The Issue The issue in this proceeding is how much of Petitioner’s settlement proceeds should be paid to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (“AHCA”), to satisfy AHCA's Medicaid lien under section 409.910, Florida Statutes.1/
Findings Of Fact On the night of April 2, 2015, Mitchell Williams was riding his bicycle along a public sidewalk in Destin, Florida. The sidewalk intersected privately-owned driveways. At the north side of a privately-owned driveway at 239 Main Street, the concrete was broken at the point where the sidewalk and private driveway connected. The broken concrete created a dangerous condition to anyone riding along the sidewalk. Mr. Williams rode his bicycle into soft sand where the sidewalk should have been, causing his front wheel to bury into the sand before striking the leading edge of the undamaged portion of the sidewalk. Mr. Williams flipped over the handlebars of his bicycle and struck the concrete sidewalk face first. Mr. Williams underwent an anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (“ACDF”), placement of an inferior vena cava (“IVC”) filter, open reduction and internal fixation (“ORIF”) of a nasal maxillary fracture, and repair of facial lacerations. Mr. Williams was hospitalized for nine months. During his post- operative hospitalization, Mr. Williams developed stage IV decubitus ulcers that left him with significant scar tissue over his tailbone. The accident rendered Mr. Williams a partial quadriplegic from a cervical spinal cord injury. He remains confined to a wheelchair for mobility. Mr. Williams is totally dependent on others for his activities of daily living. Mr. Williams made a personal injury damages claim against the owner of the sidewalk, the City of Destin (“City”). On or about April 29, 2019, Mr. Williams entered into a pre-suit settlement of his tort claim against the City for $200,000, the statutory maximum provided by section 768.28(5), Florida Statutes. Because the City tendered the full amount for which it could be held liable, no express allocation for past medical expenses was made in the settlement. After settling with the City, Mr. Williams brought an action against Wagih Gargas, Gargas Commercial and City Produce of Fort Walton Beach, alleged as tortfeasors by virtue of their ownership and/or control of the private driveway where Mr. Williams was injured. The case against these parties remains pending with a very uncertain outcome as to liability. AHCA was properly notified of Mr. Williams’s personal injury action and indicated it had paid benefits related to his injuries in the amount of $70,460.35. AHCA’s payments were the only payments made for Mr. Williams’s past medical expenses. AHCA has asserted a lien for the full amount of $70,460.35 against Mr. Williams’s settlement proceeds. Mr. Williams will never fully recover from his injuries. He will require medical treatment and assistance with his activities of daily living for the rest of his life. Application of the formula in section 409.910(11)(f) would require Mr. Williams to pay back Medicaid all of its $70,460.35 lien. Mr. Williams contends that only a fraction of the settlement represents his recovery for past medical expenses. 10. Sections 409.910(11)(f) and 409.910(17)(b), as amended, provide for recovery by Medicaid for future medical expenses as well as past medical expenses. Section 409.910(17)(b) further imposes a clear and convincing burden of proof on a recipient attempting to show that the portion of the total recovery that should be allocated as past and future medical expenses is less than the amount calculated by AHCA. However, in Gallardo v. Dudek, 263 F. Supp. 3d 1247 (N.D. Fla. 2017), the court held that the provisions allowing Medicaid to recover future medical expenses and imposing a clear and convincing standard on recipients contesting AHCA’s calculations violate and are preempted by federal law. The parties have stipulated that Gallardo v. Dudek preempts the application of the future medical expenses provision and that Petitioner’s burden of proof in this section 409.910(17)(b) proceeding is a preponderance of the evidence. See also Giraldo v. Ag. for Health Care Admin., 248 So. 3d 53 (Fla. 2018)(under federal law AHCA may only reach the past medical expenses portion of a Medicaid recipient's tort recovery to satisfy its Medicaid lien). At the hearing, Mr. Williams testified as to the extent of the injuries and damages he suffered in the April 2, 2015, bicycle accident. Mr. Williams testified persuasively as to the overwhelming impact of the injuries on his life. Prior to the accident, Mr. Williams made a good living as a skilled carpenter and enjoyed fishing and golfing in his spare time. None of these activities is possible now. He is an “incomplete” quadriplegic, meaning that he is confined to a wheelchair but has limited use of his arms. John Wesley is the attorney who represented Mr. Williams in his personal injury lawsuit. Mr. Wesley is an 18-year practicing attorney who is board certified in civil trial practice. He is a partner with Wesley, McGrail & Wesley in Ft. Walton Beach. Mr. Wesley testified that he handles catastrophic personal injury and death cases, including cases involving injuries similar to those suffered by Mr. Williams. Mr. Wesley regularly evaluates the damages suffered by injured people. He testified that he does all of his work on a contingency fee basis, which makes the valuation of cases critical to his livelihood. Mr. Wesley’s representation of Mr. Williams gave him intimate familiarity with his client’s injuries and damages. Mr. Wesley testified that there are two aspects to the valuation of a case: liability and damages. As to liability, the attorney must ask whether the potential client is partly or wholly responsible for his own injuries due to factors such as comparative negligence or alcohol intake, and whether the tortfeasor is shielded under a legal concept such as sovereign immunity. The attorney must then decide whether the damages are worth pursuing even if the tortfeasor’s liability is unquestioned. Mr. Wesley testified that there was no question in this case as to the damages, which were catastrophic. The problem in Mr. Williams’s case was liability, because of the presence of contributory negligence and alcohol defenses. The most significant factor limiting Mr. Williams’s recovery was the sovereign immunity cap on damages. The City of Destin tendered $200,000, the full limit it would be required to pay under the cap. To recover more would require passing a claim bill in the legislature, an unlikely outcome given Mr. Williams’s contributory negligence. Under the circumstances, Mr. Wesley determined that nothing further could be recovered from the City. Mr. Williams’s net recovery, after attorney’s fees, was $140,000. Mr. Wesley provided detailed testimony about how the accident occurred and the mechanism of injury. He credibly testified regarding the process he undertook in evaluating and arriving at his opinion related to the value of the damages suffered by Mr. Williams. He met with Mr. Williams, evaluated the facts of the case, reviewed all the medical information and all other records and reports regarding Mr. Williams’s injuries, analyzed liability issues and comparative fault, developed economic damages estimates, and valued non-economic damages such as past and future pain and suffering, loss of capacity to enjoy life, and mental anguish. Mr. Wesley testified that the full value of Mr. Williams’s damages was likely in excess of $19 million. That figure included Mr. Williams’s pain and suffering, mental anguish, loss of quality of life, and economic damages. Mr. Wesley testified that non-economic damages were the greatest element of the damages sustained by Mr. Williams, and therefore were the largest driver of the valuation and the greatest portion of damages recovered in the settlement. Mr. Wesley stated that he used a very conservative valuation figure of $6 million for the purpose of resolving Medicaid’s lien, rather than his actual valuation of more than $19 million. If the conservative valuation of $6 million is accepted, then the $200,000 recovery is only 3.33 percent of the value of the damages. Mr. Williams’s $140,000 net recovery amounted to only 2.33 percent of the full measure of his damages. Mr. Wesley’s testimony was uncontroverted, reasonable, and persuasive. Charles F. Beall, Jr., a member of the Pensacola firm Moore, Hill & Westmoreland, P.A., testified on behalf of Mr. Williams. Mr. Beall is board certified in both civil trial and appellate practice. His practice focuses on defending large scale personal liability and mass tort cases. Mr. Beall has handled more than 225 appellate cases in state and federal courts. His cases have resulted in over 60 published opinions. At the trial court level, Mr. Beall has represented hundreds of clients ranging from individual homeowners to multinational corporations in a wide variety of civil litigation, including product liability suits, contract claims, and insurance coverage disputes. He has tried more than a dozen civil jury trials to verdict as lead counsel and has served on the trial team for several multi-week trials. Mr. Beall was accepted without objection as an expert in the valuation of personal injury claims. Mr. Beall and his firm specialize in defending serious and catastrophic personal injury cases throughout Florida. Mr. Beall has reviewed thousands of personal injury cases and formally reported potential verdicts and valuations to insurance companies that have retained him to defend their insureds. Mr. Beall has worked closely with economists and life care planners to identify the relevant damages of persons suffering catastrophic injuries. Mr. Beall testified that he has handled cases involving catastrophic injuries similar to those suffered by Mr. Williams. Mr. Beall testified that he arrived at his valuation opinion by examining all the elements of damages suffered by Mr. Williams. He agreed with Mr. Wesley that Mr. Williams’s greatest element of loss was non-economic damages. Mr. Beall reviewed numerous verdicts that had been affirmed on appeal involving injuries similar to those suffered by Mr. Williams. Mr. Beall opined that the valuation of the total damages suffered by Mr. Williams was in excess of $10 million. He agreed that Mr. Wesley’s more conservative $6 million valuation was appropriate for purposes of the lien reduction formula. AHCA did not offer any witnesses or documentary evidence to question the credentials or opinions of either Mr. Wesley or Mr. Beall. AHCA did not offer testimony or documentary evidence to rebut the testimony of Mr. Wesley and Mr. Beall as to valuation or the reduction ratio. AHCA did not offer alternative opinions on the damage valuation method suggested by either Mr. Wesley or Mr. Beall, both of whom testified knowledgably and credibly as experienced practitioners. The testimony of Petitioner's two experts regarding the total value of damages was credible, unimpeached, and unrebutted. Petitioner proved that the settlement of $200,000 does not begin to fully compensate Mr. Williams for the full value of his damages. Petitioner asserts that the settlement allocation should be based on the ratio between the net settlement, $140,000, and the conservative valuation of $6 million, meaning that 2.33 percent of the settlement proceeds should be allocated to past medical expenses. Petitioner cited no authority and the undersigned is not otherwise persuaded that section 409.910 allows attorney’s fees to be deducted from the settlement prior to calculating the percentage of the settlement that should be allocated to past medical expenses. With that correction, the undersigned finds that Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that 3.33 percent (the ratio that $200,000 bears to $6 million) is the appropriate pro rata share of Mr. Williams’s past medical expenses to be applied to determine the amount recoverable by AHCA in satisfaction of its Medicaid lien. ACHA’s lien for past medical expenses is $70,460.35. Applying the 3.33 percent pro rata ratio to this total yields $2,346.33, which is the portion of the settlement representing reimbursement for past medical expenses and the amount recoverable by AHCA for its lien.