought his restaurant into compliance by reducing his staff to less than four employees and he entered into an agreement with the Department whereby he would pay down 10 percent of the penalty and agree to pay the remainder in 60 interest free monthly payments. Mr. Vazquez, in effect, does not contest the Division's position that he was required to carry workers' compensation coverage during the pertinent time periods and that he did not have such coverage. In actuality he disputes the amount of the penalty because he maintains that he did not receive the Stop Work Order until March 29, 2007. Mr. Vazquez is the president of the 2 Friends, Inc., Corporation. He speaks English and opined during his testimony that he reads 60 to 70 percent of English text. He knows people who are fluent in English and has people to whom he can show documents written in English if he does not understand any part of such.
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 finding that the Petitioner, 2 Friends Inc., d/b/a/ La Paz Mexican Grill, has failed to secure required workers' compensation coverage for its employees in violation of Sections 440.10(1)(a) and 440.38(1), Florida Statutes (2007), and that a penalty against that entity be accessed in the amount of $70,060.36, and that said final order provide for an acceptable installment payment arrangement whereby the amount may be paid over a period of at least 60 months at no interest. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of July, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of July, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Leon M. Boyajan, II, Esquire Leon M. Boyajan, II, P.A. 2303 West Highway 44 Inverness, Florida 34453-3809 Thomas H. Duffy, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street, 6th Floor Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Honorable Alex Sinks Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Daniel Sumner, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is subject to assessed penalties as set forth in the Amended Stop Work and Penalty Assessment Order dated March 11, 2003.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency charged with enforcing statutory requirements that employers secure the payment of workers' compensation for their employees. Respondent is a Florida corporation, Federal Employer Identification No. 592489849, located in Ocala, Florida, that provides livestock transportation services. Henry Hayes Hudson, III, is Respondent's president. Martha Hudson is Respondent's vice president. Henry and Martha Hudson are Respondent's only officers and shareholders. On or about March 3, 2003, Petitioner received a complaint alleging that Respondent did not carry workers' compensation coverage. That same day, Petitioner's investigator, William Pangrass, conducted a compliance inspection at Respondent's principal place of business, 5879 West County Road 326, Ocala, Florida. During the investigation, Mr. Pangrass interviewed Martha Hudson and Respondent's bookkeeper, Kelly Hadsock. The investigation revealed that Respondent had no proof of workers' compensation for the prior three years. Petitioner personally served Respondent with a Stop Work and Penalty Assessment Order, No. 03-191-D1, on March 3, 2003. The Order required Respondent to cease all business activities. The Order also assessed the minimum statutory penalty in the amount of $100.00 under Section 440.107(5) and $1,000.00 under Section 440.107(7)(b). Martha Hudson refused to sign the Order. Next, Petitioner personally served a Request for Business Owner Affidavit and Production of Business Records on March 3, 2003. Martha Hudson also refused to sign this document. Respondent subsequently provided Petitioner with copies of its payroll records. The records included Respondent's payroll from March 3, 2000, through March 3, 2003. For all or part of that period, Respondent employed 52 individuals. Petitioner used the payroll records to calculate the penalty assessment for the three-year period of time that Respondent did not provide its employees with workers' compensation. On March 11, 2003, Petitioner issued the Amended Stop Work and Penalty Assessment Order, No. 03-191-D1-2. The Amended Order required Respondent to cease all business operations and to pay a penalty in the amount of $109,500.00, pursuant to Section 440.107(5), and a penalty in the amount of $325,045.57, pursuant to Section 440.107(7)(a). The total assessed penalty was $434,545.57. In a telephone conference on July 11, 2003, the parties stipulated that Respondent had no workers' compensation coverage for the period of time at issue here. They also stipulated that the only remaining issue involved the accuracy of the assessed penalty. During the hearing, Petitioner presented competent evidence to support the accuracy of the assessed penalty. More importantly, Respondent stipulated to the accuracy of the assessed penalty.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order affirming the Amended Stop Work Penalty Assessment Order and directing Respondent to pay a penalty in the amount of $434,545.57. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of November, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of November, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Larry Collins, Esquire 202 South Magnolia, Suite 3 Ocala, Florida 34474 Eric Lloyd, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
