The Issue Has Respondent failed to secure payment of workers' compensation for his employees, Section 440.107(2), Florida Statutes (2005), justifying the entry of a stop-work order, Subsection 440.107(7)(a), Florida Statutes (2005), and the entry of a financial penalty against Respondent, Subsection 440.107(7)(d), Florida Statutes (2005), as imputed, Subsection 440.107(7)(e), Florida Statutes (2005)?
Findings Of Fact Michael Robinson is an investigator for Petitioner's Bureau of Compliance. His duties include job site visits to determine whether individuals on the site are employees, by whom those persons are employed and whether the employer has secured the payment of workers' compensation by obtaining necessary insurance coverage. Some site visits are made on a random basis. That was the case here. On August 11, 2005, Mr. Robinson went to an address in Lake City, Florida, referred to as 223 NW Sylvi Drive. There he observed three individuals laying sod in the yard of the private residence located at the address. Respondent, a fourth individual, was transporting sod from a trailer to the yard using equipment described as a Bobcat. The sod had been cut in squares and the squares were being matched and placed on the ground in the yard, where it was stepped on to secure it in the ground in a checker board pattern. Approximately three-quarters of the yard had sod placed. Mr. Robinson considered the activities on the site as involving a construction industry, with a classification, according to the National Council on Compensation, Inc. (NCCI), as class code 0042, landscape gardening and drivers, as reflected in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.021(1)(a). The NCCI classification codes for job descriptions were adopted by the rule. Mr. Robinson observed a permit board erected in the front yard of the property. There was no evidence that he saw which would indicate anyone was living in the home. The garage door was open. There was nothing in the garage. No blinds were on the windows. No evidence of any kind was observed that would indicate the house had been occupied. Altogether four persons were working at the site. Mr. Robinson interviewed each individual. After introducing himself, Mr. Robinson explained to Respondent the reason for the site visit and determined that Respondent was the employer for the other individuals, in addition to working on the job. Respondent told Mr. Robinson that he was a sub-contractor working for Earth Scapes, and had been hired to lay new sod in the yard. Respondent described his position as that of a sole proprietor. Respondent identified two of the other individuals as being his step-sons and the remaining individual was a family friend. Respondent explained that the basis for compensating the other employees was that Respondent "gave them running around money on Friday's." The other individuals indicated that they worked for Respondent part-time when he needed their help. To verify Respondent's statement that he was a sub- contractor assigned to the job, Mr. Robinson contacted the owner of Earth Scapes, who agreed with Respondent's recount of his assignment at the job location. Mr. Robinson was told Earth Scapes is a nursery that lays new sod and plants trees. Mr. Robinson inquired of Mr. Curry concerning workers' compensation coverage for the three employees. The answer was that Respondent did not have workers' compensation coverage through an insurance policy or through a leasing company or temporary labor service. Research into coverage and compliance through a Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) data base available to Petitioner did not reveal any information concerning Respondent and his business at 1259 SW County Road, 252-B, Lake City, Florida, that would relate to workers' compensation coverage. A similar search of a data base maintained by Petitioner in association with exemptions from the requirement to obtain workers' compensation coverage did not reveal any exemption for Respondent from the need for workers' compensation coverage. Having discovered the activity on the construction site in which work was done without workers' compensation coverage, Mr. Robinson discussed his findings with Robert Lambert, Petitioner's district supervisor in the Bureau of Compliance. Following that conversation Mr. Lambert authorized Mr. Robinson to issue a stop-work order to Respondent. A stop- work order was prepared on August 11, 2005. The stop-work order was served on Respondent on that date. The basis for its entry was the failure to secure payment of workers' compensation in violation of Section 440.107(2), Florida Statutes (2005), by failing to obtain coverage that would meet the requirements set forth in Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and provisions of the Florida Insurance Code (the Insurance Code). On that same date, an Order of Penalty Assessment was served on Respondent under authority set for in Section 440.107(7)(d), Florida Statutes (2005). The Order of Penalty Assessment also reminded Respondent that the penalty might be amended based upon other information obtained, including the production of business records held by Respondent. These orders advised Respondent that he had the right to contest material facts in the stop-work order by filing a written petition for hearing under Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes (2005). On August 11, 2005, by a written document, Mr. Robinson requested production of business records maintained by Respondent that would assist in the calculation of a penalty assessment for the period August 11, 2002, through August 11, 2005, as contemplated by Section 440.107(7), Florida Statutes. The written request for production reminded Respondent that he must produce those records within five business days after receipt, to allow examination and copying, and that the failure to do so by quality of information sufficient to allow the determination of the payroll for the period in question, would allow the Petitioner to impute weekly payroll for the three employees and Respondent pursuant to the information derived using Section 440.12(2), Florida Statutes (2005), multiplied by 1.5. The document served on Respondent set out the various categories of information requested for production. These categories comport with Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L- 6.015. Respondent did not honor this request at any time.2/ Mr. Robinson not only provided the list of categories of information sought for production, he explained the categories found on the list to Respondent. Examples of information sought and explained included timesheets, time cards, payroll check stubs, check ledgers, income tax returns that would reflect the amount of remuneration paid or payable to each employee. On September 1, 2005, Mr. Robinson served Respondent with an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment that set forth an assessed penalty of $121,039.00, by imputation under Subsection 440.107(7)(d) and (e), Florida Statutes (2005), and by resort to Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.028. That rule allows the imputation of payroll calculations after 15 business days following receipt by the employer of a written request to produce business records and the method will not be set aside after 45 days from receipt. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment reminded Respondent that the stop-work order would remain in effect unless that order was released by Petitioner's further order. The necessary steps to set aside the stop-work order depended on obtaining coverage under the workers' compensation law and the payment of the penalty assessment. The approach for serving the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was by certified mail return receipt requested. The receipt was returned following service. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment provided the Respondent with the opportunity to dispute the material facts associated with the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment under procedures found in Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes (2005). As indicated, Respondent took advantage of the right to contest matters leading to the final hearing. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment as set forth in Petitioner's Exhibit number six also reflects a worksheet that applies to the overall period in question. It demonstrates the calculations imputed related to Respondent, Tony Joe Brown, Collin Grimes, and Josh Grimes, persons on the job site when the random inspection took place on August 11, 2005. The calculations in the matrix for all parts, were in relation to the four workers under class code 0042, without the benefit of actual information provided by Respondent. The job class codes are derived from the Scopes Manual, an insurance industry publication.