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Richard Lindley, committed the offenses alleged in a four-count Administrative Complaint filed with Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, on March 20, 2008, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility for, among other things, the licensure of individuals who wish to engage in contracting in the State of Florida; and the investigation and prosecution of complaints against individuals who have been so licensed. See Chs. 455 and 489, Fla. Stat. Respondent, Richard Lindley, is and has been at all times material hereto a certified building contractor in Florida, having been issued license number CB C060555. Mr. Lindley is also a Certified Roofing Contractor, having been issued license number CC C1326286. Both licenses were issued by the Construction Industry Licensing Board (hereinafter referred to as the “Board). At all times material, Mr. Lindley was the primary qualifying agent for HCL, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “HCL”). HCL has a certificate of authority, QB number 20599. On or about June 8, 2005, Mr. Lindley, doing business as HCL, entered into a written contract (hereinafter referred to as the “Contract”) with Myra Love to re-roof her residence located at 765 Windermere Way, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33418 (hereinafter referred to as the “Subject Property”). Pursuant to the Contract, Ms. Love agreed to pay HCL a total of $8,125.00, as follows: $1,625.00 upon signing the Contract; $2,843.75 upon “roof dri in”; $2,843.75 upon “roof load”; and $812.50 upon “final inspection.” Consistent with the Contract, Ms. Love paid HCL $1,625.00 by check dated June 8, 2005, upon entering into the Contract. On June 9, 2005, Mr. Lindley applied for a building permit for the work to be performed pursuant to the Contract. The permit was issued, but expired for lack of final inspection. Ms. Love next paid HCL $2,843.75 by check dated October 20, 2005, upon being informed that the roof had been dried in. Despite having paid for the dry in of the roof, it continued to leak. After making the second payment to HCL in October 2005, no work was performed pursuant to the Contract and all efforts by Ms. Love to contact Mr. Lindley failed. On April 24, 2006, Ms. Love wrote to Mr. Lindley complaining about the condition of her roof and his lack of response to her telephone calls to him. This letter was delivered by certified mail, return receipt. Mr. Lindley did not respond to Ms. Love’s April 24, 2006, letter. No work was performed by Mr. Lindley through October 2006 on the Subject Property, at least a year after work on the Subject Property stopped. Therefore, Ms. Love sent a letter dated October 31, 2006, by certified mail, return receipt, to Mr. Lindley. Ms. Love stated in the letter that “since you abandoned the contract on 6/8/05, and failed to show up on the job, I consider the contract null and void because of your nonperformance. You and your employees are hereby notified to stay off my property.” On November 4, 2006, after informing Mr. Lindley that she considered the Contract null and void, Ms. Love contracted with Gold Coast Roofing to complete the re-roofing of the Subject Property. Ms. Love paid Gold Coast Roofing $14,900.00 for the completion of the re-roofing. Essentially, Gold Coast Roofing, due to the time that had expired since work was abandoned, had to essentially start over on the re-roofing of the Subject Property. The total investigative costs for this matter incurred by the Department, excluding costs associated with any attorney’s time, was $258.56.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered: Finding that Richard Lindley violated the provisions of Section 489.129(1)(j) and (m), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Counts II and IV of the Administrative Complaint; imposing a fine of $2,500.00 and placing Mr. Lindley’s licenses on probation for a period of four years conditioned upon his payment of the fines, restitution and the costs incurred by the Department, and any other conditions determined to be necessary by the Board, for the Count II violation; requiring that Mr. Lindley make restitution in the amount of $4,468.75 to Ms. Love; and requiring that Mr. Lindley pay the costs incurred by the Department in investigating and prosecuting this matter; and Dismissing Counts I and III of the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of March, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of March, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Lisa A. Comingore, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Richard H. Lindley Richard H. Lindley, d/b/a HCL, Inc. 9146 Arrowhead Drive Greenacres, Florida 33467-1060 Kyle Christopher, Esquire Department of Business & Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 G. W. Harrell, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Petitioners' claim for recovery from the Construction Industries Recovery Fund should be approved.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent Sclease was a licensed certified general contractor. In 1995, Petitioners and Respondent Sclease entered into a contract for Respondent Sclease to make repairs to Petitioners’ home, which was damaged by Hurricane Andrew. The repair work was completed in May 1996, and a certificate of completion was issued on May 16, 1996. Petitioners subsequently discovered that problems existed with the work and filed suit in the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, against Respondent Sclease and the company that he had qualified. A non-jury trial was held and all parties were represented by counsel. The court’s final judgment was entered on January 7, 1999, and filed on January 13, 1999. The findings of the court were in pertinent part as follows: The claim in the complaint is that Defendants [Sclease Construction Company, Inc., a dissolved Florida corporation, and Louis Sclease] breached the contract to make repairs to the plaintiffs’ [Lamont J. Silas and Claudette Silas] home after Hurricane Andrew. The defective construction work caused substantial damage to the home. . . . It is undisputed that the parties entered into a contract in June, 1995 under which Defendants promised to make repairs to the property. The total contract price, as subsequently amended, was $45,758.37, all of which has been paid to defendants. In April, 1996, Defendants represented that the work was completed. It is also undisputed that within six (6) months of the completion of the construction work, several rooms of the home had evidence of mildew on the walls and other damage, including damage caused by water. The property, which is income producing rental property, was, by the Fall of 1996, uninhabitable. Plaintiffs lost their tenant and could not re-rent the premises for eight (8) months until the damage was repaired. The Defendant [sic] based its [sic] defense upon allegations that the tenants caused the damage from growing marijuana plants in the residence. Plaintiff’s [sic] evidence clearly showed defects in the workmanship of Defendant’s [sic] installation of a shower pan as well as defective installation of tiles. Plaintiff’s [sic] expert further testified that he had inspected prior homes wherein marijuana was grown and the instant residence bore no evidence which should have otherwise existed if marijuana had, in fact, been growing (e.g. moisture all over the walls; black ceilings, etc.). Defendant [sic] did not provide any competent evidence showing existence of growing marijuana and provided no evidence concerning faulty tiles. Clearly, the Defendant [sic] substantially breached his contract with Plaintiff [sic] and Plaintiff [sic] is entitled to recover its reasonable damages which the Court determines as follows: Cost to repair $30,364.93 [Amount paid to another contractor to fix the home] Loss of rental income $ 7,200.00 Total Damages $37,564.93 Plaintiffs are entitled to prejudgment interest in the amount of $5,634.74. Therefore, judgment is entered . . . in the amount of $43,199.67 . . . . Petitioners had insurance on the home. Prior to the final judgment, they received $9,583.22 from their insurance company. No insurance proceeds were received subsequent to the final judgment and no claim with their insurance company is pending. On April 18, 2000, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Department) filed an Administrative Complaint against Respondent Sclease before the Board. The Administrative Complaint alleged, among other things, that on or about January 13, 1999, Petitioners had obtained a final judgment against Respondent Sclease, relating to the practice of contracting, in the amount of $43,199.67; that no payment had been made nor had an agreement been made to satisfy the judgment; and that Respondent Sclease had violated Subsection 489.129(1)(q), Florida Statutes. By Final Order dated January 3, 2001, and filed January 12, 2001, the Board found, among other things, that the facts of the Administrative Complaint were not contested and that Respondent Sclease was represented by counsel before the Board. The Board concluded, among other things, in the Final Order that the allegations of fact and