The Issue The issues are whether nine workers were employees of Respondent, during part of the audit period; whether Respondent failed to secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage in violation of Section 440.107, Florida Statutes (2003); and whether Petitioner should impose a penalty against Respondent in the amount of $123,960.23.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner 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). Respondent is a closely held corporation domiciled in Florida and engaged in the sale and installation of floor coverings. Mr. Dennis Davison and Mrs. Lynne Davison, a married couple, own all of the outstanding stock of Respondent (the owners). Respondent has five in-office employees, including the owners, and had a net worth of approximately $100,000 before paying the proposed penalty. On April 2, 2004, Petitioner's compliance officer conducted a random site inspection of a single-family residence at 213 Northwest 3rd Place, Cape Coral, Florida. Mr. John Walega and Mr. Mike Stephens were laying carpet in the residence (Walega and Stephens, respectively). Walega was a sole proprietor who employed Stephens. The compliance officer determined that Walega was an employee of Respondent because Walega had an expired exemption and no proof of workers' compensation insurance coverage. The compliance officer issued separate stop work orders against Walega and Respondent. The stop work order against Walega is not at issue in this proceeding. The compliance officer issued the stop work order against Respondent even though: she knew that Respondent had compensation coverage for Respondent's five employees through a leasing company; and she had no knowledge that Respondent had subcontractors other than Walega working for Respondent. The compliance officer requested Respondent's business records for the three years from April 2, 2001, through April 2, 2004 (the audit period). Respondent fully complied with the request in a timely manner. The stop work order issued against Respondent on April 2, 2004, also assessed a penalty stated as the greater of $1,000 or 1.5 times the premium Respondent would have paid in premium charges during the period Respondent allegedly failed to secure the payment of workers' compensation insurance. Sometime between April 2 and 16, 2004, Petitioner amended the penalty assessment to $137,820.72. On April 16, 2004, the owners mortgaged their personal residence to pay the amended penalty assessment. Petitioner released the stop work order, but the owners lost business in an unspecified dollar amount while the stop work order was in effect and continue to incur monthly interest expense in the amount of $500 to service the mortgage on their home. On June 28, 2004, Petitioner issued a Seconded Amended Order of Penalty Assessment No. 04-157-D7-2 that reduced the assessed penalty to $123,960.23 (the Seconded Amended Order). Respondent is entitled to a refund in the amount of $13,860.49, but Petitioner had not paid the refund as of the date of hearing. The Second Amended Order is the proposed agency action at issue in this proceeding. The compliance officer is the only employee for Petitioner who investigated and developed the substantive information that forms the basis of Petitioner's proposed agency action. Other employees calculated the actual amounts of the proposed penalties. Respondent does not challenge the mathematical accuracy of the penalty calculations by Petitioner, but challenges the legal and factual basis of Petitioner's determination that nine workers were Respondent's employees. The nine workers are identified in the record as Walega; Messrs. James Allan, Bertin Flores, Cliff Hill, David Lancaster, Earl Lancaster, Jeff Dozier, Anthony Gioe; and Ms. Patricia Lancaster. The statutory definition of an employee for that part of the audit period before January 1, 2004 (the relevant period), was different than the statutory definition that became effective on January 1, 2004. Factual findings concerning the nine workers at issue are driven by one statutory definition during the relevant period and another statutory definition thereafter. Any of the nine workers that satisfied the statutory definition in former Subsection 440.02(15)(d)1, Florida Statutes (2003), of an independent contractor should not have been included in that part of the proposed penalty attributable to the relevant period. Effective January 1, 2004, however, Subsection 440.02(15)(d)1, Florida Statutes (2003), no longer excludes independent contractors in the construction industry from the definition of an employee. Thus, a determination of whether a worker was an independent contractor is not relevant to that portion of the proposed penalty covering any part of the audit period after December 31, 2003. Effective January 1, 2004, Subsection 440.02(15)(c)2, Florida Statutes (2003), no longer excludes a subcontractor, including those that would have satisfied the former definition of an independent contractor, from the definition of an employee unless the subcontractor either executes a valid exemption election or otherwise secures payment of compensation coverage as a subcontractor. There is insufficient evidence to support a finding that any of the nine workers at issue in this proceeding either elected a valid exemption or otherwise secured payment for compensation coverage after December 31, 2003. The nine workers at issue in this proceeding are not excluded from the definition of an employee after December 31, 2004, even if they were independent contractors throughout the audit period. Except for constitutional arguments raised by Respondent over which DOAH has no jurisdiction, Respondent owes that part of the penalty attributable to any period after December 31, 2003. It is undisputed that the nine workers included in that part of the penalty assessment attributable to the relevant period were subcontractors throughout the audit period. Respondent's ledger clearly treated the workers as subcontractors and reported their earnings on Form 1099 for purposes of the federal income tax. Petitioner treated the workers as subcontractors in the penalty calculation. Customers of Respondent paid Respondent for installation of floor coverings they purchased from Respondent, and Respondent paid each of the nine workers to install the floor coverings. The Workers' Compensation Law in effect during the relevant period did not expressly exclude from the definition of an employee those subcontractors who executed a valid exemption election or otherwise secured payment of compensation coverage as a subcontractor. Findings concerning the existence of an exemption election or payment of compensation coverage are neither relevant nor material to the statutory definition of an employee during the relevant period. During the relevant period, the nine workers at issue were excluded from the definition of an employee only if they satisfied the definition of an independent contractor in former Subsection 440.02(15)(d)1, Florida Statutes (2003). Each of the nine workers were required to satisfy all of the following requirements: The independent contractor maintains a separate business with his or her own work facility, truck, equipment, materials, or similar accommodations; The independent contractor holds or has applied for a federal employer identification number, unless the independent contractor is a sole proprietor who is not required to obtain a federal employer identification number under state or federal requirements; The independent contractor performs or agrees to perform specific services or work for specific amounts of money and controls the means of performing the services or work; The independent contractor incurs the principal expenses related to the service or work that he or she performs or agrees to perform; The independent contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of work or services that he or she