The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in the unlicensed practice of contracting in violation of Section 489.127, Florida Statutes, and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of contractors in the State of Florida pursuant to Section 20.42 and Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. On June 7, 2005, Harry Lee Wilson signed a proposal on behalf of Wilson Construction and Roofing to perform repairs on a home owned by Tony Wright at 2126 Evergreen Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida. The proposal consisted of a two-page list of repairs to be performed, including installation of doors, plumbing, kitchen cabinets and sheetrock; repair of several holes, walls, windows and floors; painting and installation of a wall. The proposed cost for the job was $7,595.00, with $3,200.00 to be paid as a down payment, $2,200.00 to be paid halfway through, and the balance to be paid when the job was completed. Mr. Wilson represented to Mr. Wright that he was a licensed contractor and had been for 20 years. He had business cards and t-shirts that advertised "Wilson Construction and Roofing." His license, however, was an occupational license issued by the City of Jacksonville. At no time material to these proceedings was Mr. Wilson registered with or certified by the State of Florida. Likewise, Wilson Construction and Roofing did not possess a certificate of authority to practice as a contractor qualified business. No evidence was presented to establish that Mr. Wilson held any sort of competency license issued by the local jurisdiction. Mr. Wright accepted the proposal and, in all, paid $5,000.00 to Mr. Wilson for his services. On September 21, 2005, Mr. Wilson wrote to Mr. Wright representing that he had completed the "first proposal," i.e., the first page of the work under the contract. In his letter, he claimed that Mr. Wright had defaulted on the job because of work done by another contractor and that additional funds would be needed to complete the work. Mr. Wright was not pleased with the quality of work performed on the job and stopped paying Mr. Wilson. Some of the work had to be redone by another contractor. For example, the plumbing was not installed correctly; the countertop was not level; a weight-bearing wall was braced incorrectly; and drywall was applied over the light switches. Mr. Wright was under the impression that the work by Mr. Wilson was not inspected because the funds were not coming from a bank. Inspection was only performed when the job was finished by the second contractor. Mr. Wilson admitted that he has been doing construction work for 20 years and did not believe a state license was necessary. He believed that his occupational license was all he needed to perform construction work. Mr. Wilson claimed that he did not perform any plumbing work for Mr. Wright or the amount he did was minimal. However, Mr. Wilson's proposal to Mr. Wright clearly includes plumbing work among those items to be performed. Whether or not he actually did plumbing work on the job, Mr. Wilson negotiated a contract to perform such work. There was no evidence presented that Mr. Wilson was offering to perform or performing any contracting services under the supervision of any licensed contractor. The Department incurred investigative costs, excluding any costs associated with an attorney's time, in the amount of $401.83.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered which finds that Respondent violated Section 489.127(1)(f), Florida Statutes; That an administrative fine of $5,000.00 be imposed; and That costs of investigation and prosecution in the amount of $401.83 be assessed. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of November, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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.state Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings This 9th day of November, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Brian A. Higgins, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Harry Wilson Wilson Construction and Roofing 12450 Biscayne Boulevard Apartment 415 Jacksonville, Florida 32218 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Nancy S. Terrel, Hearing Officer Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue to be decided is whether Petitioner was making improvements to real property or purchasing tangible personal property when it entered into a contract for the furnishing and installation of the Swisslog System in its Lake City facility.
Findings Of Fact Respondent conducted an audit of Petitioner?s sales and use tax compliance for the period December 1, 2004, through November 30, 2007 (the “Refund Period”). Petitioner presented refund schedules to Respondent requesting a refund of $2,179,484.84 in sales and use tax accrued and remitted on the design and construction of a perishable-food storage and handling system. Respondent issued a Notice of Proposed Assessment denying the requested refund on December 6, 2010. Petitioner timely filed a Petition for Redetermination on January 14, 2011, which ultimately resulted in a Notice of Decision upholding Respondent?s December 6, 2010, denial of Petitioner?s requested refund. Petitioner timely filed a Formal Protest on February 28, 2012, challenging the Notice of Decision. The Protest was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct a section 120.57 hearing. Petitioner is a national retailer of discounted, high- quality general merchandise and grocery products. Petitioner owns and operates over 120 stores in Florida. Over the past ten years, Petitioner has been increasing the number and quality of grocery offerings in its stores. Petitioner constructed new perishable-food distribution centers to support its grocery operations. Petitioner has built a 420,000 square-foot Dedicated Perishable-Food Distribution Center ("Distribution Center") in Lake City, Florida. The Distribution Center