conclusions of law in the Administrative Complaint were adopted as the Board’s findings of fact and conclusions of law; and that the violations warranted disciplinary action. Finally, the Board ordered in the Final Order, among other things, that Respondent Sclease either pay restitution to Petitioners in the amount of $43,199.67 or submit proof that he had satisfied the civil judgment obtained by Petitioners. Petitioners filed a claim with the Recovery Fund. No dispute exists as to the timeliness of Petitioners’ claim. By Order dated January 3, 2001, which was the same date as the Board's Final Order as to restitution, and filed January 4, 2001, the Recovery Fund Committee and the Board ordered, among other things, that Petitioners had satisfied all the requirements for payment from the Recovery Fund and that their claim was granted in the maximum amount of $25,000.00. In February 2001, Respondent Sclease filed an amended request for a formal hearing challenging the Board's order of payment from the Recovery Fund, which challenge included the contention that he had not violated Section 489.129, Florida Statutes, as required by Section 489.141, Florida Statutes, for a claim to be considered. At the time of hearing on the instant case, the final judgment was not satisfied by Respondent Sclease. There is no dispute that Petitioners earnestly attempted to execute on the final judgment but had been unsuccessful. The evidence presented at hearing on the instant case established that the installation of the shower pan was not in accordance with the requirements of the 1994 South Florida Building Code (Building Code), was defectively installed, and was the cause of water damage to the home. Respondent Sclease admitted that the purpose of the Building Code, regarding the installation of the shower pan, was to prevent water from leaking out of the shower. The failure to install the shower pan in accordance with the Building Code was willful. Also, the evidence presented at hearing on the instant case established that insulation was not placed on all of the exterior walls of the home, which was required by the Building Code, and that such failure was a violation of the Building Code. Respondent Sclease admitted that the failure to put insulation on the exterior walls would be a violation of the Building Code. The failure to put insulation on the exterior walls in violation of the Building Code was willful. Even though a Certificate of Completion was issued, the evidence presented at hearing on the instant case does not support a finding that the work completed by Respondent Sclease was in accordance with the Building Code. Additionally, the evidence presented at hearing on the instant case established that Respondent Sclease failed, in accordance with the Building Code, to pull all the proper permits for the work performed. The failure to pull the proper permits was willful.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, Construction Industries Recovery Fund enter an order approving the claim of Lamont Silas and Claudette Silas against the Construction Industries Recovery Fund and granting them the maximum allowable recovery amount of $25,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of December, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 4th day of December, 2002.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent, Donald F. Royal, was licensed as a registered roofing contractor in the State of Florida, holding license number RC 0031831. During the times of the alleged violations, the Respondent was the sole qualifying agent for J & J Construction Company (the company.) The principals of the company were the Respondent and a man named James Jimenez. Both men sold jobs for the company and were responsible for overseeing some of the work of the company. The Respondent pulled permits for, and was primarily responsible for, the roofing work contracted by the company. But sometimes, when the company had more than one job going at the same time, the Respondent would be primarily responsible for overseeing one, and Jimenez would be primarily responsible for overseeing the other. The Respondent thought that Jimenez held a license of some kind that enabled him to do some kinds of minor renovation construction. The Respondent restricted his work to roofing and did not mind Jimenez doing some renovation work on the side, separate from the business of the company. But the Respondent understood that Jimenez' "side deals" would be done separately under Jimenez' own license and would not be part of the business of the company. On or about August 14, 1986, Jimenez entered into a contract on behalf of the company to build an addition, remodel and reroof the existing structure and roof the addition of the residence of Ernest and Mercedes Riccio located at 3117 West Henry Avenue, Tampa, Florida. The contract price was $18,999. Jimenez telephoned the Respondent about the job but only told him about the part of the contract that called for the existing roof to be torn off and reroofed. He told the Respondent that the contract price for the job was $3,800. The Respondent pulled a permit for what he thought was the job and started and finished what he thought was the work to be done. The Respondent personally was compensated approximately $700-$800 for his part in the reroofing job. When the Respondent was finished, Jimenez continued with the rest of the contract, which was to include roofing the addition, without telling the Respondent about it. Jimenez did not get very far before a Tampa building inspector happened past and, seeing unfamiliar work in process, inspected the job site. He discovered that the building permit displayed at the site had been altered to expand the work purportedly permitted to include building, in addition to the roofing work for which the Respondent had obtained a permit. Someone other than the Respondent (probably Jimenez although he denied it) altered the permit. The Respondent knew nothing about the contract (other than the reroofing that he did), the alteration of the permit, or the work Jimenez was doing after he left the site. When he discovered the permit violations, the building inspector "red- tagged" the entire job, and work stopped. That was only the beginning of the Riccios' problems. Further investigation revealed that the job would require not only a valid permit but also zoning variances and utility easements. Although the contract had called for the company to obtain all necessary permits, Jimenez and the Riccios agreed that the Riccios would apply for whatever else was necessary in their own names and that Jimenez would assist them. By the time work stopped, the Riccios already had paid the company $12,666 of the total contract price. Nonetheless, when Jimenez' minimal assistance did not resolve the Riccios' problems quickly, Jimenez decided that he already had put too much into the job, and he began to lose interest and make himself scarce. The Riccios finally got their necessary permits on January 26, 1987. They then approached Jimenez about the work to be done under the contract (and the matter of the remaining $6,333 draw). The Riccios and Jimenez agreed that the Riccios would provide the materials and supplies necessary to complete the work and the company would provide the labor. Despite these alternate arrangements, the company did not promptly finish the job. Eventually, the Riccios gave up on Jimenez and in April or May, 1987, began to deal directly with the company's former job superintendent, a man named Ray. To improve their chances of getting the job done (and reduce some of their extra expenses), the Riccios agreed to allow Ray to live in the house free of charge while they were doing the work. The job still did not get finished. Eventually, Mrs. Riccio and some of her relatives finished the job themselves. Even so, the Riccios wound up spending about $20,000, in addition to the $12,666 they had paid the company, to complete the job which the company had contracted to do for $18,999, total. The Respondent was not aware of any of Jimenez' dealings with the Riccios after the Respondent completed his reroofing work. The Respondent assumed that Jimenez had called for a final inspection and that the job had been completed satisfactorily. But in approximately February or March, 1987, the Respondent was contacted by a DPR investigator in connection with the Riccios' complaint against the company. He learned at about that time about Jimenez' other dealings with the Riccios. He also learned that the roof over the addition that had been built had failed inspection. The Respondent eventually corrected the deficiencies, and the roof passed final inspection on August 19, 1987. The Respondent attempts to excuse himself of any wrongdoing, saying that he had a right to delegate the supervision of jobs such as the Riccio job to Jimenez and that he himself was victimized by Jimenez, along with the Riccios. Respondent nonetheless negotiated with Jimenez through the end of the year 1987 in an attempt to come to an agreement to continue to do business together, but the negotiations finally failed. The Respondent was disciplined by the Construction Industry Licensing Board on January 7, 1988, for offenses which occurred during the same time frame in which the Riccio job took place.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order finding the Respondent, Donald F. Royal, guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(j) and (m), Florida Statutes (1987), and imposing on him an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of December, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of December, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Elizabeth R. Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Donald F. Royal, pro se 8509 North 16 Street Tampa, Florida 33604 Bruce D. Lamb General Counsel Dept. of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue The issue is whether respondent's license as a certified building contractor should be disciplined for the reasons stated in the administrative complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Leroy A. Decker, Jr., held certified building contractor license number CB CO40724 issued by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Board). When the events herein occurred, respondent was doing business as Aladdin Homes, Inc. (Aladdin) located at 921 S.EA. 15th Avenue, Cape Coral, Florida, and was its registered qualifying agent. In 1987 respondent, acting as qualifying agent for Aladdin, began a business relationship with Designers Showcase of Cape Coral, Inc. (DSCC), a firm specializing in the sale and installation of furniture, carpeting and draperies. Under that relationship, DSCC acted as a subcontractor and installed various floor coverings in new homes constructed by respondent. Under a typical contract for the construction of a new home, the builder agrees to include within the sales price an allowance for floor coverings such as carpet. If a home buyer decides to purchase floor coverings that exceed the allowance, the buyer is responsible for any overage. Under this arrangement, the contractor normally pays the supplier for the amount of allowance prescribed in the contract while the buyer pays the supplier for any overage. From the outset of respondent's relationship with DSCC until it ended, the specifications in respondent's contracts, with certain exceptions, generally called for a floor covering allowance in the range of $1,500. Beginning in March 1988 several of respondent's new home customers became dissatisfied with the quality of floor furnishings provided by DSCC. Because of this, some buyers refused to pay respondent for the value of the floor furnishings provided by that subcontractor. This In turn engendered a dispute between respondent and DSCC and culminated in respondent, with a few exceptions, refusing to pay any moneys owed to DSCC after March 1988. In early 1988 respondent entered into a contract with one Joseph Cernlglia to construct a new home for Cerniglia in Cape Coral, Florida. Pursuant to the contract specifications, respondent gave Cerniglia a $1,500 allowance for floor coverings. Cerniglia opted to use DSCC as the carpet vendor and was well satisfied with the quality of DSCC's workmanship and materials. After the carpet was installed, respondent requested that Cerniglia sign an affidavit (letter of acceptance) so that respondent could receive his final draw from the bank. However, respondent did not advise Cerniglia that DSCC had not yet been paid for its services. Shortly thereafter, respondent signed an affidavit swearing that all suppliers on the Cerniglia project had been paid. Cerniglia later discovered that a $1,500 lien had been filed against his property by DSCC on June 30, 1988. The lien still remains outstanding. In early 1988 respondent entered into a contract to construct a new home for Buddy H. Dennis in Cape Coral, Florida. The contract specifications called for a $2,500 allowance for floor coverings. Before DSCC would install the floor coverings, it demanded payment from respondent for what it believed was the normal $1,500 builder's allowance. After this amount was paid, DSCC furnished, pursuant to the owner's request, $2,500 worth of labor and materials. DSCC attempted to collect the other $1,000 from Dennis but learned that the contract allowance was $2,500 rather than $1,500. Although DSCC invoiced respondent for the additional $1,000, and made numerous oral and written requests for payment to respondent, the remaining $1,000 was never paid. On September 12, 1988, a lien was placed on the property by DSCC. Prior to the lien being recorded, respondent executed a final affidavit and release of lien on August 22, 1988 in which he swore that all subcontractors had been paid. Dennis eventually paid the $1,000 himself in order to obtain clear title to his property. In addition to the Dennis and Cerniglia properties, respondent still owes DSCC $11,654.14 (without interest) for goods and services rendered on other projects. These bills were incurred for goods and services provided after March 1988, when the dispute between respondent and DSCC arose. Whether respondent executed affidavits in connection with those debts is not of record. Because of those and the two above debts, DSCC filed with the Board a complaint against respondent. Respondent justified his actions on the ground he was advised to do so by his attorney and not pay DSCC any money while his complaints regarding poor quality and workmanship were unresolved. As to the Cerniglia property, respondent contends that, just prior to completing the home, he determined that it was necessary to add (a) a stem wall and (b) extra fill dirt to raise the septic tank drainfield. According to respondent, these two items cost around $1,500. Because the dispute with DSCC was then ongoing, respondent did not pay DSCC the $1,500 owed as an allowance and instead, based upon his attorney's advice, decided to use that amount as leverage in his dispute with DSCC. However, respondent did not advise Cerniglia that $1,500 was added to the contract price and that it was Cerniglia's responsibility to pay DSCC for the builder's allowance still owed. Moreover, Cerniglia denied that the additions were ever satisfactorily completed or that their value equated to $1,500. As to the Dennis property, respondent contended, without corroboration, that the real estate office which sold the home increased the builder's allowance on the specifications from $1,500 to $2,500 without advising him. Even if this was true, respondent refused to pay the additional $1,000 after he learned of his increased allowance responsibility under the specifications.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of violating Subsections 489.129(1)(1) and (m), Florida Statutes (1987) and that he be fined $3,000, to be paid within thirty days after the Board enters its final order. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of August, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of August, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-1710 Petitioner: 1-3. Partially adopted in finding of fact 1. Partially adopted in findings of fact 2 and 3. Partially adopted in finding of fact 6. Partially adopted in finding of fact 5. Note - Where a proposed finding has been partially used, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, subordinate, not supported by the evidence, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert B. Jurand, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Mr. Leroy A. Decker, Jr. 618 S.W. 57th Street Cape Coral, FL 33914 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Fred Seely Executive Director Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32202
The Issue Whether Royal Roofing and Restoration, Inc. (Respondent or Royal Roofing), failed to secure workers’ compensation insurance 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 Petitioner is the state agency charged with enforcing the requirement of chapter 440, that Florida employers secure workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Respondent is a Florida for-profit corporation organized on July 28, 2015, and engaged in the business of roofing and storm damage restoration. The company was formed, and initially conducted business, in Tallahassee, Florida, but expanded to the Panama City area in 2016. Traci Fisher is Respondent’s President and Registered Agent, with a mailing address of 1004 Kenilworth, Tallahassee, Florida 32312. DOAH Case No. 17-0879 On May 4, 2016, Department Compliance Investigator Jesse Holman, conducted a routine workers’ compensation compliance inspection at 374 Brown Place in Crestview, Florida. Mr. Holman observed four men removing shingles from the roof of a residential structure at that address. Mr. Holman first interviewed a worker who identified himself as Dustin Hansel and reported that he and the other three workers on site were a new crew for Respondent, the permit for the job had not yet been pulled, and the workers were not aware of the rate of pay for the job. Mr. Hansel telephoned Respondent’s sales manager, Dillon Robinson, who then spoke directly with Mr. Holman via telephone. Mr. Robinson informed Mr. Holman that Respondent obtained workers’ compensation coverage through Payroll Management Inc. (PMI), an employee-leasing company. Mr. Holman identified the three remaining workers at the jobsite as Milton Trice, Winston Perrotta, and Kerrigan Ireland. Mr. Holman contacted PMI and secured a copy of Respondent’s then-active employee roster. None of the workers at the jobsite, including Mr. Hansel, were included on Respondent’s employee roster. Upon inquiry, Mr. Holman was informed that PMI had no pending employee applications for Respondent. Mr. Holman consulted the Department’s Coverage Compliance Automated System (CCAS) and found Respondent had no workers’ compensation insurance policy and no active exemptions. During Mr. Holman’s onsite investigation, the workers left the jobsite. Mr. Holman could not immediately reach Ms. Fisher, but did speak with her husband, Tim Fisher. Mr. Fisher informed Mr. Holman that the crew was on their way to the PMI Fort Walton office to be enrolled on Respondent’s employee roster. On May 5, 2016, based on his investigation, and after consultation with his supervisor, Mr. Holman issued Respondent Stop-Work Order (SWO) 16-148-1A, along with a Business Records Request (BRR) for records covering the audit period of July 27, 2015 through May 4, 2016. Later that day, Mr. Holman spoke to Ms. Fisher, who informed him the crew did not have permission to begin the work on that date, as she had not yet pulled the permit for the reroof. Ms. Fisher further explained that the crewmembers had been instructed to complete applications with PMI prior to departing Tallahassee for Crestview. Ms. Fisher confirmed the crewmembers were completing applications at PMI Fort Walton that same day. Mr. Holman met with Ms. Fisher the following day and personally served SWO 16-148-1A. Ms. Fisher delivered to Mr. Holman an updated employee roster from PMI which included Mr. Hansel, Mr. Perrotta, and Mr. Ireland; a letter documenting Mr. Trice was not employed by Respondent; and a $1000 check as downpayment on the penalty. Respondent initially submitted business records in response to the BRR on May 23 and 25, 2017. DOAH Case No. 17-1558 On June 8, 2016, Mr. Holman conducted a random workers’ compensation compliance inspection at 532 Rising Star Drive in Crestview. The single-family home at that address was undergoing renovations and Mr. Holman observed three men on the roof removing shingles. None of the men on the roof spoke English, but a fourth man, who identified himself as Jose Manuel Mejia, appeared and stated he worked for Respondent, and that all the workers onsite were paid through PMI at a rate of $10.00 per hour. Mr. Mejia admitted that one of the worker’s onsite, Emelio Lopez, was not enrolled with PMI and explained that Mr. Mejia brought him to the worksite that day because he knew Mr. Lopez to be a good worker. The remaining workers onsite were identified as Juan Mencho and Ramon Gonzalez, both from Atlanta, Georgia. Mr. Mejia produced some PMI paystubs for himself and Mr. Mencho. Mr. Mejia stated that he and his crews also received reimbursement checks directly from Respondent for gas, rentals, materials, and the like. Mr. Holman contacted PMI, who produced Respondent’s