Recommendation Upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered keeping the stop-work order in effect pending Respondent's proof that he has obtained necessary workers' compensation coverage and the payment of the Amended Penalty Assessment in the amount of $121,039.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of June, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 28th day of June, 2006.
The Issue Whether Fantastic Construction of Daytona, Inc. (“Respondent”), failed to secure the payment of workers’ compensation coverage for its employees; and, if so, whether the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (“Petitioner” or “Department”), correctly calculated the penalty to be assessed against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with enforcing the requirement of chapter 440, Florida Statutes, that employers in Florida secure workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Respondent is a corporation engaged in the construction industry with headquarters in Daytona Beach, Florida. On November 19, 2015, the Department’s compliance investigator, Scott Mohan, observed five individuals framing a single-family house at 173 Botefuhr Avenue in Daytona, Florida. Mr. Mohan interviewed the individuals he observed working at the jobsite and found they were working for Respondent on lease from Convergence Leasing (“Convergence”). Mr. Mohan contacted Convergence and found that all of the workers on the jobsite were employees of Convergence, except Scott Barenfanger. Mr. Mohan also confirmed that the workers’ compensation policy for Convergence employees was in effect. Mr. Mohan reviewed information in the Coverage and Compliance Automated System, or CCAS, for Respondent. CCAS indicated Respondent’s workers were covered for workers’ compensation by Convergence and that Respondent’s contract with Convergence was active. Mr. Mohan also confirmed, through CCAS, that Foster Coleman, Respondent’s president, had previously obtained an exemption from the workers’ compensation requirement, but that his exemption expired on July 18, 2015. Mr. Mohan then contacted Mr. Coleman via telephone and informed him that one of the workers on the jobsite was not on the active employee roster for Convergence, thus Respondent was not in compliance with the requirement to obtain workers’ compensation insurance for its employees. Mr. Coleman reported to the jobsite in response to Mr. Mohan’s phone call. Mr. Coleman admitted that Mr. Barenfanger was not on the Convergence employee leasing roster. Mr. Coleman subsequently obtained an application from Convergence for Mr. Barenfanger and delivered it to his residence. Mr. Mohan served Mr. Coleman at the jobsite with a Stop-Work Order and a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation (“BRR”). In response to the BRR, Respondent provided to the Department business bank statements, check stubs, copies of checks, certificates of liability insurance for various suppliers and subcontractors, and an employee leasing roster for most of the audit period from November 20, 2013, to November 19, 2015.1/ Respondent did not produce any check stubs for November and December 2013. Mr. Coleman testified, credibly, that his bookkeeper during that time period did not keep accurate records. Mr. Coleman did produce his business bank statements and other records for that time period. Based on the review of initial records received, the Department calculated a penalty of $17,119.80 and issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in that amount on February 18, 2016. On March 17, 2016, Respondent supplied the Department with additional records. Altogether, Respondent submitted over 400 pages of records to the Department. The majority of the records are copies of check stubs for checks issued on Respondent’s business bank account. The check stubs are in numerical order from 1349 to 1879, and none are missing. The check stubs were hand written by Mr. Coleman, who is 78 years old. Some of his writing on the check stubs is difficult to discern. On April 4, 2016, following review of additional records received, the Department issued a Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in the amount of $9,629.36. The Department assigned penalty auditor Sarah Beal to calculate the penalty assessed against Respondent. Identification of Employees Ms. Beal reviewed the business records produced by Respondent and identified Respondent’s uninsured employees first by filtering out payments made to compliant individuals and businesses, and payments made for non-labor costs. However, the evidence demonstrated that the Department included on its penalty calculation worksheet (“worksheet”) payments made to individuals who were not Respondent’s employees. Neal Noonan is an automobile mechanic. Mr. Noonan was neither an employee of, nor a subcontractor for, Respondent for any work performed by Respondent during the audit period. Mr. Noonan performed repairs on Mr. Coleman’s personal vehicles during the audit period. Checks issued to Mr. Noonan during the audit period were for work performed on Mr. Coleman’s personal vehicles. The Department’s worksheet included a “David Locte” with a period of noncompliance from June 19, 2014, through December 31, 2014. The basis for including Mr. Locte as an employee was a check stub written on December 10, 2014, to a business name that is almost indiscernible, but closely resembles “Liete & Locke” in the amount of $100. The memo reflects that the check was written for “architect plans.” Mr. Coleman recognized the worksheet entry of David Locte as pertaining to David Leete, an architect in Daytona. Mr. Leete has provided architectural services to Respondent off and on for roughly five years. Mr. Leete signs and seals plans for, among others, a draftsman named Dan Langley. Mr. Langley provides drawings and plans for Respondent’s projects. When Respondent submits plans to a local governing body which requires architectural drawings to accompany permit applications, Mr. Leete reviews and signs the plans. Mr. Leete was neither an employee of, nor a subcontractor for, Respondent during the audit period. The single payment made to Mr. Leete by Respondent during the audit period was for professional architectural services rendered. Mr. Langley was neither an employee of, nor a subcontractor for, Respondent during the audit period. Payments made to Mr. Langley during the audit period were for professional drafting services rendered. Among the names on the Department’s worksheet is R.W. Kicklighter. Mr. Kicklighter is an energy consultant whose office is located in the same building with Mr. Leete. Mr. Kicklighter prepares energy calculations, based on construction plans, to determine the capacity of heating and air-conditioning systems needed to serve the planned construction. Mr. Kicklighter was neither an employee of, nor a subcontractor for, Respondent during the audit period. Payments made to Mr. Kicklighter during the audit period were for professional services rendered. Respondent made a payment of $125 on September 15, 2014, to an entity known as Set Material. Set Material is a company that rents dumpsters for collection of concrete at demolition and reconstruction sites. Removal and disposal of the concrete from the jobsite is included within the rental price of the dumpster. The Department included on the worksheet an entry for “Let Malereal.” The evidence revealed the correct name is Set Material and no evidence was introduced regarding the existence of a person or entity known as Let Malereal. Set Material was neither an employee of, nor a subcontractor for, Respondent during the audit period. The single payment made to Set Material during the audit period was for dumpster rental. The Department’s worksheet contains an entry for “CTC” for the penalty period of January 1, 2014, through May 1, 2014. Respondent made a payment to “CTC” on April 11, 2014, in connection with a job referred to as “964 clubhouse.” The records show Respondent made payments to Gulfeagle Supply, Vern’s Insulation, John Wood, Bruce Bennett, and Ron Whaley in connection with