supplies Petitioner?s grocery operations in the Southeastern United States. Petitioner entered into two separate contracts with two different contractors relating to the construction and equipping of the Distribution Center. One contract, between Petitioner and Ryan Corporation, for approximately $60 million, was for construction of a building (the “Building”). The second contract, between Target Corporation and Swiss-Log, for approximately $40 million, was for the material handling and distribution system inside the Building (the “Swisslog System”). The Swisslog System functions as an automated system for storing, inventorying, and distributing approximately 8,000 different items of perishable food products. The two contractors and Petitioner worked together on the planning and design of the Building to accommodate the Swisslog System. The Building has 34 receiving docks and 38 shipping docks. The docks are connected by conveyors that run throughout the Building. The Building was designed to take into consideration the conveyors, lifts, cranes, and “Caddy Picks” of the Swisslog System. The Swisslog System is physically attached to the Building, intended to be a permanent addition, and required for the facility to serve its intended purpose. The Distribution Center has five major storage areas. They are: 83,000 sq. ft. freezer chamber 73,000 sq. ft. cooler chamber 57,000 sq. ft. dry produce area 8,500 sq. ft. meat area 8,600 sq. ft. wet produce area. The contract with Swisslog was for the design, purchase, and installation of the entire integrated material handling and distribution system. The system included conveyors, cranes, de-pallet equipment, Caddy Picks, shelving, and the software and hardware to operate the warehouse management and distribution system's equipment and machinery to move food from the receiving docks to the designated storage areas and then to the appropriate shipping docks. The Distribution Center's general contractor hired several sub-contractors and suppliers to erect the Building and install the Swisslog System. The vast majority of the Swisslog System and its racking is attached to the floor or walls of the Building, or moves along tracks in the floor, or hangs from I- beams in the ceiling. The Building, including the cold and frozen temperature chambers, was designed and constructed to the specifications of the Swisslog System. During construction, the walls of the Building were not enclosed until the framework for the Swisslog System was complete. The freezer section of the Swisslog System is over 68 feet tall and 261 feet long. This section contains two floors and 25,040 merchandise “slots.” The cooler section is 53 feet tall and 261 feet long. The cooler section contains two floors and 12,720 merchandise slots. The building that envelops the Swisslog System contains approximately 1,800 tons of structural steel. The Swisslog System?s racking component includes 3,000 tons of steel. The Swisslog System has its own set of fixtures, including lighting fixtures and components, a fire protection sprinkler system consisting of piping and sprinkler heads, and an electrical system. To accommodate the Swisslog System, the Building foundation contains increased steel reinforcement and footing depths necessary to support the Swisslog System?s weight and design loads. In addition, the foundation contains 24” deep pits in certain areas to support the weight and design height the Swisslog System?s pallet jack inducts. Petitioner paid use tax on the entire contract price for the Swisslog System contract. Petitioner records the Swisslog System as tangible personal property on its ad valorem returns filed with Lake County, Florida. For federal tax purposes, Petitioner depreciates the Swisslog System as (***) year property, under the Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System. Attached and incorporated into the Joint Stipulation of Facts was a brochure produced by Accalon, which further describes the Swisslog System. The brochure is a fair and accurate representation of the Swisslog System installed at the Distribution Center. The following is a general description of how the distribution system works, and the method of its attachment and incorporation into the Building: Order Receiving Employees, driving forklifts, unload pallets from the semi tractor trailers at the receiving docks. The pallets are then label-scanned into the Work Management System (WMS) and the pallet moves to a pallet de- layering station. The WMS processes data and issues instructions, so that most of the steps necessary to move merchandise within the Swisslog System are automated. If the pallets require de-layering, the pallets are de- layered and the cases from the pallet are loaded onto a split tray and travel by conveyor to the SRM aisle and pick up station. Freezer load units are transferred in to the freezer chamber on conveyors that drive the loads through and cause the automated air-door on the refrigerated chambers to open. Once in the freezer or cooler chambers, one of the 16 automated cranes will pick up the pallets from the conveyors. These cranes, several stories tall and traveling on railroad-like tracks mounted to the floor, will travel down the aisles behind the racks to the appropriate storage rack locations, where the crane will lift the pallet and slide the pallet into the storage rack. Like the crane, the 75-foot tall storage racks are physically bolted to the building's floor or walls. The pallet-size conveyors are bolted to the floor or walls of the facility. Pallets are stored in specific locations using WMS logic. Order Picking The WMS receives orders from the store and groups the orders, allocates, and releases batches of orders for efficient pickup. During allocation, the WMS separates full-pallet picks from partial picks. The WMS virtually guides pallets from individual store orders based on cubic volume of the quantity of cases selected. The WMS maps the picking