performs or agrees to perform and is or could be held liable for a failure to complete the work or services; The independent contractor receives compensation for work or services performed for a commission or on a per-job or competitive-bid basis and not on any other basis; The independent contractor may realize a profit or suffer a loss in connection with performing work or services; The independent contractor has continuing or recurring business liabilities or obligations; and The success or failure of the independent contractor's business depends on the relationship of business receipts to expenditures. The preponderance of evidence shows that each of the nine workers at issue was an independent contractor during the relevant period. Respondent conducted the ordinary course of its trade or business with each of the nine workers in substantially the identical manner. None of the workers shared office space with Respondent. Each worker used his or her own truck, equipment, and tools to transport the floor coverings sold by Respondent and to install them in a customer's premises. Petitioner admits that Walega was a sole proprietor. Each of the other workers either held a federal employer identification number or was a sole proprietor who was not required to obtain a federal employer identification number. Each worker agreed to perform specific services or work for specific amounts of money and controlled the means of performing the services or work. Each worker incurred his or her own expenses to install floor coverings. Each worker transported floor coverings and necessary materials to the work site in the worker's own truck and used his or her own tools to perform the work. Each worker exercised independent professional judgment to perform the work. Respondent did not perform any pre-installation site inspection and did not perform any site preparation. Respondent did not train workers, instruct workers on how to perform their work, did not supervise their work while it was being performed, and did not perform any post-installation site inspection unless Respondent received a customer complaint. Each worker was responsible for the satisfactory completion of work or services that he or she performed. Each worker was liable to Respondent and the customer for any failure to complete the work or services or for inferior workmanship. Each worker warranted his or her work to the customer's satisfaction and absorbed the costs of rework and any damage to the customer's premises. Respondent paid each worker for work or services performed on a per-job or competitive-bid basis rather than any other basis. Respondent negotiated the price paid to a worker on a square-foot basis. The price did not change regardless of the amount of time the job required or the number of helpers the worker paid to assist the worker on the job. Each worker realized a profit or suffered a loss in installing floor coverings sold by Respondent. Each worker performed work for other vendors and had continuing or recurring business liabilities or obligations apart from installing floor coverings for Respondent. Each worker depended on the relationship of business receipts of expenditures for the success or failure of the worker's business. Each worker maintained his or her own occupational and professional licenses. Each worker maintained his or her own liability insurance. Respondent required each worker to sign a written form stating that the worker was an independent contractor. The form acknowledged the workers' warranty obligations and his or her obligations for their own taxes and insurance. Each form disclosed the workers' social security number or federal employer identification number. Respondent did not withhold federal income taxes from the payments to workers. Petitioner did not explicate the basis for reducing the proposed assessment in the Second Amended Order. However, the evidence reveals that the penalty reduction resulted from the exclusion of corporate subcontractors from the penalty base. The business relationship between Respondent and its corporate subcontractors during the relevant period was substantially the same as that between Respondent and the nine workers at issue. Early in this administrative proceeding on April 8, 2004, the compliance officer advised the owners that she was unable to release the stop work order against Respondent unless she could verify in Petitioner's data base, in relevant part, that the nine workers at issue each had a valid exemption or had insurance. However, Petitioner's database would not have disclosed compensation coverage maintained by a subcontractor through a leasing company. The compliance officer's advice to the owners did not reflect the law in effect during the relevant period. The Workers' Compensation Law in effect during the relevant period did not expressly exclude from the definition of an employee those workers who executed a valid exemption election or otherwise secured payment of compensation coverage as a subcontractor. The law excluded subcontractors from the definition of an employee only if the subcontractors satisfied the statutory definition of an independent contractor. The compliance officer made no effort to determine whether any of the workers she included in the penalty base satisfied the definition of an independent contractor. The compliance officer never advised the owners that establishing a subcontractor as an independent contractor would avoid part of the assessment against Respondent during the relevant period. The compliance officer never advised the owners that Respondent was free to choose to be represented by counsel during the audit process. The compliance officer told the owners that the only thing Respondent could do to avoid the assessment was to provide a certificate of insurance or an exemption for each of the subcontractors included in the penalty base. The compliance officer admitted that she was unaware that a subcontractor who was an independent contractor during the relevant period was legally excluded from the penalty base. Counsel for Respondent advised the compliance officer of the correct legal standard on April 12, 2004, but the compliance officer refused to release the stop work order unless Respondent paid the assessed penalty. The compliance officer knew that Walega had held a valid exemption at various times in the past as a sole proprietor. She knew Walega had renewed the exemption on October 29, 2003, for five years. However, Petitioner's database showed the exemption had expired on January 1, 2004, by operation of new law. Walega provided Respondent with a copy of the exemption he renewed on October 29, 2003. The exemption stated on its face that it was effective for five years. The owners had no actual knowledge that the exemption expired on January 1, 2004, as a result of a change in the Workers' Compensation Law. Petitioner admits that it issued the exemption to Walega knowing that the exemption would expire on January 1, 2004. Petitioner issued the exemption so that Walega could use it until January 1, 2004.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order dismissing the disputed charges against Respondent for the relevant period, refunding any overpayment by Respondent, and sustaining the remaining allegations and penalties against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of August, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 27th day of August, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: David C. Hawkins, Esquire Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 Susan McLaughlin, Esquire Law Offices of Michael F. Tew Building 800, Suite 2 6150 Diamond Center Court Fort Myers, Florida 33912 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Pete Dunbar, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether the Petitioner was required to carry workers' compensation insurance coverage for its employees, and if so, the penalty that should be assessed. Whether the Petitioner violated the Stop Work Order entered May 18, 2005, and, if so, the penalty that should be assessed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of enforcing the requirement of Section 440.107, Florida Statutes, that employers in Florida secure workers' compensation insurance coverage for their employees. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Tak-A-Way is a Florida corporation which engages in the business of performing small jobs such as removing trash and debris, digging up small driveways, and excavation. Tak-A-Way owns several dump trucks, and it maintains a permanent storage yard for materials and equipment. Tak-A-Way's payroll records for the period January 2003 through May 2005 establish that several persons were listed as "Help" and received regular checks from Tak-A-Way during this period. Donald Oppenheim is the owner and president of Tak-A-Way. He is exempted from workers' compensation coverage. On May 18, 2005, during a routine investigation, an investigator employed by the Department observed two men ripping up an asphalt driveway and loading the asphalt into a truck at a private residence in Pompano Beach, Florida. One man was operating a backhoe, and the other was operating a bobcat. The equipment and trucks being used at the site displayed the name “Tak-A-Way”, and the two men confirmed that they were employed by Tak-A-Way. The men were identified as Andy Oppenheim and Kevin McManus. The Department did not find any record of workers’ compensation insurance in its database for employees of Tak-A- Way, and Mr. Oppenheim confirmed during a conversation with the Department’s investigator that Tak-A-Way had no workers' compensation coverage for any of its employees. The Department's investigator issued a Stop Work Order against Tak-A-Way on May 18, 2005, because it did not have workers’ compensation coverage for its employees; the Stop Work Order was hand-delivered to Mr. Oppenheim on the date of issue. The Stop Work Order required that Tak-A-Way "cease all business operations in this state" and advised that a penalty of $1,000.00 per day would be imposed if Tak-A-Way were to conduct any business in violation of the Stop Work Order. Finally, the Stop Work Order included the following: "This Stop Work Order shall remain in effect until the Division issues an order releasing the Stop Work Order, or until the Division issues an order of conditional release from Stop Work Order pursuant to the employer entering into a payment agreement schedule for periodic payment of penalty." Penalty Assessment for Failure to Have Workers' Compensation Insurance Coverage At the same time that she delivered the Stop Work Order to Mr. Oppenheim, the Department's investigator delivered a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation, in which Mr. Oppenheim was directed to produce business records for the period extending from November 3, 2003, through May 18, 2005.2 Mr. Oppenheim produced Tak-A-Way's business records as requested, and the Department's investigator used the payroll information in the records for calculating the penalty to be assessed for Tak-A-Way's failure to have workers' compensation insurance coverage for its employees. The Department uses the National Council of Compensation Insurance, Inc. ("NCCI") Scopes Manual, which includes risk classifications and definitions used to determine rates for workers' compensation insurance coverage. The payroll records provided by Mr. Oppenheim did not indicate the workers' compensation classification codes assigned to Tak-A-Way's employees, so, in accordance with the NCCI Basic Manual for Workers Compensation and Employers Liability Insurance ("Basic Manual"), the Department's investigator assigned all of Tak-A-Way's operations to what she determined to be the highest- rated classifications of its business operations. As shown in the worksheets attached to both the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment and the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, the Department's investigator classified all of Tak-A-Way's employees under the classification "Excavation," Code 6217, for the period extending from November 3, 2003, through December 31, 2004, which had an approved manual rate of $13.79 per $100.00 in payroll for that period; she classified all of Tak-A-Way's employees under the classification "Concrete," Code 5213, for the period extending from January 1, 2005, through May 18, 2005, with an approved manual rate of $24.66 per $100.00 in payroll for that period; and she classified all of Tak-A-Way's employees under the classification "Erection Permanent Yard," Code 8227, for the period extending from January 1, 2005, through May 18, 2005, with an approved manual rate of $9.38 per $100.00 in payroll for that period. The worksheets showed the premium calculation for each classification to be $19,248.91, $10,130.08, and $365.82, respectively, for a total premium of $29,744.81. The penalty, calculated as 1.5 times the premium for each classification, was shown on the worksheets as $28,873.37, $15,195.12, and $548.73, respectively, for a total penalty for the failure to have workers' compensation insurance coverage of $44,617.22. The operations included in the NCCI Scopes Manual classification "Excavation & Drivers," Code 6217, describe most closely the business operations of Tak-A-Way during the period of time covered by the penalty assessment for the failure to have workers' compensation insurance coverage. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the nature of Tak-A-Way's operations changed on or about January 1, 2005, nor did the Department's investigator provide any explanation for the change in classification from "Excavation" to "Concrete" effective January 1, 2005.3 In the absence of any evidence to support the change in classification, the Department has failed to sustain the $44,617.22 penalty assessment for the failure of Tak-A-Way to carry workers' compensation insurance coverage from November 3, 2003, through May 18, 2005. Rather, the premium calculation for the period from January 1, 2005, through May 18, 2005, should be based on the classification of "Excavation," Code 6217, which carried the approved manual rate of $12.77 for that period, and not on the classification of "Concrete," Code 5213.4 Tak-A-Way maintained a permanent storage yard in which its material and equipment was stored during the times material to this proceeding. The Department's investigator correctly included a premium calculation for "Erection Permanent Yard," Code 8227, as part of the calculation of the penalty against Tak-A-Way for failure to carry workers' compensation insurance coverage for its employees. Tak-A-Way obtained workers' compensation insurance coverage from Florida Citrus, Business & Industry, effective June 1, 2005. Penalty Assessment for Violating Stop Work Order On May 24, 2005, the Department’s investigator observed a Tak-A-Way truck traveling in front of her on the street and concluded that Tak-A-Way was conducting business in violation of the Stop Work Order issued May 18, 2005. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment against Tak-A- Way issued on June 1, 2005, included a penalty of $1,000.00 for Tak-A-Way's violation of the Stop Work Order from May 24, 2005, to May 25, 2005, for a total penalty of $45.617.22. Tak-A-Way conducted business operations after the Stop Work Order was issued. Mr. Oppenheim rented dump trucks owned by Tak-A-Way to Preston Contractors. Mr. Oppenheim, who was the only Tak-A-Way employee involved in the business operations at the time, would drive a truck to one of Preston Contractors' construction sites, towing his pickup truck. He would park the truck and leave the site, and employees of Preston Contractors would fill the truck with construction debris. Mr. Oppenheim would return to the construction site and drive the truck to the landfill and dump the load of debris. At times, there were several Tak-A-Way dump trucks at the Preston Contractors' construction site. According to invoices maintained by Preston Contractors, it paid Tak-A-Way for truck rental and dump fees from February 2005 to September 2005. On November 22, 2005, the Department issued a Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, increasing the penalty for Tak-A-Way's violation of the Stop Work Order to $73,000.00, covering the period extending from May 19, 2005, through September 21, 2005, for a total penalty of $117,617.22. Based on the evidence presented, Tak-A-Way was conducting business operations in violation of the Stop Work Order during the period for which the penalty was assessed and had not obtained either an order releasing the Stop Work Order or an Order of Conditional Release from Stop Work Order.