the same job. At final hearing, Mr. Coleman had no recollection what CTC referred to. Mr. Coleman’s testimony was the only evidence introduced regarding identification of CTC. CTC could have been a vendor of equipment or supplies for the job, just as easily as an employee. The evidence is insufficient to support a finding that CTC was an employee of, or a subcontractor for, Respondent during the audit period. The check stub for check 1685 does not indicate to whom the $60 payment was made. The stub reads “yo for Doug.” The Department listed “Doug” as an employee on its worksheet and included the $60 as wages to “Doug” for purposes of calculating workers’ compensation premiums owed. At hearing, Mr. Coleman was unable to recall ever having employed anyone named Doug, and had no recollection regarding the January 7, 2015, payment. The evidence was insufficient to establish that “Doug” was either Respondent’s employee or subcontractor during the audit period. Ken’s Heating and Air was not an employee of, nor a subcontractor to, Respondent for any work undertaken by Respondent during the audit period. Ken’s Heating and Air conducted repairs on, and maintenance of, Mr. Coleman’s personal residence during the audit period. Checks issued to Ken’s Heating and Air during the audit period were payments for work performed at Mr. Coleman’s personal residence. Barry Smith is an electrical contractor. Mr. Smith was neither an employee of, nor subcontractor to, Respondent for any work performed by Respondent during the audit period. Mr. Smith did make repairs to the electrical system at Mr. Coleman’s personal residence during the audit period. Checks issued to Mr. Smith during the audit period were payments for work performed at Mr. Coleman’s personal residence. The remaining names listed on the Department’s penalty calculation worksheet were accurately included as Respondent’s employees.2/ Calculation of Payroll Mr. Coleman’s exemption certificate expired on July 18, 2015, approximately four months shy of the end of the audit period. Payments made by Respondent to Mr. Coleman during the time period for which he did not have a valid exemption (the penalty period) were deemed by the Department as wages paid to Mr. Coleman by Respondent. Respondent’s business records show seven checks written either to Mr. Coleman or to cash during that time period in the total amount of $3,116.52. The Department included that amount on the worksheet as wages paid to Mr. Coleman. Check 1873 was written to cash, but the check stub notes that the payment of $1,035.69 was made to Compliance Matters, Respondent’s payroll company. Check 1875 was written to cash, but the check stub notes that the payment of $500 was made to Daytona Landscaping. The evidence does not support a finding that checks 1873 and 1875 represented wages paid to Mr. Coleman. The correct amount attributable as wages paid to Mr. Coleman during the penalty period is $1,796.52. Respondent’s employees Tyler Eubler, Brian Karchalla, Keith Walsh, and John Strobel, were periodically paid by Respondent during the audit period in addition to their paychecks from Convergence. Mr. Coleman testified that the payments were advances on their wages. He explained that when working on a job out of town, the crew would arrive after Convergence had closed for the day, and Mr. Coleman would pay them cash and allow them to reimburse him from their paychecks the following day. Unfortunately for Respondent, the evidence did not support a finding that these employees reimbursed Mr. Coleman for the advances made. The Department correctly determined the payroll amount attributable to these employees. The Department attributed $945 in payroll to “James Sharer.” The Department offered no evidence regarding how they arrived at the name of James Sharer as Respondent’s employee or the basis for the payroll amount. James Shores worked off-and-on for Respondent. Mr. Coleman recognized the worksheet entry of “James Sharer” as a misspelling of Mr. Shores’ name. Respondent’s records show payments totaling $535 to Mr. Shores during the audit period. The correct amount of payroll attributable to Mr. Shores from Respondent during the audit period is $535. The Department included wages totaling $10,098.84 to Mr. Barenfanger during the period of noncompliance from November 20, 2013, to December 31, 2013. The Department imputed the average weekly wage to Mr. Barenfanger for that period because, in the Department’s estimation, Respondent did not produce records sufficient to establish payroll for those two months in 2013. See § 440.107(7)(e), Fla. Stat. The voluminous records produced by Respondent evidenced not a single payment made to Mr. Barenfanger between January 2014, and November 19, 2015. Even if Mr. Coleman had not testified that he did not know or employ Mr. Barenfanger before November 19, 2015, it would be ludicrous to find that he worked weekly for Respondent during the last two months of 2013. Mr. Coleman testified, credibly, that Mr. Barenfanger worked the jobsite for Respondent on November 18 and 19, 2015, but not prior to those dates. The evidence does not support a finding that the worksheet entry for Mr. Barenfanger in the amount of $10,098.84 accurately represents wages attributable to Mr. Barenfanger during the period of noncompliance. The Department’s worksheet includes an employee by the name of Ren W. Raly for the period of noncompliance from January 1, 2014, through May 1, 2014, and a Ronnie Whaley for the period of noncompliance from June 19, 2014 through December 31, 2014. Mr. Coleman testified that he never had an employee by the name of Raly and he assumed the first entry was a misspelling of Ronnie Whaley’s name. Mr. Coleman testified that Ronnie Whaley was a concrete finisher and brick layer who did work for Respondent. Mr. Coleman testified that he submitted to the Department a copy of Mr. Whaley’s “workers’ comp exempt,” but that they must not have accepted it. The records submitted to the Department by Respondent do not contain any exemption certificate for Ronnie Whaley. However, in the records submitted to the Department from Respondent is a certificate of liability insurance dated February 25, 2014, showing workers’ compensation and liability coverage issued to Direct HR Services, Inc., from Alliance Insurance Solutions, LLC. The certificate plainly states that coverage is provided for “all leased employees, but not subcontractors, of Ronald Whaley Masonry.” The certificate shows coverage in effect from February 1, 2013, through February 1, 2015. Petitioner did not challenge the reliability of the certificate or otherwise object to its admissibility.3/ In fact, the document was moved into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit P1. Petitioner offered no testimony regarding whether the certificate was insufficient proof of coverage for Mr. Whaley during the periods of noncompliance listed on the worksheet. The evidence does not support a finding that Mr. Whaley was an uninsured individual during the periods of noncompliance. Thus, the wages attributed to Mr. Whaley by the Department were incorrect. Ms. Beal assigned the class code 5645—Carpentry to the individuals correctly identified as Respondent’s uninsured employees because this code matched the description of the job being performed by the workers on the jobsite the day of the inspection. Ms. Beal correctly utilized the corresponding approved manual rates for the carpentry classification code and the related periods of noncompliance to determine the gross payroll to the individuals correctly included as Respondent’s uninsured employees. Calculation of Penalty For the employees correctly included as uninsured employees, Ms. Beal applied the correct approved manual rates and correctly utilized the methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)1. and Florida Administrative Code Rules 69L-6.027 and 69L-6.028 to determine the penalty to be imposed. For the individuals correctly included as uninsured employees, and for whom the correct payroll was calculated, the correct penalty amount is $2,590.06. The correct penalty for payments