then-active employee roster. Mr. Mejia and Mr. Mencho were on the roster, but neither Mr. Gonzalez nor Mr. Lopez was included. Mr. Holman next contacted Ms. Fisher, who identified Mr. Mejia as a subcontractor, but was not familiar with any of the other men Mr. Holman encountered at the worksite. Mr. Holman consulted via telephone with his supervisor, who instructed him to issue an SWO to Respondent for failing to secure workers’ compensation coverage for its employees. Mr. Holman issued SWO 16-198-1A by posting the worksite on June 8, 2016. Department Facilitator Don Hurst, personally served Ms. Fisher with SWO 16-198-1A in Tallahassee that same day. SWO 16-148-1A Penalty Calculation1/ Department Penalty Auditor Eunika Jackson, was assigned to calculate the penalties associated with the SWOs issued to Respondent. On June 8, 2016, Ms. Jackson began calculating the penalty associated with SWO 16-148-1A. Ms. Jackson reviewed the documents submitted by Respondent in response to the BRR. The documents included Respondent’s Wells Fargo bank statements, check images, and PMI payroll register for the audit period.2/ Based on a review of the records, Ms. Jackson identified the following individuals as Respondent’s employees because they received direct payment from Respondent at times during the audit period: David Rosinsky, Dylan Robinson, Jarod Bell, Tommy Miller, and David Shields. Ms. Jackson determined periods of non-compliance for these employees based on the dates they received payments from Respondent and were not covered for workers’ compensation via PMI employment roster, separate policy, or corporate officer exemption. Ms. Jackson deemed payments to each of the individuals as gross payroll for purposes of calculating the penalty. Based upon Ms. Fisher’s deposition testimony, Ms. Jackson assigned National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) class code 5551, Roofing, to Mr. Miller; NCCI class code 5474, Painting, to Mr. Rosinsky; NCCI class code 8742, Sales, to Mr. Bell and Mr. Robinson; and NCCI class code 8810, clerical office employee, to Mr. Shields. Utilizing the statutory formula for penalty calculation, Ms. Jackson calculated a total penalty of $191.28 associated with these five “employees.” Ms. Jackson next calculated the penalty for Dustin Hansel, Kerrigan Ireland, Milton Trice, and Winston Perrotta, the workers identified at the jobsite as employees on May 4, 2016. The Department maintains that the business records submitted by Respondent were insufficient to determine Respondent’s payroll to these “employees,” thus, Ms. Jackson used the statutory formula to impute payroll to these workers. Ms. Jackson calculated a penalty of $14,970.12 against Respondent for failure to secure payment of workers’ compensation insurance for each of these four “employees” during the audit period. The total penalty associated with these four “employees” is $59,880.48. Ms. Jackson calculated a total penalty of $60,072.96 to be imposed against Respondent in connection with SWO 16-148- 1A. Business Records In compliance with the Department’s BRR, Respondent submitted additional business records on several occasions-- March 21, May 3 and 31, June 7, and August 15 and 24, 2017--in order to establish its complete payroll for the audit period. While the Department admits that the final documents submitted do establish Respondent’s complete payroll, the Department did not issue amended penalty assessment based on those records in either case. The Department maintains Respondent did not timely submit records, pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.028(4), which allows an employer 20 business days after service of the first amended order of penalty assessment to submit sufficient records to establish payroll. All business records submitted by Respondent were admitted in evidence and included as part of the record. The undersigned is not limited to the record before the Department at the time the amended penalty assessments were imposed, but must determine a recommendation in a de novo proceeding. The undersigned has relied upon the complete record in arriving at the decision in this case. Penalty Calculation for Ireland, Trice, and Perrotta For purposes of workers’ compensation insurance coverage, an “employee” is “any person who receives remuneration from an employer” for work or services performed under a contract. § 440.02(15)(a), Fla. Stat. Respondent did not issue a single check to Mr. Ireland, Mr. Trice, or Mr. Perrotta during the audit period. Mr. Ireland, Mr. Trice, and Mr. Perrotta are not included on any PMI leasing roster included in the record for the audit period. The uncontroverted evidence, including the credible and unrefuted testimony of each person with knowledge, established that Mr. Ireland, Mr. Trice, and Mr. Perrotta were newly hired for the job in Crestview on May 4, 2016, and began working that day prior to submitting applications at PMI, despite Ms. Fisher’s directions otherwise. Petitioner did not prove that either Mr. Ireland, Mr. Trice, or Mr. Perrotta was Respondent’s employee at any time during the audit period. Petitioner did not correctly calculate the penalty of $44,911.26 against Respondent for failure to secure workers’ compensation insurance for Mr. Ireland, Mr. Trice, and Mr. Perrotta during the audit period. Penalty Calculation for Hansel Ms. Fisher testified that Mr. Hansel has owned several businesses with which Respondent has conducted business over the years. Originally, Mr. Hansel owned a dumpster rental business, now owned by his father. Mr. Hansel also owned an independent landscaping company with which Respondent occasionally transacted business. When Respondent expanded business into the Panama City area, Ms. Fisher hired Mr. Hansel as a crew chief to supervise new crews in the area. The job on May 4, 2016, was his first roofing job. A review of Respondent’s records reveals Respondent issued the following checks to Mr. Hansel during the audit period: December 4, 2015, in the amount of $360, $300 of which was for “dumpster rental” and the remaining $60 for “sod”; May 4, 2016, in the amount of $200 for “sod repair”; May 6, 2016, in the amount of $925 as reimbursement for travel expenses; May 9, 2016, in the amount of $1,011.50 (with no memo); and May 21, 2016, in the amount of $100 for “7845 Preservation.” Mr. Hansel was included on Respondent’s PMI leasing roster beginning on May 13, 2016. Petitioner proved that Mr. Hansel was Respondent’s employee at times during the audit period. Petitioner did not prove that Respondent’s records were insufficient to determine payroll to Mr. Hansel during the audit period, which would have required an imputed penalty. Petitioner did not correctly calculate the penalty of $14,970.42 against Respondent for failure to secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage for Mr. Hansel during the audit period. Sod repair by Mr. Hansel is a service performed for Respondent during the audit period. Reimbursement of travel expenses is specifically included in the definition of payroll for purposes of calculating the penalty. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L- 6.035(1)(f) (“Expense reimbursements, including reimbursements for travel” are included as remuneration to employees “to the extent that the employer’s business records and receipts do not confirm that the expense incurred as a valid business expense.”). Dumpster rental is neither work performed on behalf of, nor service provided to, Respondent during the audit period. The correct uninsured payroll amount attributable to Mr. Hansel is $2,296.50. Petitioner correctly applied NCCI class code 5551, Roofing, to work performed by Mr. Hansel based on the observation of Mr. Holman at the worksite on May 4, 2016. With respect to Mr. Hansel’s services for sod and sod repair, Petitioner did not correctly apply NCCI class code 5551. Petitioner did not introduce competent substantial evidence of the applicable NCCI class code and premium amount for landscaping services performed during the audit period.3/ Uninsured payroll attributable to Mr. Hansel for roofing services during the audit period is $2,036.50. The approved manual rate for workers’ compensation insurance for NCCI class code 5551 during the period of non- compliance--May 9 and 21, 2016--is $18.60. The premium amount Respondent would have paid to provide workers’ compensation insurance for Mr. Hansel is $378.79 (One percent of Mr. Hansel’s gross payroll during the non-compliance period--$20.36--multiplied by $18.60). The penalty for Respondent’s failure to secure worker’s compensation coverage insurance for Mr. Hansel during the period of non-compliance is calculated as two times the amount Respondent would have paid in premium for the non- compliance period. The correct penalty for Respondent’s failure to maintain workers’ compensation coverage for Mr. Hansel during the period of non-compliance is $757.58. Penalty Calculation for Salesmen Independent contractors not engaged in the construction industry are not employees for purposes of enforcing workers’ compensation insurance requirements. See § 440.02(15)(d)1., Fla. Stat. Sales is a non-construction industry occupation. The Department calculated a penalty associated with payroll attributable to the following persons identified by Ms. Fisher as independent salesmen: Dylan Robinson, Kevin Miller, Marc Medley, Mike Rucker, Colby Fisher, David Jones, Jarod Bell, Matt Flynn, and Todd Zulauf. Section 440.02(15)(d)1. provides that an individual may be an independent contractor, rather than an employee, as follows: In order to meet the definition of independent contractor, at least four of the following criteria must be met: The independent contractor maintains a separate business with his or her own work facility, truck, equipment, materials, or similar accommodations; The independent contractor holds or has applied for a federal employer identification number, unless the independent contractor is a sole proprietor who is not required to obtain a federal employer identification number under state or federal regulations; The independent contractor receives compensation for services rendered or work performed and such compensation is paid to a business rather than to an individual; The independent contractor holds one or more bank accounts in the name of the business entity for purposes of paying business expenses or other expenses related to services rendered or work performed for compensation; The independent contractor performs work or is able to perform work for any entity in addition to or besides the employer at his or her own election without the necessity of completing an employment application or process; or The independent contractor receives compensation