locations for the Caddy Picks and allocates orders for the Caddy Picks. There are 70 Caddy Picks in the aisles in front of the racks. Each Caddy Pick may carry up to 2,800 pounds of merchandise. The Caddy Picks hang from ceiling I-beams and travel down the aisles to pick containers and boxes from pallets on the racks and load onto outgoing pallets. An employee is required to follow the Caddy Pick as it travels down the aisles and manually pick the containers and boxes and load onto the outgoing pallets. This picking process will continue until the outgoing order of mixed products is fulfilled. These pallets are then transferred via conveyors and lifts (mechanical elevators) to ground level where the pallets are wrapped in shrink wrap on the conveyor. The pallets are then conveyed to a double-shuttle car interface station where the pallet is transferred to the double shuttle, also mounted to the floor. This car can carry two pallets simultaneously and transfer them to allocated conveyor shipping lanes. Employees driving forklifts pick up the pallets from the conveyor shipping lanes and load them into the semi-tractor trailers parked in the shipping docks. The entire process (excepting where human interaction is required) is performed by the WMS, and automated computer and software system. The system reads bar code labels on the pallets and determines where incoming inventory should be stored, manages store re-supply orders, determines product pulls to optimize time resources and pallet configuration, and determines which shipping dock the pallet of inventory being pulled should be routed to. Mr. Scott Browdy had the necessary qualifications to responsibly represent Petitioner?s interests in a manner which would not impair the fairness of the proceeding or the correctness of the action to be taken. The parties filed a package of electronic documents that was agreed to be a true copy of the December 7, 2006, contract between Petitioner and Swisslog Logistics, Incorporated. The term “System” was described in the contract as “all Plant to be provided and the installation services or other work to be done by the Contractor or any permitted Subcontractors under the Contract, which shall include delivery, installation, testing and commissioning of an order fulfillment system with all required software, hardware, racking, mezzanines, conveyors, cranes, Caddy Picks as specified in the Specifications.” The contract did not specifically describe and itemize each item of tangible personal property to be provided. However, in the “Investment Summary,” which was originally a December 5, 2006, proposal from Swisslog to Petitioner, that was part of the package of electronic documents that was agreed to be a “true copy” of the December 7, 2006, contract, the various elements of the contract were priced. Racking was priced at $11,658,000.00, the warehouse management system was priced at $2,441,000.00, and project and implementation services were priced at $2,691,000.00. The stacker cranes, pallet conveyors, and Caddy Picks for the cooler and freezer were priced at a total of $22,656,000.00. The prices for all of these elements totaled $39,446,000.00, which was the price of the final contract when executed. The contract did not charge Petitioner for items of tangible personal property as they were delivered, but charged the lump sum amount of $39,446,000.00 for all services, tangible personal property, and improvements to real estate. It provided for various percentages of this total contract price to be paid at certain milestone events leading toward the completion of the contract. The Swisslog contract was a mixed contract providing for sale of tangible personal property such as perishable food transport and handling equipment; improvements to real property such as permanent storage racks; electrical, computer control, and plumbing components which were not described sufficiently in the contract to classify; and project and implementation services, which were not associated in the contract with either improvements to real property or sale of tangible personal property. The contract clearly allocated the contract price among these various elements of the contract. It indicated that $11,658,000.00 was allocated for the permanent storage racks. This allocation was bona fide and reasonable in terms of their great size and the large amount of steel used in their construction. The permanent storage racks installed as part of the Swisslog System were not industrial machinery or equipment but were instead improvements to real property. Petitioner failed to prove which, if any, of the remaining elements of the contract were improvements to real property. It was unclear if any of the electrical, computer, or plumbing components were integrated into the Building?s systems, or which services related to the improvement to real property.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order: (1) finding that Target Corporation is entitled to a refund of use tax on the $11,658,000.00 portion of the sales price allocated to the design, purchase, and installation of the racking element of the Swisslog contract; and (2) otherwise denying refund. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of December, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of December, 2012.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Sections 489.127(1)(f) and 455.227(1)(q), Florida Statutes (2004), and what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was not licensed to engage in construction in the State of Florida. At all times material hereto, Respondent’s business did not possess a certificate of authority to practice as a contractor-qualified business. On or about October 5, 2004, Respondent contracted with Dyba to repair the roof at Dyba’s residence in Santa Rosa County, Florida. The contracted cost of these repairs was $3600, of which Respondent collected $600 from Dyba by check. On or about October 9, 2004, Respondent placed an advertisement in the Pensacola News Journal asserting that he would make repairs to kitchens, baths, decks, siding, docks, and most any hurricane damage. On June 8, 1994, Petitioner issued a Notice to Cease and Desist to Respondent for engaging in the unlicensed practice of construction contracting. The total investigative cost to the Petitioner was $166.88.