made to Mr. Coleman during the penalty period is $571.81. The correct penalty for payments made to James Shores is $170.24. The correct total penalty to be assessed against Respondent is $3,332.11. The Department demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent was engaged in the construction industry in Florida during the audit period and that Respondent failed to carry workers’ compensation insurance for its employees at times during the audit period as required by Florida’s workers’ compensation law. The Department demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent employed the employees named on the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, with the exception of Ken’s Heating and Air, CTC, Don Langly, Ren W. Raly, R.W. Kicklighter, Dave Locte, Let Malereal, Ronnie Whaley, and “Doug.” The Department did not demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that it correctly calculated the gross payroll attributable to Mr. Coleman and Mr. Shores. The Department demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Beal correctly utilized the methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)1. to determine the appropriate penalty for each of Respondent’s uninsured employees. The Department did not demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the correct penalty is $9,629.36. The evidence demonstrated that the correct penalty to be assessed against Respondent for failure to provide workers’ compensation insurance for its employees during the audit period is $3,332.11.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, finding that Fantastic Construction of Daytona, Inc., violated the workers’ compensation insurance law and assessing a penalty of $3,332.11. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of August, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of August, 2016.
The Issue The issue is whether the Stop-Work Order and 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued by Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation (Department), on July 1, 2015, and February 29, 2016, respectively, should be upheld.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the various requirements of chapter 440. Respondent is a Florida corporation with offices located at 1904 28th Avenue North, St. Petersburg, Florida. The company is engaged in the construction business, and its activities fall within the statutory definition of "construction industry." See § 440.02(8), Fla. Stat. Respondent also does business under the name of M & M Construction of South Florida, but both are the same corporate entity with the same Federal Employer Identification Number and use the same bank accounts. Respondent's assertion that the two are separate and work done under the "d/b/a" name cannot be used to establish liability under chapter 440 is rejected. On July 1, 2015, Munal Abedrabbo, a Department compliance inspector, made a random inspection of a job site at 4115 East Busch Boulevard, Tampa, where remodeling work on a commercial building was being performed. When he entered the premises, Mr. Abedrabbo observed Bernard Reed on a ladder painting an interior ceiling. After identifying himself, he informed Mr. Reed that he needed to verify his insurance coverage. Mr. Abedrabbo was directed to Mr. Cook, Respondent's vice-president and part owner, who acknowledged that he was the general contractor on the job and had three employees/painters working that day, Reed, James Dabnes, and John Russell. Mr. Cook informed the inspector that the three employees were leased from Paychek, Inc., an employee leasing company, and that firm provided workers' compensation coverage for the leased employees. Mr. Abedrabbo returned to his vehicle and accessed on his computer the Department of State, Division of Corporations, Sunbiz website to verify Respondent's status as a corporation. After verifying that it was an active corporation, he then checked the Department's Coverage and Compliance Automated System to verify whether Respondent had a workers' compensation policy or any exemptions. He was unable to find any active policy for Respondent, as the most recent policy had lapsed in January 2013. Mr. Cook has an exemption, covering the period October 20, 2014, through October 19, 2016, but the exemption is with a different company, Thomas Cook Carpenter, LLC. Mr. Abedrabbo spoke again with Mr. Cook and informed him that Department records showed no insurance coverage for his employees. Mr. Cook telephoned Paychek, Inc., and then confirmed that the three painters had no workers' compensation insurance. Mr. Cook explained that before he allowed Mr. Reed to begin work, Mr. Reed had shown him an insurance certificate that turned out to be "falsified," and then "conveniently lost it" when the inspector appeared. He also explained his firm "was caught with our pants down once before" and he did not want it to happen again. For that reason, he contended he was especially careful in hiring leased employees. Even so, he does not deny that Respondent has had no insurance in place since January 2013 and Paychek, Inc., failed to provide coverage. The Department issued a Stop Work Order and Penalty Assessment the same day. To determine the amount of Respondent's unsecured payroll for purposes of assessing a penalty in accordance with section 440.107(7)(d)(1), Florida Statutes, the Department requested Respondent to provide business records for the preceding two years. This period of non-compliance is appropriate, as Respondent was actively working in the construction industry during that time period without securing insurance. The request informed Mr. Cook that if complete records were not provided, the Department would use the imputation formula found in section 440.107(7)(e) to calculate the penalty. After reviewing the information provided by Respondent, on August 18, 2015, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in the amount of $114,144.52 for the period July 7, 2014, through June 30, 2015. Based on two depositions of Mr. Cook, a 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in the amount of $105,663.48 was issued on February 29, 2016. The Department penalty auditor calculated the final penalty assessment using the "imputed" method because insufficient business records were provided to determine Respondent's payroll for all relevant time periods, except the month of October 2014. In addition to missing bank statements and check images, Respondent failed to provide its entire second bank account. Although Mr. Cook contends some records were in the possession of M & M Construction of South Florida, and he could not access them in a timely manner, this does not excuse Respondent's failure to timely produce all relevant records. Under the imputed method, the penalty auditor used the average weekly wage ($841.57) times two to determine Respondent's payroll for the imputed portions. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.028(2); § 440.107(7)(e), Fla. Stat. The gross payroll was then divided by 100 in order to be multiplied by the applicable approved manual rates. The Department applied the proper methodology in computing the penalty assessment. A class code is a numerical code, usually four digits, assigned to differentiate between the various job duties or scope of work performed by the employees. The codes were derived from the Scopes Manual Classifications (Manual), a publication that lists all of the various jobs that may be performed in the context of workers' compensation. The Manual is produced by the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc., an authoritative data collecting and disseminating organization for workers' compensation. The Manual provides that class code 5474 applies to painters who perform painting activities. Reed, Dabnes, and Russell were assigned this code. Mr. Cook agrees this code is correct. Mr. Cook was assigned class code 5606 (construction executive) and placed on the penalty assessment because he is an owner of the corporation and was managing the work. Although Mr. Cook argues he had an exemption and should not be placed on the assessment, Department records reflect that Mr. Cook had an exemption with a different company during the audit period. Therefore, his inclusion in the employee census was correct. Because Respondent's business records included checks written to Kerry Francum for tile work, he was assigned class code 5348 (tile work) and placed on the penalty assessment as an employee. At his deposition, Mr. Cook acknowledged that Francum performed tile work for his firm and was an employee. At hearing, Mr. Cook changed his testimony and contended Francum was only a material supplier, not a subcontractor, and should not be on the penalty assessment. This assertion has not been accepted. Mr. Francum's inclusion on the assessment is appropriate. Respondent's business records also indicated a check was written to Kerry Randall, a tile subcontractor. At hearing, however, Mr. Cook established, without contradiction, that because of Mr. Randall's violent temper, he was paid a one-time fee of $1,000.00 and let go before he performed any work. Mr. Randall should be removed from the assessment. The Department has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is correct, less any amount owed for Mr. Randall.