for work or services rendered on a competitive-bid basis or completion of a task or a set of tasks as defined by a contractual agreement, unless such contractual agreement expressly states that an employment relationship exists. If four of the criteria listed in sub- subparagraph a. do not exist, an individual may still be presumed to be an independent contractor and not an employee based on full consideration of the nature of the individual situation with regard to satisfying any of the following conditions: The independent contractor performs or agrees to perform specific services or work for a specific amount of money and controls the means of performing the services or work. The independent contractor incurs the principal expenses related to the service or work that he or she performs or agrees to perform. The independent contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of the work or services that he or she performs or agrees to perform. The independent contractor receives compensation for work or services performed for a commission or on a per-job basis and not on any other basis. The independent contractor may realize a profit or suffer a loss in connection with performing work or services. The independent contractor has continuing or recurring business liabilities or obligations. The success or failure of the independent contractor’s business depends on the relationship of business receipts to expenditures. Ms. Fisher testified that each of the above-named salesmen sold roofing jobs for her at various times during the audit period on a commission-only basis. The contractors inspect homeowner roofs, draft schematics, use their own equipment (e.g., drones), incur all of their own expenses, and handle the insurance filing for the homeowner’s insurance to pay on the claim. Ms. Fisher further testified that each of the salesmen also sells for other roofing contractors in the Tallahassee area. She pays the salesmen on a per-job basis. Ms. Fisher does not compensate the salesmen for the time involved in inspecting a roof, preparing schematics, or making the sale. Nor does Ms. Fisher reimburse the salesmen for travel to sales jobsites. Ms. Fisher’s testimony was credible, persuasive, and uncontroverted. Respondent introduced in evidence four “Independent Contractor Checklists” allegedly completed by Mr. Robinson, Mr. Medley, Mr. Fisher, and Mr. Flynn. Each form checklist follows the format of section 440.02(15)(d)1., listing the criteria set forth in subparagraphs a. and b. The forms indicate that they each meet all the criteria listed in subparagraph b.: they perform, or agree to perform services for a specific amount of money and control the means of performing the service; they incur the principal expenses related to the service performed; they are responsible for satisfactory completion of the services performed; they receive compensation for the services performed on a per-job or commission basis; they may realize a profit or suffer a loss in connection with performing the services; they have continuing and recurring business liabilities or obligations; and the success or failure of their business depends on the relationship of business receipts to expenditures.4/ In its Proposed Recommended Order, Petitioner conceded the nine men identified by Respondent as independent sales contractors “would not be considered employees of Respondent” because the “salesmen would seem to meet the majority of [the] requirements [of section 440.02(15)(d)1.b.].” Respondent issued Dylan Robinson, Mark Medley, Colby Fisher, Matt Flynn, Kevin Miller, Mike Rucker, Jarod Bell, David Jones, and Todd Zulauf an IRS FORM 1099-MISC for income paid during the 2016 tax year. Respondent did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the above-named salesmen were Respondent’s employees during the audit period. For SWO 16-148-1A, Respondent did not correctly calculate the penalty because Respondent included a penalty associated with Petitioner’s failure to provide workers’ compensation insurance coverage for Dylan Robinson and Jarod Bell. Penalty in the amount of $20.70 associated with Dylan Robinson and Jarod Bell should not be included in the total penalty. The correct penalty amount for SWO 16-148-1A, based on records submitted by Respondent on or before March 20, 2016, is $929.16. Draft Revised Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment The additional records submitted by Respondent revealed payments made to persons during the audit period who were not included in the Department’s Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. The Department and Respondent disagreed at hearing whether the payments qualified as payroll. At hearing, Petitioner submitted a draft revised second amended penalty calculation for SWO 16-148-1A based on all records received from Respondent. The revised penalty is in the amount of $61,453.50. Ms. Jackson populated the spreadsheet with the name of every individual to whom a check was written on Respondent’s business bank account during the audit period, removing only those payments to individuals and entities which, to Petitioner’s knowledge, were not Respondent’s employees. Respondent’s calculations in the revised penalty suffer from some of the same errors as in the second amended penalty calculation--they include individuals Petitioner did not prove were Respondent’s employees, as well as payments which were not uninsured payroll. For the reasons explained herein, Petitioner did not prove that salesmen David Jones, Dylan Robinson, Jarod Bell, Kevin Miller, Mark Medley, Matt Flynn, Mike Rucker, Tim Fischer, and Colby Fisher were Respondent’s employees during the audit period. Respondent did not accurately calculate the penalty associated with those persons. Respondent made payments to David Shields during the audit period, which the Department argues should be included as payroll. The Department included payments to Mr. Shields in its draft revised second amended order of penalty assessment and assigned NCCI class code “8810” for clerical work. Mr. Shields is a licensed professional roofing contractor who acts as “qualifier” for Respondent’s business. A qualifier is a licensed professional who certifies plans for permit applications submitted by another business. Respondent pays Mr. Shields a flat fee per permit application qualified by him. The record evidence does not support a finding that Mr. Shields provides clerical services to Respondent. Mr. Shields provides some sort of professional services to Respondent, and is likely an independent contractor providing his own materials and supplies, maintaining his own business accounts, and liable for his own business success. Assuming Mr. Shields were Respondent’s employee, the Department introduced no evidence of an appropriate NCCI class code for Mr. Shields’ services. The Department did not prove that payments to Mr. Shields should be included as Respondent’s uninsured payroll during the audit period. Respondent paid Susan Swain a total of $258 during the audit period for clerical work. Ms. Fisher maintained Ms. Swain’s work was casual at first, and the payments reflect a time when she worked on-again, off-again, handling the paperwork for restoration insurance claims. Later, Ms. Swain came to work for Respondent full-time and was added to the PMI leasing roster. Section 440.02(15)(d)5. provides that a person “whose employment is both casual and not in the course of the trade, business, profession or occupation of the employer” is not an employee. The statute defines “casual” employment as work that is anticipated to be completed in 10 working days or less and at a total labor cost of less than $500. See § 440.02(5), Fla. Stat. In its Proposed Recommended Order, the Department argues Ms. Swain’s wages should be included as payroll because the “testimony regarding Ms. Swain does not suggest that she was employed for less than 10 days[.]” However, it was the Department’s burden to prove that Ms. Swain was a statutory employee. The Department did not prove that Ms. Swain’s wages should be included within Respondent’s uninsured payroll. The largest portion of the penalty assessed by the Department, as well as in the draft revised second amended penalty assessment, against Respondent is in connection with various roofers who were employed by Respondent at times during the audit period. Each of the roofers was included on Respondent’s PMI leasing roster, but received checks directly from Respondent in addition to PMI payroll checks. The Department included all the direct payments to those roofers as payroll for purposes of calculating a penalty in this case. As Ms. Fisher explained, the company bids a reroof on a per job basis--usually a per square foot price. Ms. Fisher adds each roofing contractor’s name to the PMI leasing roster to ensure that each roofer is covered by workers’ compensation insurance for the duration of the job. When the job is completed (which is a matter of just a few days), the contractor reports to Ms. Fisher what amount of the contract price was spent on materials, supplies, or other non-labor costs. Ms. Fisher cuts a check to the contractor for that amount and authorizes PMI to issue payroll checks for the “labor cost” (the difference between the contract price and the non-labor costs). Ms. Fisher refers to this process as “back-charging” the contractors for their materials, maintenance, tools, and other non-labor costs. The Department is correct that the direct payments are payroll to the roofing contractors. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.035(1)(b) and (h) (remuneration includes “payments, including cash payments, made to employees by or on behalf of the employer” and “payments or allowances made by or on behalf of the employer for tools or equipment used by employees in their work or operations for the employer.”). The Department would be correct to include these payments in the penalty calculation if they represented uninsured payroll. However, the evidence supports a finding that the direct payments to the roofing contractors were made for the same jobs on which Respondent secured workers’ compensation coverage through PMI. The roofing contractors were covered for workers’ compensation throughout the job, even though they may have received partial payment for the job outside of the PMI payroll checks.5/ The direct payments were not for separate reroofs on which the roofers were not otherwise insured. The Department did not correctly calculate penalties associated with the following roofing contractors: Donald Tontigh, Joseph Howard, Keith Mills, Aaron Kilpatrick, Gustavo Tobias, Jose Mejia, and Tommy Miller. Ms. Fisher also received cash payments from Respondent during the audit period. These payments were made in addition to her payroll through PMI. Ms. Fisher described these payments as “cash tickets,” which were paid outside of her PMI payroll to reimburse her for investments made in the company. For purposes of calculating the penalty in this case, these “cash tickets” are clearly payroll, as that term is to be calculated pursuant to rule 69L-6.035. Similar to the issue with the roofing contractors, the question is whether the payments represent uninsured payroll. Ms. Fisher did not hold a corporate officer exemption at any time relevant hereto. Ms. Fisher testified that she was covered through PMI payroll leasing. In contrast to the roofing contractors, Ms. Fisher’s direct payments do not directly coincide with any particular job or specific time frame during which Ms. Fisher was covered for workers’ compensation insurance through PMI. The evidence was insufficient to determine that the amounts were insured payroll. The Department properly calculated a penalty associated with payroll attributable to Ms. Fisher. Respondent made one payment of $75 to Donald Martin during the audit period. The Department calculated a penalty of $27.90 associated with this payment to Mr. Martin. Ms. Fisher explained that Mr. Martin was a down-on-his-luck guy who came by the office one day complaining that Mr. Hansel owed him some money. Ms. Fisher offered to put him on a roofing crew and wrote him the $75 check to help him out. Ms. Fisher’s testimony was both credible and unrefuted. Mr. Martin was never hired by Respondent, put on any roofing crew, or added to the PMI leasing roster. Mr. Martin was not Respondent’s employee because he did not receive remuneration for the “performance of any work or service while engaged in any employment under any appointment or contract for hire” with Respondent. § 440.02(15)(a), Fla. Stat. Cale Dierking works for Respondent full-time in a clerical position. During the audit period, Respondent paid Mr. Dierking directly by check for $1,306.14. This payment was made outside of Mr. Dierking’s PMI payroll checks. Ms. Fisher testified that she paid Mr. Dierking directly on one occasion when “PMI’s payroll got stuck in Memphis, I believe it was a snow-in situation where payroll checks didn’t come.” Rather than ask her employee to go without a timely paycheck, she advanced his payroll. Ms. Fisher’s testimony was both credible and unrefuted. The payment to Mr. Dierking is clearly payroll. However, Mr. Dierking was covered for workers’ compensation through PMI for the period during which the check was issued. Thus, there is no evidence that it was uninsured payroll. The Department did not correctly calculate a penalty associated with payments to Mr. Dierking. The correct penalty to be assessed against Respondent for failure to secure workers’ compensation coverage for its employees during the audit period in connection with SWO 16-148- 1A is $770.60. Penalty Calculation for SWO 16-198-1A Ms. Jackson calculated a total penalty against Respondent in connection with SWO 16-198-1A in the amount of $19,115.84, as reflected in the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. The Department correctly imputed penalty against Respondent in the amount of $91.68 each for uninsured payroll to Mr. Gonzalez and Mr. Lopez. The evidence supported a finding that these workers were Respondent’s statutory employees on June 8, 2016, and were not enrolled on the PMI leasing roster. The Department did not correctly calculate the penalty associated with salesmen Dylan Robinson, Jarod Bell, Kevin Miller, Mark Medley, Matt Flynn, and Todd Zulauf. The Department did not correctly calculate the penalty associated with roofing contractors Abraham Martinez- Antonio, Edwin Kinsey, Dustin Hansel, Efrian Molina-Agustin, Jose Mejia, Joseph Howard, Keith Mills, Samuel Pedro, and Tommy Miller. The Department did not correctly calculate the penalty against Respondent associated with Mr. Shields, Respondent’s qualifier. Based on a review of Respondent’s complete “untimely” records, the Department discovered direct payments made to additional employees not included on the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. Respondent made a direct payment to Ethan Burch in the amount of $602.50 during the audit period. Ethan Burch is one of Respondent’s full-time clerical employees. The evidence is insufficient to determine whether the payment of $602.50 was insured or uninsured payroll. As such, the Department did not prove it correctly calculated the penalty associated with Mr. Burch. Respondent also made a direct payment to Chelsea Hansel in the amount of $965 during the audit period. Ms. Hansel is another clerical employee. Ms. Hansel’s PMI enrollment was delayed due to some background investigation. Respondent paid Ms. Hansel for work she completed prior to enrollment. The direct payment to Ms. Hansel constitutes uninsured payroll. The Department correctly calculated the penalty associated with the payment to Chelsea Hansel. The correct penalty amount to be imposed against Respondent for failure to secure payment of workers’ compensation coverage for its employees (Gonzalez, Lopez, and Chelsea Hansel) during the audit period in connection with SWO 16-198-1A is $187.80.
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 Royal Roofing and Restoration, Inc., violated the workers’ compensation insurance law and, in DOAH Case No. 17-0879, assessing a penalty of $770.60; and in DOAH Case No. 17-1558, assessing a penalty of $187.80. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of January, 2018, 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 24th day of January, 2018.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by failing to secure payment of workers’ compensation coverage, as alleged in the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment; and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Jurisdiction The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement of chapter 440 that employers in Florida secure workers’ compensation coverage for their employees and corporate officers, pursuant to section 440.107. Patrick Hoffman was the owner and sole corporate officer for American. At all times material to this proceeding, American sold materials for window screens, patio sliding doors, screws, and spline screening; and it provided window and screen installation services. Investigation On June 29, 2016, the Department commenced an investigation following the observation of Patrick Hoffman and Timothy Barnett (also known as Adam Barnett) performing window installation services at a residential property. Kent Howe, an investigator in the Department’s compliance division, conducted an investigation regarding American’s operation of its business without proper workers’ compensation coverage. On June 29, 2016, Mr. Howe personally served a Stop-Work Order requiring American to cease all business operations and Order of Penalty Assessment on Mr. Hoffman. On June 29, 2016, Mr. Howe also served Mr. Hoffman with a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Calculation, requesting records to enable the Department to calculate the appropriate penalty for the period of June 30, 2014, through June 29, 2016. On June 30, 2016, the Department issued a conditional release from the Stop-Work Order. The conditional release required Respondent to pay $1,000, and agree to pay the penalty assessment within 28 days after the penalty calculation. American paid the $1,000 payment but it disputed the calculated penalty amount. An employer is required to maintain workers’ compensation coverage for employees unless there is an exemption from coverage. In the construction industry, a company must maintain coverage if it employs one or more persons. In the non-construction industry, a company is required to maintain coverage if it employs three or more persons. A contractor serving as a corporate officer in the construction industry may obtain an exemption from coverage requirements. See § 440.05, Fla. Stat. A contractor must demonstrate compliance with the workers’ compensation requirements or produce a copy of an employee leasing agreement or exemption for each employee. If an employee is a subcontractor without their own workers’ compensation coverage or an exemption, the individual is considered an employee of the contractor. American did not dispute that Timothy Barnett and Roger Wilson were employees of the company. American also did not dispute that it did not have workers’ compensation coverage for the employees as required by chapter 440. As a corporate officer, Mr. Hoffman elected to be exempted from workers’ compensation coverage. Penalty Calculation The Department assigned Eunika Jackson, a Department penalty auditor, to calculate the appropriate penalty for American. Ms. Jackson conducts penalty audits for construction and non-construction employers. Ms. Jackson testified that workers’ compensation coverage penalties are calculated based on a statutory formula in which the auditor calculates two-times the amount of the insurance premium the employer would have paid for each employee over the two-year period preceding the Stop-Work Order. The two-year period is commonly referred to as the look-back period. The penalty calculation is based on the employer’s payroll, the classification code for the industry of operation during the audit period, and the manual rate assigned to that classification code. To determine the appropriate code, the auditor uses the classification code in the Scopes® Manual, which has been adopted by Petitioner through Florida Administrative Code Rules 69L-6.021 and 69L-6.031. Ms. Jackson used business records Mr. Hoffman provided to determine the appropriate industry code and the penalty amount for each employee. Ms. Jackson reviewed bank statements to determine the gross payroll paid to Mr. Wilson and Mr. Barnett during the two-year non-compliance period. The records demonstrated that Roger Wilson received payment during the period of June 30, 2014, through December 31, 2015. Timothy (Adam) Barnett received payment during the period of January 1, 2015, through June 29, 2016. Ms. Jackson determined that American operated in the construction industry and initially assigned each employee a classification code of 5102. On August 11, 2016, the Department issued the Amended Order that assessed a total penalty of $10,785.04. The Amended Order was personally served on Mr. Hoffman on August 16, 2016. In response to the Amended Order, Respondent disputed the classification code assigned to Mr. Wilson. Mr. Hoffman testified that Mr. Wilson did not perform construction work, but rather worked as a retail employee selling merchandise in the store front. Mr. Hoffman further testified that