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 489.127(1)(f), Florida Statutes (2004), imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $5,000, and assessing costs of investigation and prosecution in the amount of $166.88. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of August, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of August, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Brian A. Higgins, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Douglas Claiborne DOC No. 203745 Berrydale Forestry Camp 6920 Highway 4 Jay, Florida 32565 John Thomas, Classification Officer Berrydale Forestry Camp 6920 Highway 4 Jay, Florida 32565 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 John Washington, Hearing Officer Office of the General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issues in these cases are whether Respondent violated sections 489.129(1)(i), 489.129(1)(o), and 489.1425, Florida Statutes (2007 & 2009),1/ and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the administrative complaints, Mr. Organo was licensed as a certified general contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number CGC 1512005. At all times material to the administrative complaints, Mr. Organo was the primary qualifying agent for Bennett Marine Contracting and Construction, Inc. (Bennett Marine). On or about September 29, 2007, Jean Walker (Ms. Walker) entered into a contract with Bennett Marine to construct a dock and a tiki hut at 12305 Boat Shell Drive. The contract (the Walker contract) provided that the contractor would make application for a permit from Lee County, Florida. Mr. Organo signed the Walker contract for Bennett Marine. It is undisputed that the Walker contract did not include a written statement explaining Ms. Walker's rights under the Florida Homeowners' Construction Recovery Fund. On October 24, 2007, Bennett Marine applied for a permit to construct the dock. The application was denied October 29, 2007, because the site plan contained the tiki hut. When the tiki hut was removed from the application, the dock permit was approved. Ms. Walker paid Bennett Marine draws on the construction project. The payments were given to Mr. Organo. The payments totaled $9,200. By February 2008, a tiki hut had been constructed on Ms. Walker's property without a permit. Because the tiki hut was built without a permit, and it was in an illegal location, Lee County required that the tiki hut be removed. By April 2008, the tiki hut had been removed, and another tiki hut had been built in its place. Again, no permit was pulled for the tiki hut, and it was placed in an illegal location. Again, Lee County required that the tiki hut be removed. Mr. Organo subcontracted the construction of the tiki hut to Rick Fewell Chickees. Mr. Fewell of Rick Fewell Chickees, a Seminole Indian,2/ applied for a permit to build a tiki hut, but the application was rejected because the plot plan was not to scale, and the tiki hut did not meet the setback requirements from the water. Another tiki hut was built, and, in March 2009, Lee County again cited Ms. Walker for not having a permit for the tiki hut and for not meeting the setback requirements. In 2010, a permit was finally issued for the construction of a tiki hut on Ms. Walker's property. The permit was issued to Ms. Walker. Bennett Marine commenced work on the tiki hut without obtaining a building permit. On January 5, 2010, Bennett Marine entered into a contract with Chris Bevan (Mr. Bevan) to remove an existing dock, uninstall an existing boatlift, construct a dock, construct a tiki hut, and to reinstall the boatlift. The contract (the Bevan contract) required that the contractor obtain a City of Cape Coral building permit. The Bevan contract was signed by Mr. Organo for Bennett Marine. It is undisputed that the Bevan contract did not contain a written statement explaining Mr. Bevan's rights under the Florida Homeowners' Construction Recovery Fund. On March 17, 2010, Bennett Marine showed up on Mr. Bevan's property and commenced work, by knocking down a cantilever dock that was hanging over a seawall, removing old decking from the boatlift, and rough-framing part of the new dock. Bennett Marine worked until approximately March 25, 2010. That was the last that Mr. Bevan heard from Mr. Organo or Bennett Marine. Mr. Organo applied for a building permit for the Bevan contract on April 1, 2010. The permit was approved on April 13, 2010, but it was not issued. On May 14, 2010, the City of Cape Coral placed a stop-work order on the Bevan project. Mr. Bevan applied for an owner-builder permit for the dock construction, and the permit was issued on June 9, 2010. Mr. Bevan completed the dock construction at additional expense.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Mr. Organo violated sections 489.129(1)(i), 489.129(o), and 489.1425; imposing a fine of $250 each for the Walker contract and the Bevan contract for a total of $500, for failure to advise the owners of the recovery fund; imposing a fine of $3,000 and placing Mr. Organo on probation for two years for beginning work without a permit for the Walker contract; and imposing a fine of $1,000 and placing Mr. Organo on probation for one year for beginning work on the Bevan contract without a permit with the one-year probation to run concurrently with the probation imposed for the Walker contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of April, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of April, 2011.