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order assessing Respondent the penalty in the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, less any amount owed for Mr. Randall. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of November, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER 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 21st day of November, 2016.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner properly issued a Stop Work Order (SWO) and Fifth Amended Penalty Assessment against Respondent for failing to obtain workers' compensation insurance that meets the requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Division is an agency within the Department of Financial Services. It is responsible for enforcing the workers' compensation coverage requirements pursuant to Section 440.107, Florida Statutes. Norton is a limited liability company operating as a tree trimming and removal business in Tallahassee, Florida. Harry Norton, Jr. is the sole owner and manager of Norton. On March 1, 2010, Petitioner's investigator, Jonas Hall, visited 1144 Mary's Drive, Tallahassee, Florida ("work site"), after being referred to the location to investigate Respondent for compliance with the Florida Workers' Compensation Law. At the work site, Petitioner's investigator spoke to Harry Norton, Jr., and asked him whether the other five individuals observed working at the work site were his employees. He confirmed they were. While at the work site, Mr. Hall used the Department of Financial Services' Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS), and confirmed Respondent lacked insurance for the payment of workers' compensation coverage. Additionally, Petitioner's investigator verified through the CCAS that no exemptions from workers' compensation had been issued for Norton Tree Service or for any of the five employees identified at the work site. Upon confirmation that Respondent lacked workers' compensation coverage and that no exemptions were in effect, Petitioner's investigator contacted his supervisor and requested authorization to issue a SWO and business records request. Approval was given, and Mr. Hall personally served Mr. Norton with the SWO and Request for Production of Business Records ("Request") at the work site that same day. The SWO ordered Respondent to immediately cease all business operations. Soon thereafter, Norton responded to the Request and provided Petitioner's investigator with some of the requested records. These included UTC-6s, some federal quarterly tax returns, and handwritten timesheets for 2007. Petitioner's investigator forwarded the documents to Monica Moye, Petitioner's penalty calculator, for review. On or about March 16, 2010, Petitioner issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessing a penalty of $214,643.15 against Respondent. Subsequent to the issuance of the Amended Order Norton provided additional financial documents to Petitioner. These included additional federal tax returns and Forms 1099, as well as paycheck stubs and banking records. These documents were also forwarded to Ms. Moye, resulting in the issuance on April 28, 2010, of the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. The new penalty assessment was $76,712.02. Subsequent to the issuance of the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, Investigator Hall researched the corporate status of Respondent on the Department of State, Division of Corporations website. The website showed that Respondent had become inactive on September 14, 2007. Accordingly, on May 27, 2010, Investigator Hall issued and served an Amended SWO and a Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to reflect the inactive status of Respondent. However, a typographical error in the issuance date necessitated the issuance of a Fourth Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, served on June 2, 2010. As with the Second Amended Order, both the Third and Fourth Amended Orders reflected a penalty of $76,712.02. On July 23, 2010, a Fifth Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was issued by Petitioner, this time reducing the total penalty assessment to $61,003.11. The reduction was the product of additional financial information being provided by Mr. Norton and analyzed by Ms. Moye, resulting in the removal of some individuals from the penalty worksheet. In calculating the penalty owed by Respondent, Ms. Moye first determined the amount of premium that Respondent would have paid had workers' compensation insurance been in place during the period March 2, 2007, through March 1, 2010. To do so, Ms. Moye identified the Norton employees and their gross wages using the UCT-6s and check copies provided by Respondent. Ms. Moye then used this information to ascertain the time periods for which Respondent had four or more employees but did not have workers' compensation insurance. Ms. Moye used weekly pay periods as the interval over which to make this determination. Only the weeks during which Respondent was found to have four or more employees were included by Ms. Moye in the penalty calculation. By assigning the appropriate occupational class codes to each employee, and then multiplying by the applicable manual rates as determined by the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Ms. Moye calculated the premium that would have been paid by Norton had coverage been provided. This amount was then multiplied by 1.5, to arrive at the total penalty of $61,003.11. During the hearing, Respondent admitted not having workers' compensation coverage for his employees. Mr. Norton testified he was told many years earlier by his CPA that his company was exempted from the coverage requirements because the company had only two employees. Mr. Norton was apparently under the mistaken belief that the exemption continued in effect, even after the addition of several more employees over the years.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, issue a final order affirming the Stop Work Order and Fifth Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in the amount of $61,003.11. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of August, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS 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 25th day of August, 2010.