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 Tak-A-Way, Inc., failed to have workers' compensation insurance coverage for its employees, in violation of Sections 440.10(1)(a) and 440.38(1), Florida Statutes; Finding that Tak-A-Way, Inc., engaged in business operations during the pendency of a Stop Work Order, in violation of Section 440.107(7)(a), Florida Statutes; Assessing a penalty against Tak-A-Way, Inc., equal to 1.5 times premium based on the approved manual rate for the classification "Excavation," Code 6217, for the period extending from November 3, 2003, through May 18, 2005, and on the approved manual rate for the classification "Construction & Erection - Permanent Yard," Code 8227, for the period extending from January 1, 2005, through May 18, 2005 as provided in Section 440.107(7)(a) and (d), Florida Statutes; and Assessing a penalty of $73,000.00, against Tak-A-Way, Inc., for engaging in business operations in violation of the May 18, 2005, Stop Work Order, as provided in Section 440.107(7)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of March, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S PATRICIA M. HART 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 8th day of March, 2006.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent violated Sections 440.10 and 440.38, Florida Statutes (1997), by not securing workers' compensation insurance for its Florida employees; and if so, whether Petitioner properly issued a Stop Work Order and assessed civil penalties pursuant to Sections 440.107(5) and 440.107(7), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1998).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency that is charged with the responsibility of enforcing the statutory requirements for employers to provide their employees with workers' compensation coverage. Respondent is a business, located in Savannah, Georgia, that supplies workers on a temporary basis to client businesses. The services that Respondent provides to its client businesses include the payment of payroll, taxes, and workers' compensation insurance for the temporary employees. American Interstate Insurance Company (AIIC) provided Eastern Personnel Services II, Federal Employers Identification Number (FEIN) 58-2340211, with workers' compensation insurance from November 18, 1997, through November 18, 1998, in the state of Georgia. AIIC's policy number 97WAGA1109996 did not provide coverage for any of Respondent's workers in Florida. AIIC is not authorized in Florida to write insurance for an employer with Respondent's assigned risk classification. Safeco Insurance Company of America (SICA) provided Respondent, FEIN 58-2340211, with workers' compensation insurance from December 29, 1998, through December 29, 1999, in the states of Georgia and South Carolina only. SICA's policy number WC7260735 as originally drafted, and as it existed on March 2, 1999, did not provide coverage for any workers in Florida. Paul Day is Respondent's president and sole officer and shareholder. He is also the owner of Eastern Personnel Services II, a sole proprietorship. According to AIIC's and SICA's insurance policies, both entities have the same FEIN. The record here indicates that there is no substantive difference between Respondent and Eastern Personnel Services II. Respondent's testimony to the contrary is not persuasive. 1/ For all practical purposes, Respondent and Eastern Personnel Services II were under the exclusive management and control of Mr. Day at all relevant times. Beginning as early as August 28, 1997 and continuing through March 2, 1999, Respondent provided employees to Foley & Associates Construction Co., Inc. (Foley) at one or more work sites on Amelia Island, Florida. Respondent did not secure workers' compensation insurance for these workers. Stanley Benner was one of the first of Respondent's employees to begin working at Foley's Amelia Island job site. On November 9, 1998, Mr. Benner was injured while working for Respondent. Mr. Benner filed a workers' compensation claim against Respondent and AIIC seeking compensation for his injuries. He subsequently learned that AIIC did not provide workers' compensation insurance for Respondent in Florida. Mr. Benner has received no compensation from Respondent or any insurance carrier for his work-related injury. On March 2, 1999, Mr. Benner's attorney filed a complaint with Petitioner regarding Respondent's lack of workers' compensation coverage. Robert Lambert, Petitioner's investigator immediately went to Foley's job site to investigate the complaint. Upon his arrival at the construction site, Mr. Lambert learned that Respondent had 21 employees performing general contract labor for Foley that day. Foley's office manager informed Mr. Lambert that Respondent had provided Foley with between 15 and 20 laborers per day for one year. Next, Mr. Lambert called Mr. Day who provided a certificate of insurance from SICA by facsimile transmission. However, the certificate listed Saxon and Associates, a business located in Georgia, as the certificate holder. It did not reference coverage for employees provided to Foley in Florida. Mr. Lambert then called Linda Burtchett of HGI, Inc. She is an insurance agent and the authorized representative of SICA. HGI, Inc. is the producer of SICA's policy number WC7260735. Ms. Burtchett informed Mr. Lambert that SICA's policy number WC7260735 did not cover Respondent's employees in the state of Florida. To her knowledge, Respondent had never reported any wages on a Florida payroll. Mr. Lambert issued a Stop Work Order dated March 2, 1999. The Stop Work Order required Respondent to immediately cease all work at the Foley construction site. It advised Respondent that a civil penalty in the amount of $100 would be assessed for each day that it failed to provide the required workers' compensation coverage. Later on March 2, 1999, Respondent requested HGI, Inc. to provide coverage for its Florida employees working at the Foley job site under SICA's policy number WC7260735. HGI, Inc. complied with Respondent's request. Accordingly, Petitioner correctly assessed Respondent with a civil penalty in the amount of $100 in conjunction with the Stop Work Order. Mr. Day testified that the endorsement to the SICA policy provided coverage for Respondent's Florida employees retroactive to September 29, 1998. He also testified that another of Respondent's Florida employees was injured at the Foley construction site on January 18, 1999, and received compensation under the SICA policy. Mr. Day's testimony is not credited in light of Ms. Burtchett's testimony. On March 2, 1999, Petitioner informally requested Respondent to provide business records to establish the value of its Florida payroll during the three years before Petitioner issued the Stop Work Order. Respondent refused to provide Petitioner with any payroll records. Petitioner obtained records maintained by Foley regarding Respondent's employment activities at the Amelia Island job site. Foley's records showed the number of employees that Respondent employed, the number of hours worked by each employee, and their hourly rate of pay. Respondent admitted and Foley's records confirmed that Respondent's payroll at the Foley construction site was $209,249.86 between January 5, 1998 and March 1, 1999. The National Council of Compensation Insurance (NCCI) classifies Respondent as a temporary labor service. According to the NCCI, the employment activities conducted by Respondent's employees at the Foley construction site have an assigned insurance premium rate in the conservative amount of $22.34 for each $100 of payroll. Therefore, Respondent's evaded insurance premium on a payroll of $209,249.86 is $46,746. The administrative penalty is twice the evaded premium of $46,746 or $93,492. On March 31, Petitioner properly issued a Notice and Penalty Assessment Order requiring Respondent to pay an administrative penalty in the amount of $93,492. Respondent's untimely discovery responses indicated that its Florida payroll was $196,701.62 in 1998 and $65,165.36 in 1999. Petitioner could have assessed Respondent with an administrative penalty in the amount of $115,743.26.