The Issue Whether the Respondent was required to carry workers' compensation insurance coverage for its employees and, if it failed to do so, whether the Amended Notice and Penalty Assessment Order is correct.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Department was the state agency charged with the responsibility of administering compliance with Florida law governing workers’ compensation. At all times material to this case, Genesis has been in the business of providing plastering services. At all times material to this case, Jorge Pinera (Pinera) has been an investigator employed by the Department to perform workers' compensation compliance investigations. On August 8, 2000, Pinera conducted a random inspection at a residential construction site located at 3101 Southwest 129th Avenue, Miami, Florida (the job site). While at the job site, Pinera encountered Jose Castro (Castro), and also observed an individual later identified as Reinaldo Lopez (Lopez). Both men were present on behalf of Genesis, which had been contracted to perform plastering services at the job site. At the time of Pinera's visit, Lopez was applying plaster to a back wall of the house. Pinera conducted field interviews in accordance with Department policies and procedures. At the time the field investigation commenced, Genesis' president, Carmen Duque (Duque), claimed to have relied upon the advice of Genesis' accountant, who allegedly told Duque that compensation insurance was not required for the business. There was no evidence offered to corroborate Duque's claim that such advice had in fact been rendered. Based upon the field interviews of Castro and Lopez, and a review of Department records, Pinera correctly determined that the men were employees of Genesis as that term is defined in Florida Workers' Compensation Law. During the field interview, Lopez informed Pinera that he was being paid an hourly wage by Genesis for plastering services. Lopez reduced this and other information demonstrating his employee status to writing contained in Department's Exhibit 8, which was admitted into evidence without objection. There was no physical evidence at the job site to contradict what Lopez told Pinera, i.e. there were no vehicles, equipment, or materials which one would expect to find at a job site where an independent plastering contractor is working. Genesis attempted to discredit Lopez' contemporaneous statements indicating employee status with Exhibit 14, an affidavit, purportedly executed by Lopez on January 22, 2001, in which Lopez asserts that he is an independent contractor. The affidavit was admitted over the Department's timely objection. The facts set forth in the affidavit are insufficient as a matter of law to support the affiant's legal conclusion that he is an independent contractor. Pinera's field interviews revealed, and Genesis stipulates, that it did not hold workers' compensation insurance on August 8, 2000, nor at any time relevant to this case. At all times material to this case, none of the individuals affiliated with Genesis held valid exemptions from coverage. Rather, the evidence suggests that Genesis was aware of the requirements of workers' compensation law, and took steps to evade it. For example, Genesis charged the job site's owners $10,500 for its plastering services. Prior to the commencement of the job, Genesis secured the signature of its employee, Lopez, on a form styled "Short Form Subcontract Agreement" which purports to create a subcontractor relationship with Lopez for the jobsite. The sum specified in this agreement to be paid to Lopez is $1,200. The vast discrepancy in the amount charged to the owners and the sum to be paid to the individual supposedly responsible for providing all labor and materials necessary for the work suggests that the so-called subcontract agreement is a sham. The evidence further establishes that Genesis provided Lopez with $500 to purchase materials to be used at the job site. This fact belies the contention of Genesis that, because Lopez physically purchased the materials, he was in fact an independent contractor. Rather, the purchase of materials was simply one task which Genesis delegated to its employee Lopez in the course and scope of his employment. Upon concluding that Lopez and Castro were not covered by appropriate insurance and were not exempt, Pinera properly caused a SWO to be issued against Genesis. Genesis admits, and the evidence establishes, that it did not have a valid workers' compensation policy during the three years preceding the stop work order. Despite the pendency of a valid SWO, Genesis performed work at the jobsite on August 24, 2000. Genesis stipulated, and the evidence establishes, that the Amended Notice and Penalty Assessment Order issued by the Department accurately calculates the amounts owed by the Respondent for the three-year period.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order confirming the SWO entered in this cause and imposing a penalty in the amount of $11,839.74 as set forth in the Amended Notice and Penalty Assessment Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of April, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS 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 April, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: David C. Hawkins, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security Division of Workers' Compensation 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Hartman Building, Suite 307 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Magda Marcelo-Robaina, Esquire Magda Marcelo-Robaina, P.A. 782 Northwest Le Jeune Road Suite 548 Le Jeune Center Miami, Florida 33126 Sherri Wilkes-Cape, General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security The Hartman Building, Suite 307 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Mary B. Hooks, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security The Hartman Building, Suite 303 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152