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by failing to secure the payment of workers' compensation, as alleged in the Stop-Work Order and 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and, if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement that employers in the State of Florida secure the payment of workers' compensation for their employees and corporate officers. Respondent, Shriji Krupa, Inc., is a Florida corporation engaged in business operations as a gas station (self-service and convenience-retail) in the State of Florida. Mr. Hemant Parikh, one of Respondent's corporate officers, testified that, on November 20, 2012, Respondent was inspected by Petitioner's Compliance Investigator, Mike Fuller. Mr. Fuller advised Mr. Parikh that Respondent needed to close the store. According to Mr. Hemant Parikh, at the time of inspection, Respondent had two corporate officers and four additional employees. Mr. Parikh explained that, at the time of inspection, Respondent had two store locations with three employees working at each locale. Mr. Shrikant Parikh, another corporate officer, testified that, at the time of inspection, Respondent was operating under the mistaken belief that its corporate officers were exempt from workers' compensation coverage. Pursuant to the record evidence, on November 28, 2012, Mr. Fuller served a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment on Respondent. Pursuant to the Stop-Work Order, Respondent was ordered to cease all business operations for all worksites in the state based on the following: Failure to secure the payment of workers' compensation in violation of sections 440.10(1), 440.38(1), and 440.107(2) F.S., by: failing to obtain coverage that meets the requirements of Chapter 440, F.S., and the Insurance Code. After receiving the Stop-Work Order, on that same date, Respondent obtained workers' compensation coverage with an effective date of November 29, 2012. Respondent has maintained appropriate coverage to date. Following the Stop-Work Order, Respondent submitted various records for Petitioner's review.2/ Petitioner's sole witness was Ms. Lynne Murcia. Ms. Murcia works in Petitioner's Bureau of Compliance wherein she calculates penalties for those employers found in violation of the workers' compensation laws. Ms. Murcia performs approximately 200 penalty calculations per year. Ms. Murcia first became involved with Respondent in January 2013, when she received an assignment to perform a penalty calculation. Ms. Murcia reviewed all records previously submitted by Respondent. From the records received, Ms. Murcia was able to determine that Respondent employed four or more employees on a regular basis. Ms. Murcia explained that "employees" include corporate officers that have not elected to be exempt from workers' compensation. After conducting a search within the Florida Division of Corporations, Ms. Murcia was able to determine that no exemptions existed for Respondent's corporate officers. Ms. Murcia further conducted a proof of coverage search via Petitioner's Coverage and Compliance Automated System ("CCAS"), which is a database that contains all insurance coverage and exemptions for each employer throughout the State of Florida. The search revealed that Respondent possessed appropriate coverage from November 29, 2012, to the present; however, no prior coverage was indicated. Ms. Murcia conducted a penalty assessment for the non- compliance period of November 29, 2009, through November 28, 2012. From the records submitted by Respondent, Ms. Murcia correctly identified Respondent's employees and gross wages paid during the penalty period. All of the individuals listed on the Penalty Worksheet of the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, dated August 27, 2014, were "employees" (as that term is defined in section 440.02(15)(a), Florida Statutes) of Respondent during the period of noncompliance listed on the penalty worksheet. From a description of the Respondent's business operations, Ms. Murcia determined Respondent's classification code. She explained that classification codes are established by the National Council of Compensation Insurance ("NCCI"). A classification code is a four-digit code number that is assigned to a specific group of tasks, duties, and responsibilities for a specific grouping of business. Ms. Murcia further testified that the classification codes are associated with a manual rate which is the actual dollar amount of risk associated with a particular code.3/ The manual rates are also established by NCCI. Class Code 8061, used on the penalty worksheet attached to the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and as defined by the NCCI Scopes Manual, is the correct occupational classification for Respondent. From the assigned classification code number, 8061, Ms. Murcia calculated the appropriate manual rate for the penalty period. The manual rates used on the penalty worksheet attached to the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment are the correct manual rates. The total penalty of $21,205.19 is the correct penalty for the employees listed on the penalty worksheet attached to the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment.
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 Shriji Krupa, Inc., violated the requirement in chapter 440, Florida Statutes, to secure workers' compensation coverage, and imposing a total penalty assessment of $21,205.19. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S TODD P. RESAVAGE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of October, 2014.
Findings Of Fact 12. The factual allegations contained in the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment issued on October 17, 2011, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on November 4, 2011, and the 2"! Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on April 26, 2012, attached as exhibits and fully incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted as the Department’s Findings of Fact in this case.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to file a Petition for hearing to challenge the Stop-Work Order (SWO) and Amended Order of Penalty Assessment (AOPA) more than 21 days from the date of the SWO and the AOPA?
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is the state agency charged with the responsibility of enforcing the requirement that employers, in Florida, secure workers' compensation insurance coverage for their employees. § 440.107 (3) Fla. Stat. (2005).1 Petitioner, J and A Framing, Inc., during all times relevant to these proceedings, is a Florida for profit corporation, and is authorized to do business in this state. On October 20, 2005, Respondent's Investigator personally served a Request for Production of Business Records on a representative of Petitioner. On October 26, 2005, Respondent's Investigator personally served a SWO on Jorge Bernales, President of Petitioner. The SWO contained a Notice of Rights, on the second page, advising Petitioner, in bold print, that it had 21 days within which it may file a petition challenging the SWO. On October 31, 2005, Respondent's Investigator personally served an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment (AOPA) on Jorge Bernales, President of Petitioner, which also contained a Notice of Rights, on the second page, advising Petitioner, in bold print, that it had 21 days within which to file a petition challenging the AOPA. Marisol Hernandez, Bernales' girlfriend, who reads and speaks English fluently, was present when Respondent's Investigator served Bernales with the SWO and the AOPA. Petitioner filed its Petition with Respondent on March 6, 2006, which is more than 120 days from the date of the SWO and AOPA. Jorge Bernales testified that he was Petitioner's only corporate officer. Marisol Hernandez stated her only relationship with Petitioner was as the girlfriend of Jorge Bernales, its President, and that she is carrying Bernales' unborn child, and his income pays her rent and utilities. She was not employed by Petitioner. Counsel for Petitioner elicited testimony from Hernandez that she did "nothing" for the company and was not an employee or officer of Petitioner. The testimony of Bernales and Hernandez conflicts with the corporate records, admitted in evidence as a joint exhibit, and filed with the Florida Secretary of State, Division of Corporations. The accuracy of the corporate records has not been challenged. It is found that, the corporate records are more credible than the testimony of Bernales and Hernandez. Effective October 27, 2005, Hernandez was listed as the Vice President and therefore, was an employee of Petitioner. At all times material hereto, Bernales was