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order affirming the Stop Work Order and Notice and Penalty Assessment Order with their associated penalties, plus any lawful interest. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of October, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 12th day of October, 1999.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, properly assessed a penalty of $90,590.42 against Petitioner, S.A.C., LLC.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure payment of workers' compensation for the benefit of their employees pursuant to Section 440.107, Florida Statutes. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Petitioner, S.A.C., LLC, was a corporation domiciled in Florida. S.A.C.'s 2007 Limited Liability Company Annual Report lists its principal place of business as 626 Lafayette Court, Sarasota, Florida, 34236, and its mailing address as Post Office Box 49075, Sarasota, Florida 34230. At all times relevant to this proceeding, William R. Suzor was the president and managing member of S.A.C. Collen Wharton is an Insurance Analyst II with the Department. In this position, Ms. Wharton conducts inspections to ensure that employers are in compliance with the law. On June 20, 2007, Ms. Wharton conducted a compliance check at 2111 South Osprey Avenue in Sarasota, Florida. During the compliance check, Ms. Wharton observed three males working at that location. The three men were framing a single-family house that was under construction. This type of work is carpentry, which is considered construction. During the compliance check, Ms. Wharton asked David Crawford, one of the men working at the site, who was their employer. Mr. Crawford told Ms. Wharton that he and the other two men worked for S.A.C., but were paid by a leasing company. Mr. Crawford told Ms. Wharton that the company was owned by Mr. Suzor and, in response to Ms. Wharton's inquiry, he gave her Mr. Suzor's telephone number. In addition to Mr. Crawford, the other workers at the site were identified as Terry Jenkins and Frank Orduno. By checking the records the Department maintains in a computerized database, Ms. Wharton determined that S.A.C. did not carry workers' compensation insurance, but had coverage on its employees through Employee Leasing Solutions, an employee leasing company. She also determined, by consulting the Department's database, that none of the men had a workers' compensation exemption. Ms. Wharton telephoned Employee Leasing Solutions, which advised her that two of the workers at the site, Mr. Crawford and Mr. Jenkins, were on the roster of employees that the company maintained. The company advised her that the other worker, Mr. Orduno, was not on its roster of employees. This information was verified by an employee list that the leasing company provided to Ms. Wharton. On June 20, 2007, after determining that one worker at the work site had no workers' compensation coverage, Mr. Wharton prepared a Stop-Work Order. She then telephoned Mr. Suzor, told him that he had one worker at the site who did not have workers' compensation coverage and requested that he come to the work site. During the conversation, Mr. Suzor advised Ms. Wharton that Mr. Crawford was in charge at the work site, that she could give the Stop-Work Order to Mr. Crawford, and that he (Mr. Suzor) would meet her the following day. Ms. Wharton, after she telephoned Mr. Suzor, she conferred with her supervisor and then issued Stop-Work Order No. 07-125-D3, posting it at the work site and serving it on Mr. Crawford. On June 21, 2007, Mr. Suzor met with Ms. Wharton at her office. During that meeting, Ms. Wharton served a copy of Stop-Work Order No. 07-125-D3 on Mr. Suzor. She also served him with a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation ("Request for Business Records"). The Request for Business Records listed specific records that Mr. Suzor/S.A.C. should provide to the Department so that the Department could determine the workers who S.A.C. paid during the period of June 19, 2004, through June 20, 2007. The Request for Business Records notes that the requested records must be produced within five business days of receipt. According to the Request for Business Records, if no records are provided or the records provided are insufficient to enable the Department to determine the payroll for the time period requested for the calculation of the penalty in Subsection 440.107(7)(d), Florida Statutes, "the imputed weekly payroll for each employee, . . . shall be the statewide average weekly wage as defined in section 440.12(2), F.S. multiplied by 1.5." S.A.C. did not respond to the Department's Request for Business Records. On July 17, 2007, the Department had received no records from S.A.C. Without any records, Ms. Wharton had no information from which she could determine an accurate assessment of S.A.C.'s payroll for the previous three years. Therefore, Ms. Wharton calculated the penalty based on an imputed payroll. In her calculations, Ms. Wharton assumed that Mr. Orduno worked from June 21, 2004, through June 20, 2007, and that he was paid 1.5 times the state-wide average weekly wage for the class code assigned to the work he performed for each year or portion of the year. The Department then applied the statutory formula set out in Subsection 440.107(7)(d), Florida Statutes. Based on that calculation, the Department correctly calculated S.A.C.'s penalty assessment as $90,590.42, as specified in the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment dated July 17, 2007. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment reflecting the correct penalty amount was served on S.A.C.'s attorney, John Myers, Esquire, by hand-delivery, on July 17, 2007.3/ On July 21, 2007, S.A.C., through its former counsel, filed a Petition for Hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, enter a final order which affirms the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued July 17, 2007, assessing a penalty of $90,590.42, and the Stop-Work Order issued to Petitioner, S.A.C., LLC, on June 20, 2007. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of March, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 25th day of March, 2008.
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