contractors purchased items at American for use in their businesses. Mr. Hoffman’s description of Mr. Wilson’s job responsibilities and description of merchandise sold at American clearly demonstrates that Mr. Wilson did not perform construction work. Ms. Jackson correctly determined that the classification code 8018, which applies to retail and wholesale salespersons, was the appropriate code for Mr. Wilson. The classification code change resulted in a manual rate reduction and a reduced assessment applied to Mr. Wilson. On November 18, 2016, the Department filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Order of Penalty Assessment, which the undersigned granted. The Second Amended Order reduced the penalty assessment to $6,818.00. During the hearing, American continued to dispute the calculation of the penalty for Mr. Hoffman because he maintained an exemption as a corporate officer. The Department ultimately agreed to remove Mr. Hoffman from the penalty assessment worksheet and reduced the penalty assessment to $6,764.96. At hearing, there was no dispute regarding the penalty assessment related to Mr. Barnett. However, Respondent argued in the post-hearing statement for the first time that Timothy Barnett had an exemption. There was no evidence to support Respondent’s assertion. Therefore, Ms. Jackson correctly included payment to Mr. Barnett as payroll for purposes of calculating the penalty. Regarding Mr. Wilson, Mr. Hoffman argued that Mr. Wilson had an exemption from workers’ compensation coverage when he began working for American.1/ However, Mr. Hoffman could not produce a copy of the exemption and Mr. Wilson was not present at the hearing for testimony. Ms. Jackson conducted research using the Coverage Compliance Automated System (“CCAS”), a database used by the Department to maintain information regarding workers’ compensation policies, employee leasing plans, and exemptions for employees. Ms. Jackson found no record of an exemption for Mr. Wilson in CCAS. While Ms. Jackson did not exhaust all efforts to locate an exemption for Mr. Wilson, it was American’s burden to produce evidence of an exemption. Mr. Hoffman’s testimony with nothing more was insufficient to demonstrate that Mr. Wilson had an exemption and as such, Ms. Jackson appropriately included payments to Mr. Wilson as payroll to calculate the penalty. The calculation of the penalty for Mr. Wilson in the amount of $2,784.58 is correct. However, the penalty calculation for Mr. Barnett is incorrect. The amount should be $3,872.27. Therefore, the amount of the penalty should be reduced to $6,656.85. Ultimate Findings of Fact American was actively involved in business operations within the construction industry during the audit period of June 30, 2014, through June 29, 2016. Based upon the description of American’s business and the duties performed, Mr. Wilson was properly classified with a code 8018. Ms. Jackson used the correct manual rates and methodology to determine the appropriate penalty.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, enter a final order determining that: Respondent, American Aluminum Concepts, Inc., violated the requirement in chapter 440, by failing to secure workers’ compensation coverage for its employees; and Imposing a total penalty assessment of $6,656.85. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of December, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of December, 2016.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Tony Williams Drywall and Plastering, Inc., failed to comply with the coverage requirements of the Workers' Compensation Law, chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by not obtaining workers' compensation insurance for its employees and, if so, what penalty should be assessed against Respondent pursuant to section 440.107.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement of the workers' compensation law that employers secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage for their employees and corporate officers. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. Tony Williams Drywall and Plastering, Inc., (Respondent or Williams Drywall) is a corporation based in Tallahassee, Florida, first incorporated on August 18, 1999. Williams Drywall is engaged in the construction industry, operating as a drywall installation and repair business with a principal office located at 8513 Raquel Lane in Tallahassee. Tony Williams is the sole owner, registered agent and president of Williams Drywall. On or about October 30, 2014, Williams Drywall was hired by Bill Davis, a general contractor, to make drywall repairs at 2069 North Monroe Street in Tallahassee (the job site). Williams Drywall hired Viper Enterprises, LLC, (Viper) for the job. Viper is a company owned and operated by Joseph Johnson, whom Mr. Williams described as a friend. Mr. Williams deemed the job as simple and expected to pay Viper about $200. On October 30, 2014, Department Investigator Betty Fuentes arrived at the job site and encountered Mr. Johnson. Ms. Fuentes inquired regarding Mr. Johnson’s workers’ compensation compliance.1/ Although Mr. Johnson, as corporate officer of Viper, had been exempt from the requirement to obtain workers’ compensation insurance, pursuant to section 440.05(3), Florida Statutes, the exemption expired after September 10, 2014. As of October 30, 2014, Mr. Johnson had not effectively renewed his exemption. Mr. Johnson called Mr. Williams from the job site on October 30, 2014, to inform Mr. Williams of the events that transpired at the job site. Through this telephone call, Mr. Williams learned that Ms. Fuentes had issued a stop-work order at the job site. Mr. Williams also spoke with Ms. Fuentes by phone from the job site on October 30, 2014, and Ms. Fuentes asked Mr. Williams for his corporate records as part of her investigation. Mr. Williams met directly with Ms. Fuentes in the late afternoon of October 30, 2014. During the meeting, Ms. Fuentes hand-delivered to Mr. Williams a Stop Work Order for Specific Worksite Only (Stop Work Order). The Stop Work Order required Williams Drywall to cease all business operations at the job site for failure to secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage for its employees. The Stop Work Order included an Order of Penalty Assessment in the amount of two times the amount Williams Drywall would have paid in premium when applying the approval manual wage rates to Williams Drywall’s employee payroll during periods for which it failed to secure payment of workers’ compensation insurance within the preceding two-year period. During the meeting, Mr. Williams provided to Ms. Fuentes corporate records and workers’ compensation information for Williams Drywall. Ms. Fuentes also requested from Mr. Williams payroll records for the preceding two-year period. Mr. Williams disputed that his payroll records for the preceding two-year period were relevant. Mr. Williams testified that he offered to provide his payroll records for the two-week time period during which Mr. Johnson’s exemption had lapsed. Mr. Williams insisted that the October 30, 2014, drywall job was the only job for which he hired Mr. Johnson between September 11, 2014, and October 30, 2014. Mr. Williams did not provide any payroll records for Williams Drywall to Ms. Fuentes or any other representative of the Department. Andrew Moskowitz was assigned to calculate the appropriate penalty to be assessed against Williams Drywall by the Department. Penalties for workers’ compensation insurance violations are based on doubling the amount of evaded insurance premiums for periods during which the employer failed to secure workers’ compensation coverage within the two-year period preceding the Stop Work Order. § 440.107(7)(d), Fla. Stat. The applicable period of noncompliance for Williams Drywall was September 11, 2014, the date Mr. Johnson’s exemption lapsed, through October 30, 2014, the date the Stop Work Order was issued. Section 440.107(7)(e) provides that where an employer fails to provide business records sufficient to enable the Department to determine the employer’s actual payroll for the penalty period, the Department will impute the weekly payroll at the statewide average weekly wage as defined in section 440.12(2), multiplied by two.2/ In the penalty assessment calculation, Mr. Moskowitz consulted the classification codes and definitions set forth in the SCOPES of Basic Manual Classifications (Scopes Manual) published by the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI). The Scopes Manual has been adopted by reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.021. Classification codes are four-digit codes assigned to occupations by the NCCI to assist in the calculation of workers’ compensation insurance premiums. Rule 69L-6.028(3)(d) provides that “[t]he imputed weekly payroll for each employee . . . shall be assigned to the highest rated workers’ compensation classification code for an employee based upon records or the investigator’s physical observation of that employee’s activities.” Mr. Moskowitz applied NCCI Class Code 5480, titled “Plastering NOC [Not Otherwise Classified] and Drivers,” which applies to specialty contractors engaged in interior plastering. Mr. Moskowitz used the approved manual rates corresponding to Class Code 5840 for the period of non-compliance to calculate the penalty. On December 14, 2014, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in the amount of $2,105.50, based upon an imputation of wages to Mr. Johnson, the only employee of Williams Drywall known to the Department for the period of noncompliance. The evidence produced at the hearing established that Mr. Moskowitz utilized the correct class codes, average weekly wages, and manual rates in his calculation of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. The Department has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Williams Drywall was in violation of the workers' compensation coverage requirements of chapter 440. Joseph Johnson was an employee of Williams Drywall performing services in the construction industry without valid workers’ compensation insurance coverage. The Department has also demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the penalty was correctly calculated by Mr. Moskowitz, through the use of the approved manual rates and the penalty calculation worksheet adopted by the Department in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.027.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, assessing a penalty of $2,105.50 against Tony Williams Drywall and Plastering, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of June, 2015, 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 3rd day of June, 2015.