the President and an employee of Petitioner. Petitioner's President and Vice President (collectively, "Officers") met with the Respondent's Investigator on several occasions. During their first meeting, Respondent served the Request for Production of Business Records (BRR) on Bernales. During Petitioner's second meeting with Respondent, Bernales and Hernandez were presented and received the SWO. Hernandez was able to read the Notice of Rights on the SWO, and did so at the final hearing when she read aloud, "[f]ailure to file a petition within 21 days of receipt of this Stop-Work Order constitutes a waiver of your right to request a hearing." During Petitioner's third meeting, the Officers received the AOPA. The Officers had every opportunity to read the AOPA, which contains a bold Notice of Rights, virtually identical to the one on the SWO. Bernales concentrated on raising enough money to pay the penalty. Bernales approached several banks, friends, and family members to get enough money in order to put a ten percent down payment on the assessment. Unable to secure sufficient funds, Bernales offered to pay Respondent a lesser amount in exchange for lifting the SWO. This request was denied. Bernales could understand and speak the English language, but was unable to read English. He knew and was present when Hernandez read and spoke English. Bernales did not seek Hernandez's assistance in understanding the SWO or the AOPA. Hernandez had actual possession of the SWO and the AOPA, but chose to read neither. The Officers went to Elisa Barron, Petitioner's accountant, to gather documents responsive to BRR. Both knew she could read and write English. Barron assisted Petitioner in collecting the documents requested on the BRR. Neither Officer asked Barron to assist them in understanding the terms of the SWO or the AOPA. Furthermore, the Officers had the SWO and AOPA with them, but did not show the SWO or the AOPA to Barron while they were at Barron's office. The Officers testified they were unable to recall whether Barron advised them to seek an attorney regarding the penalty assessment. However, Barron testified she advised Bernales to seek an attorney listed in the local Spanish language newspaper. Barron gave Bernales a copy of the newspaper. Barron's testimony is credible. In January 2006, Bernales retained Dan N. Godfrey, Esquire, to advise the company regarding the instant matter. Even after receiving the advice of counsel, Bernales waited until March 3, 2006, to request permission to file an untimely petition. On March 3, 2006, Petitioner filed a Petition for Hearing with Respondent requesting permission to file an untimely petition to challenge the SWO and AOPA. Petitioner presented no credible evidence that Respondent, or any of its employees, misled Petitioner or lulled it into inaction.
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 dismissing the Petition, which requests permission to file an untimely petition challenging the SWO and the AOPA. DONE AND ORDERED this 2nd day of February, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of February, 2007.
The Issue The issues are whether Petitioner was in violation of the workers' compensation requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2006),1/ and, if so, what penalty should be assessed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure the payment of workers' compensation for the benefit of their employees. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. Respondent is a corporation, incorporated in the State of Florida, which conducted business operations in Florida during the period of February 8, 2004, through February 8, 2007. At all times relevant to this proceeding, David Griswold was the president, secretary, and registered agent of Griswold, Inc., as well as its sole employee. Lloyd Hillis is an investigator for the Department's Division of Workers' Compensation, Bureau for Compliance. As part of his job responsibilities, Mr. Hillis visits work sites of construction and non-construction businesses to determine if they are complying with applicable workers' compensation laws. On February 8, 2007, Mr. Hillis, on behalf of the Department, conducted a routine compliance check of all contractors in the Sunset Point Subdivision in Clearwater, Florida. During this compliance check, Mr. Hillis observed that Mr. Griswold was about to install kitchen cabinets at a house under construction at 2523 Colony Reed Lane. Cabinet installation is considered carpentry and is defined as construction work. As such, employees performing this work are required to have workers' compensation coverage unless they are exempted from such coverage. The type of work being performed by Mr. Griswold, cabinet installation or carpentry, has been designated by the SCOPES Manual as Class Code 5437. The Department has adopted the SCOPES Manual by reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.021. If and when there have been violations of the workers' compensation laws, the class codes are used in calculating the appropriate penalty. On the day of the inspection, Mr. Griswold told Mr. Hillis that he was employed by Griswold, Inc., that he was the sole employee of the corporation, and that he had an exemption from having workers' compensation coverage. Upon checking the computer database maintained by the Department, Mr. Hillis determined that Mr. Griswold did not have an exemption and had not had an exemption since 2002. Moreover, the same computer database showed that Griswold, Inc., did not have workers' compensation coverage. On February 8, 2007, Mr. Hillis issued a Stop Work Order against Griswold, Inc., after he determined that Mr. Griswold did not have workers' compensation insurance. That same day, Mr. Hillis issued to Mr. Griswold a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation (hereinafter referred to as "Request for Production of Business Records") to determine the amount of the penalty assessment. In response to the Request for Production of Business Records, Mr. Griswold provided the Department with payroll documents for the period from 2004 to 2007 and an unsigned 2006 Federal Income Tax Return. The payroll documents submitted by Petitioner consisted of pay stubs, which reflected that Texwood Industries, a company in Texas, had issued payroll checks to Mr. Griswold as an employee of Petitioner. According to the records, during the time period from 2004 through 2007, the only employee who worked for Petitioner was Mr. Griswold. During this proceeding, Petitioner did not dispute that from February 8, 2004, through February 8, 2007, Mr. Griswold was not covered by workers' compensation coverage and did not have an exemption from such coverage. Mr. Hillis used the payroll documents provided to him by Mr. Griswold as the basis for calculating the penalty assessment for the period from February 8, 2004, through February 8, 2007. However, Mr. Hillis was unable to consider the 2006 Federal Income Tax Return because it was not signed.2/ Even if the 2006 Federal Income Tax Return had been signed, the 2004 and 2005 tax records were also needed. The tax records for all three years, if provided to the Department, would have been considered and may have affected or altered the amount of the penalty assessment. The Department correctly calculated the penalty assessment using the statutory guidelines in Subsection 440.107(7)(d), Florida Statutes. The calculation was based on the money paid to Petitioner's sole employee, Mr. Griswold; the class code assigned to the job being performed by Mr. Griswold, utilizing the SCOPES Manual; and the applicable approved manual rate. Based on that calculation, the correct penalty assessment in this case is $52,685.67.
Recommendation Based upon 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 that affirms the Stop Work Order issued February 8, 2007, and the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued February 21, 2007, which assigns a penalty of $52,685.67. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of November, 2007, 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 7th day of November, 2007.