Findings Of Fact The factual allegations contained in the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment issued on August 23, 2010, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on September 13, 2010, and the Order Closing File 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 Assessment, the Petition for Request of Hearing, and the Order Closing File, 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. 10-341-1A to AN & YA CONSTRUCTION, INC. 2. On August 23, 2010, the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment was personally served on AN & YA CONSTRUCTION, 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 September 13, 2010, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 10-341-1A to AN & YA CONSTRUCTION, INC. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $75,724.80 against AN & YA CONSTRUCTION, INC. 4. On September 20, 2010, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served by certified mail on AN & YA CONSTRUCTION, INC. A copy of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit B” and incorporated herein by reference. 5. On October 8, 2010, AN & YA CONSTRUCTION, INC filed a Petition for Request of Hearing (“Petition”) with the Department in response to the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. A copy of the Petition is attached hereto as “Exhibit C” and incorporated herein by reference. 6. On November 24, 2010, the Petition was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned DOAH Case No. 10-10421. 7. On April 28, 2011, an Order Closing File was entered in Division of Administrative Hearings Case. No. 10-10421. A copy of the Order Closing File is attached hereto as “Exhibit D” and incorporated herein by reference.
The Issue The issue is whether the Stop-Work Order and the Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment entered by Petitioner on July 25, 2013, and August 13, 2013, respectively, should be upheld.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency tasked with the responsibility of enforcing the requirement of section 440.107(3), Florida Statutes, that employers in Florida secure the payment of workers' compensation for their employees. Respondent, Mad Dog Marketing Group, Inc., is a corporation organized under chapter 607, Florida Statutes, and was registered with the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations, throughout the period of July 26, 2010, to July 25, 2013. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was engaged in the operation of a hardware store business with three locations in Florida. On July 25, 2013, based upon an anonymous referral, Tracey Gilbert, the Department's compliance investigator, commenced a workers' compensation compliance investigation of Respondent by visiting the job site, an appliance parts store at 730 West Brandon Boulevard, Brandon, Florida, and interviewing Sharon Belcher. According to Ms. Gilbert, Ms. Belcher informed her that she had 11 employees at the time of the site visit and that she did not have workers' compensation coverage for them. Ms. Belcher showed Ms. Gilbert an application for workers' compensation insurance and said she had not taken action with it since the company wanted a $10,000 premium. She also showed Ms. Gilbert some OSHA and workplace posters, but not the typical "broken arm poster" that describes workers' compensation coverage for a place of business. Ms. Belcher then gave Ms. Gilbert a list of Respondent's 11 current employees. On her laptop computer, Ms. Gilbert consulted the Department's Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) database to determine whether Respondent had secured workers' compensation coverage or an exemption from the requirements for coverage for its employees. CCAS is the database Ms. Gilbert routinely consults during the course of her investigations. She determined from CCAS that Respondent neither had workers' compensation coverage for her employees nor had received an exemption from such coverage from the Department. Ms. Belcher's recollection of her meeting with Ms. Gilbert differs from Ms. Gilbert's. Ms. Belcher recalled that she had applied for insurance with ADP on July 11, 2013, received the "broken arm poster," and believed she was covered at the time Ms. Belcher conducted her investigation. She offered an exhibit showing photographs of posters (but not the "broken arm poster") on the office bulletin board. She also offered an exhibit she testified was the UPS label from the tube containing the "broken arm poster." No photograph of the "broken arm poster" was produced as an exhibit. Ms. Gilbert did not contact ADP to verify whether Respondent had coverage on the date of her site visit to the Brandon store. Ms. Gilbert issued a Stop-Work Order to Respondent and a concurrent Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation at 11:20 a.m. on July 25, 2013. Ms. Belcher first submitted an application for workers' compensation coverage on July 11, 2013, but coverage was not bound on that date. Ms. Belcher submitted the paperwork to bind her insurance coverage on the afternoon of July 25, 2013, according to Mark Cristillo, an employee of ADP Insurance. Mr. Cristillo testified that he had made several attempts during the month of July 2013 to obtain the signed documents from Ms. Belcher, including an attempt as late as July 23, 2013, at 11:45 a.m. Ms. Belcher told Mr. Cristillo at that time that she had not reviewed the quote package. At 11:20 a.m., the time Ms. Gilbert's issued the Stop-Work Order on July 25, 2013, Ms. Belcher had not bound her insurance coverage. When she submitted the payment with the signed documents to ADP later that afternoon, the coverage was bound effective 12:01 a.m. on July 25, 2013. The records produced by Ms. Belcher were given to Chad Mason, one of the Department's penalty auditors, to calculate the penalty. He reviewed the records and determined the amount of gross payroll paid to Respondent's employees during the three- year penalty period preceding the investigation during which Respondent was not in compliance with the workers' compensation coverage requirements. Using Respondent's bi-weekly payroll chart, Respondent's Florida Department of Revenue UCT-6 reports, and the classification codes for each employee, Mr. Mason calculated a Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment of $42,251.43, based upon what Respondent would have paid in workers' compensation premiums had it been in compliance with Florida's Workers' Compensation Law. The order was issued on October 24, 2013. Mr. Mason determined that the appropriate codes for Respondent's employees were 8010 and 8810, which are hardware store employees and general clerical employees, respectively. These codes were derived from the Scopes Manual, which lists all of the various jobs that may be performed in the context of workers' compensation. The manual is produced by NCCI, the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc., the nation's most authoritative data collecting and disseminating organization for workers' compensation. The parties stipulated prior to hearing that all of the individuals listed on the penalty worksheet of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment were "employees" in the state of Florida of Respondent during the periods of non-compliance listed on the penalty worksheets. However, Respondent claimed that some of the employees were out-of-state and not subject to Florida law. Ms. Belcher testified that, as of July 25, 2013, three of its employees, Fred Hasselman, Douglas Strickland, and Josh Hyers, were employees of the Tennessee store and not subject to a Florida penalty. Mr. Hyers was a Florida employee prior to July 1, according to Ms. Belcher. However, all three of the employees were listed on the Florida Department of Revenue's UCT-6 form for the time period of the non-compliance. The UCT-6 form lists those employees who are subject to Florida's Unemployment Compensation Law. Mr. Mason reasonably relied upon the UCT-6 filings for the relevant time period to calculate Respondent's gross payroll in Florida. No evidence was produced to show them listed as Tennessee employees on that state's comparable tax form or any official document from outside Florida. The logical assumption is that they are Florida employees under the law. Accepting all the employees disclosed by Respondent as Florida employees led Mr. Mason to make his calculations of the penalty assessment using the appropriate codes from the Scopes Manual for hardware store and general clerical workers, 8010 and 8810. All the named employees on the Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment were paid by Respondent in the amounts indicated on the penalty worksheet that accompanies that assessment during the penalty period of July 26, 2010, through July 25, 2013. Even though small discrepancies came up at the hearing regarding the classifications of some of Respondent's employees, the parties had stipulated to the accuracy of the classifications of those employees so those numbers will be accepted for purposes of this decision. Based upon the testimony at the hearing and the pre-hearing stipulations of the parties, the penalty assessment in the amount of $42,251.43 is accurate. Mr. Mason correctly applied the methodology for determining the amount of coverage required, determining that the appropriate premium for the three- year period would have been $28,167.50. When multiplied by the factor used to calculate the penalty, 1.5 times the premium, the total amount due is $42,251.43. The Department has proven by clear and convincing evidence that at the time the Stop-Work Order was issued and served on Respondent on the morning of July 25, 2013, Respondent had not secured workers' compensation coverage for its employees as required by chapter 440. On two occasions, August 2 and August 21, 2013, Ms. Gilbert returned to Respondent's Brandon location after the Stop-Work Order had been issued. The first was to serve the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment and the second was to serve the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. On both occasions, the business was open in violation of the Stop-Work Order. A business under a Stop-Work Order may elect to enter into a payment plan after a ten percent down payment to keep the business open while a challenge to DOAH is under way. Respondent had not entered into such a plan. Therefore, the Department seeks $1,000 penalty for each of the days Ms. Gilbert visited the Brandon store and saw it open for business. This total additional penalty of $2,000 could have been greater had the Department further investigated whether the business remained open on other days after the Stop-Work Order had been imposed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order upholding the Stop-Work Order and Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and assess a penalty in the amount of $42,251.43. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Department fine Respondent an additional $1,000 per day for the two days Respondent did not comply with the Stop-Work Order, resulting in a total penalty of $44,251.43. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of December, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of December, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Trevor S. Suter, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Kristian Eiler Dunn, Esquire Dickens and Dunn, P.L. 517 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (“Division”), properly issued a Stop-Work Order and 4th Amended Penalty Assessment against Respondent, Best Affordable Contractors, LLC (“Respondent”), for failing to obtain workers' compensation insurance that meets the requirements of chapter 440, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On July 31, 2020, the parties filed a Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, by which the parties stipulated to the facts set forth in the following paragraphs 2 through 17. Stipulated Findings The Division is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure the payment of workers’ compensation for the benefit of their employees and corporate officers. Respondent was engaged in business operations in Florida during the entire period of January 4, 2017, through January 3, 2019. On January 3, 2019, the Division’s investigator, Deryck Gallegos, commenced a workers’ compensation compliance investigation at Respondent’s work site at 1203 Dancy St., Jacksonville, Florida 32205. On January 3, 2019, Respondent had a paid subcontractor, Terry Wayne Lyons, Sr., performing roofing work at 1203 Dancy St., Jacksonville, Florida 32205. On January 3, 2019, Respondent’s subcontractor, Terry Wayne Lyons, Sr., had five paid employees performing roofing work at 1203 Dancy St., Jacksonville, Florida 32205: Terry Wayne Lyons, Sr.; Jahru Li-Ly Campbell; Kevin Lee Hagan; Terry Wayne Lyons, Jr.; and Jonathan Wayne McCall. On January 3, 2019, Respondent’s subcontractor, Terry Wayne Lyons, Sr., had no workers’ compensation exemptions and no workers’ compensation insurance coverage. On January 3, 2019, Respondent had no workers’ compensation exemptions and no workers’ compensation insurance coverage. On January 3, 2019, the Division issued a Stop-Work Order for Specific Worksite Only and Order of Penalty Assessment to Respondent. The Division served the Stop-Work Order for Specific Worksite Only and Order of Penalty Assessment on Respondent by personal service on January 4, 2019. The Division served a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation on Respondent on January 4, 2019. On February 1, 2019, the Division issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to Respondent. The Division served the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on Respondent on February 7, 2019. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment imposed a penalty of $353,349.72. On June 3, 2020, the Division issued a 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to Respondent. The Division served the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on Respondent on June 11, 2020. The 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment imposed a penalty of $68,705.29. On July 30, 2020, the Division served a 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to Respondent. The 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment imposed a penalty of $46,805.02. Throughout the penalty period, Respondent was an “employer” in the state of Florida, as that term is defined in section 440.02(16). Respondent did not obtain exemptions from workers’ compensation insurance coverage requirements for the entries listed on the penalty worksheet of the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment as “Employer’s Payroll” during the penalty period. Respondent did not secure the payment of workers’ compensation insurance coverage, nor did others secure the payment of workers’ compensation insurance coverage, for the entries listed on the penalty worksheet of the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment as “Employer’s Payroll” during the periods of non-compliance listed on the penalty worksheet. The manual rates, class codes, and gross payroll identified on the penalty worksheet of the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment are correct to the extent a penalty is due. Evidentiary Findings Based on business records received from Respondent, the Division has recalculated the assessed penalty. The proposed penalty has been reduced to $27,553.78. Respondent has paid $1,000.00 for the release of the Stop Work Order, leaving a remaining penalty of $26,553.78. In determining the penalty, the Division reviewed Respondent’s business and financial records for a period of two years, from January 4, 2017, through January 3, 2019. Respondent was cooperative and forthcoming with the Division in providing its business and financial records. Penalties are calculated first by establishing the nature of the work being performed by employees. That is done by comparing the work to descriptions provided in the National Council of Compensation Insurance (NCCI) SCOPES® Manual. As relevant to this proceeding, the work being performed by persons who were employees of Respondent was as described in SCOPES® Manual class codes 5551 (Roofing - All Kinds & Drivers); 8227 (Construction or Erection Permanent Yard); 5213 (Concrete