Findings Of Fact The factual allegations contained in the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, the 24 Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, 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 Orders of Penalty Assessment, the Request for Administrative Hearing, the withdrawal of Petition, and the Order Relinquishing Jurisdiction and Closing File, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby finds that: 1. On March 14, 2011, 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. 11-083-1A to TRACY B. HINOTE, D/B/A T.H. PLASTERING. 2. On March 14, 2011, the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment was personally served on TRACY B. HINOTE, D/B/A T.H. PLASTERING. 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 March 28, 2011, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 11-083-1A to TRACY B. HINOTE, D/B/A T.H. PLASTERING. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $7,590.78 against TRACY B. HINOTE, D/B/A T.H. PLASTERING. . 4. On April 6, 2011, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was personally served on TRACY B. HINOTE, D/B/A T.H. PLASTERING. A copy of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit B” and incorporated herein by reference. 5. On April 28, 2011, the Department issued a 2" Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 11-083-1A to TRACY B. HINOTE, D/B/A T.H. PLASTERING. The 2" Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $6,050.69 against TRACY B. HINOTE, D/B/A T.H. PLASTERING. 6. On May 3, 2011, the 2"4 Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was personally served on TRACY B. HINOTE, D/B/A T.H. PLASTERING. A copy of the 2" Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit C” and incorporated herein by reference. 7. On April 25, 2011, the Division received from TRACY B. HINOTE, D/B/A T.H. PLASTERING a request for an administrative hearing. The request for administrative hearing is attached hereto as “Exhibit D” and incorporated herein by reference. 8. On June 28, 2011, the Department issued a 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 11-083-1A to TRACY B. HINOTE, D/B/A T.H. PLASTERING. The 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $2,618.57 against TRACY B. HINOTE, D/B/A T.H. PLASTERING. 9. On June 29, 2011, the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served by overnight mail delivery on TRACY B. HINOTE, D/B/A T.H. PLASTERING. A copy of the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit E” and incorporated herein by reference. 10. On October 17, 2011, the Petition was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned DOAH Case No. 11-5327. 11. On November 23, 2011, the Division received from TRACY B. HINOTE, D/B/A T.H. PLASTERING a withdrawal of the request for administrative hearing. The withdrawal of request for administrative hearing is attached hereto as “Exhibit F” and incorporated herein by reference. 12. On December 8, 2011, an Order Relinquishing Jurisdiction and Closing File was entered in Division of Administrative Hearings Case. No. 11-5327. A copy of the Order Relinquishing Jurisdiction and Closing File is attached hereto as “Exhibit G” and incorporated herein by reference.
Findings Of Fact 16. The factual allegations contained in the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment issued on September 17, 2008, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on December 17, 2008, and the 1 Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on June 3, 2009, attached as “Exhibit A”, “Exhibit B”, and “Exhibit D”, respectively, and 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 request for administrative hearing received from SHAWN GODSEY MASONRY, INC., the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and the 1 Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby finds that: 1. On September 17, 2008, 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. 08-251-D1 to SHAWN GODSEY MASONRY, INC. The Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein SHAWN GODSEY MASONRY, 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, and must conform to Rule 28-106.2015, Florida Administrative Code. 2. On November 22, 2008, the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment was served on SHAWN GODSEY MASONRY, INC. by process server. 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 December 17, 2008, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to SHAWN GODSEY MASONRY, INC. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $79,200.93 against SHAWN GODSEY MASONRY, INC. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein SHAWN GODSEY MASONRY, 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, and must conform to Rule 28-106.2015, Florida Administrative Code. 4. On April 25, 2009, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served on SHAWN GODSEY MASONRY, INC. by process server. A copy of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit B” and incorporated herein by reference. 5. On May 28, 2009, SHAWN GODSEY MASONRY, INC. filed a petition for administrative review (“Petition”) with the Department. A copy of the Petition is attached hereto as “Exhibit C”. 6. SHAWN GODSEY MASONRY, INC.’s Petition was received by the Department 33 days from the date of service of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, was the only Petition filed in this matter, and gave no explanation as to why the Petition was filed beyond the 21 day time period. However, the Department failed to enter a Final Order Denying Petition as Untimely. Consequently, SHAWN GODSEY MASONRY, INC. was never advised that its Petition was untimely. 7. On June 3, 2009, the Department issued a 1 Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to SHAWN GODSEY MASONRY, INC. The 1 Amended Order of Penalty Assessment lowered the penalty assessed against SHAWN GODSEY MASONRY, INC. to $39,897.93. The 1 Amended Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein SHAWN GODSEY MASONRY, INC. was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the 1 Amended Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the 1 Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, and must conform to Rule 28- 106.2015, Florida Administrative Code. 8. On June 10, 2009, the 1 Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served on SHAWN GODSEY MASONRY, INC. by certified mail. A copy of the 1 Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit D” and incorporated herein by reference. 9. SHAWN GODSEY MASONRY, INC. failed to answer the 1 Amended Order of Penalty Assessment or request a proceeding in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. 10. On November 23, 2009, the Department filed a Final Order upholding the Stop- Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and the 1 Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, under the mistaken belief that SHAWN GODSEY MASONRY, INC. had not filed any petition requesting an administrative proceeding in response to the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, or the 1 Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. 11. Subsequent to the filing of the Final Order in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 08-251-D1, the Department became aware that SHAWN GODSEY MASONRY, INC.’s May 28, 2009 Petition had not been properly dismissed. As a result, the Department applied the doctrine of equitable tolling, pursuant to Rule 28-106.111(4), Florida Administrative Cade, to excuse the untimely filing of SHAWN GODSEY MASONRY, INC.’s May 28, 2009 Petition. 12. On February 18, 2010, the Department filed an Order Rescinding Final Order in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 08-251-D1. 13. On April 2, 2010, SHAWN GODSEY MASONRY, INC.’s Petition was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings, and the matter was assigned DOAH Case No. 10-1798. 14. On July 7, 2010, Shawn Godsey, representative of SHAWN GODSEY MASONRY, INC., informed the Department that SHAWN GODSEY MASONRY, INC. did not wish to proceed to an administrative hearing in DOAH Case No. 10-1798. 15. On July 8, 2010, the Department filed a Joint Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction with the Division of Administrative Hearings. As a result, Administrative Law Judge Linda M. Rigot entered an Order Closing File, relinquishing jurisdiction of this matter to the Department. A copy of the Order Closing File is attached hereto as “Exhibit E”.