Construction NOC); and 8810 (Clerical Office Employees NOC). Workers’ compensation insurance premium rates are established based on the risk of injury associated with a particular class code. The greater the risk of injury, the greater the premium rate to insure that risk. Work such as roofing entails a significant risk of injury, and the approved manual rate is thus very high. Office and clerical work entails a very low risk of injury, and the approved manual rate is correspondingly very low. When work is performed but it is not specifically identified, e.g., laborer, the highest rated classification code for the business being audited is assigned to the employee. In this case, the highest rated classification code applicable to Respondent is class code 5551, for roofing. The 4th Amended Order of Penalty Assessment reveals payroll for individuals engaged in work described in class codes as follows: Anthony Wright - class code 5551 Donnell Eugene Johnson - class code 5551 Edward Tipton - class code 8227 Eugene Monts - class code 5213 James Dunlap - class code 5551 James Walters - class code 5551 Jorel Golden - class code 5551 Kelvin Morrison - class code 5551 Matthew Robinson - class code 5551 Vincent Marino - class code 8810 Jahru Li-Ly Campbell - class code 5551 Kevin Lee Hagan - class code 5551 Jonathan Wayne McCall - class code 5551 Terry Lyons, Jr. - class code 5551 Terry Lyons, Sr. - class code 5551 Mr. Lyons, Sr., was retained by Respondent as a subcontractor. Mr. Lyons, Sr., previously held an exemption from workers’ compensation as an officer of his company, but it had expired on December 27, 2017. Mr. Lyons, Sr., was working at the 1203 Dancy Street worksite on January 3, 2019. The evidence was sufficient to establish that Mr. Lyons, Sr., was appropriately assigned as class code 5551. His exemption was accepted up to its date of expiration, so the period applicable to the penalty calculation for Mr. Lyons, Sr., was from December 28, 2017, to January 3, 2019. Mr. Lyons, Sr.’s employees who were working at the 1203 Dancy Street worksite on January 3, 2019, were Mr. Campbell, Mr. Hagan, Mr. McCall, and Mr. Lyons, Jr. The evidence was sufficient to establish that they were employees of Respondent’s uninsured subcontractor, and that they were appropriately assigned as class code 5551. Mr. Wright and Mr. Robinson were listed on Respondent’s Profit & Loss Detail Sheet as “subcontract labor -- roofing.” Respondent was not able to demonstrate that they were covered by workers’ compensation. The evidence was sufficient to establish that Mr. Wright and Mr. Robinson were appropriately included in the penalty calculation, and that they were appropriately assigned as class code 5551. Mr. Johnson, Mr. Dunlap, and Mr. Morrison were listed on Respondent’s Profit & Loss Detail Sheet as “subcontract labor -- laborer.” Respondent was not able to demonstrate that they were covered by workers’ compensation. The evidence was sufficient to establish that Mr. Johnson, Mr. Dunlap, and Mr. Morrison were appropriately included in the penalty calculation, and that they were appropriately assigned as the highest rated classification code applicable to Respondent, class code 5551. Mr. Tipton was listed on Respondent’s Profit & Loss Detail Sheet as “subcontract labor -- handyman, yard work/clean up, truck detail.” Mr. Monts was listed on Respondent’s Profit & Loss Detail Sheet as “subcontract labor -- laborer.” Ms. Murcia testified that Mr. Marino provided information that Mr. Monts did concrete work, rather than roofing. Respondent was not able to demonstrate that they were covered by workers’ compensation. Mr. Marino indicated that Mr. Tipton and Mr. Monts should have been identified as his personal expenses, performing work at his home. However, they were identified in Respondent’s records as subcontract labor, and the payments to them were reported on Respondent’s 2017 income tax return as business expenses. They each received multiple payments over an extended period. The evidence was sufficient to establish that Mr. Tipton and Mr. Monts were employees of Respondent. The evidence was sufficient to establish that Mr. Tipton was appropriately assigned as class code 8227, and that Mr. Monts was appropriately assigned as class code 5213. Nonetheless, payments to the two were reduced by 20 percent to account for expenditures for materials, with the remaining 80 percent constituting payroll. Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.035(1)(i). Mr. Marino was not an on-site employee of Respondent, but rather performed administration and clerical functions for Respondent. Mr. Marino previously had workers’ compensation, but it had been cancelled on February 28, 2015. The evidence was sufficient to establish that Mr. Marino was appropriately assigned as class code 8810. Mr. Marino obtained an exemption from workers’ compensation as an officer of Respondent on January 4, 2019. The evidence established that James Walters performed repairs to Respondent’s truck. The evidence was not clear and convincing that Mr. Walters was an employee of Respondent. Jorel Golden was identified solely as the payee on a single check image. He did not appear on Respondent’s Profit & Loss Detail Sheet, and there was no evidence as to why Mr. Golden was being paid. The evidence was not clear and convincing that Mr. Golden was an employee of Respondent. The salaries of the employees were calculated based on Respondent’s business records. The total gross payroll amounted to $170,139.07. Except for the amount of payments to Mr. Walters and Mr. Golden, that figure is supported by clear and convincing evidence. The penalty for Respondent’s failure to maintain workers’ compensation insurance for its employees is calculated as 2.0 times the amount Respondent would have paid in premiums for the preceding two-year period. The NCCI periodically issues a schedule of workers’ compensation rates per $100 in salary, which varies based on the SCOPES® Manual classification of the business. The NCCI submits the rates to the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation, which approves the rates to be applied to the calculation of premiums in Florida. The workers’ compensation insurance premium was calculated by multiplying one percent of the gross payroll ($17,013.91) by the approved manual rate for each quarter (which varied depending on the quarterly rate), which resulted in a calculated premium of $18,369.19. Clear and convincing evidence supports a finding that the Division applied the correct rates in calculating the premium. The penalty was determined by multiplying the calculated premium by 2.0, resulting in a final penalty of $36,738.38. In recognition of Respondent’s cooperation in the investigation and the timely submission of its business records, the Division applied a 25 percent reduction in the penalty ($9,184.60), resulting in a total penalty of $27,553.78. The evidence established that the Division gave every benefit of the doubt to Respondent to reduce the penalty, and its effect on Respondent, to the extent allowed within the confines of the law and the records provided.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation enter a final order assessing a penalty of $27,553.78, against Respondent, Best Affordable Contractors, LLC, for its failure to secure and maintain required workers’ compensation insurance for its employees and subcontracted labor, subject to recalculation as provided herein, and subject to Respondent’s previous payment of $1,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of September, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of September, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Vincent Marino Best Affordable Contractors, LLC 1348 Clements Woods Lane Jacksonville, Florida 32211 (eServed) Leon Melnicoff, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 (eServed) Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 (eServed)
