The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, properly assessed a penalty of $90,590.42 against Petitioner, S.A.C., LLC.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure payment of workers' compensation for the benefit of their employees pursuant to Section 440.107, Florida Statutes. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Petitioner, S.A.C., LLC, was a corporation domiciled in Florida. S.A.C.'s 2007 Limited Liability Company Annual Report lists its principal place of business as 626 Lafayette Court, Sarasota, Florida, 34236, and its mailing address as Post Office Box 49075, Sarasota, Florida 34230. At all times relevant to this proceeding, William R. Suzor was the president and managing member of S.A.C. Collen Wharton is an Insurance Analyst II with the Department. In this position, Ms. Wharton conducts inspections to ensure that employers are in compliance with the law. On June 20, 2007, Ms. Wharton conducted a compliance check at 2111 South Osprey Avenue in Sarasota, Florida. During the compliance check, Ms. Wharton observed three males working at that location. The three men were framing a single-family house that was under construction. This type of work is carpentry, which is considered construction. During the compliance check, Ms. Wharton asked David Crawford, one of the men working at the site, who was their employer. Mr. Crawford told Ms. Wharton that he and the other two men worked for S.A.C., but were paid by a leasing company. Mr. Crawford told Ms. Wharton that the company was owned by Mr. Suzor and, in response to Ms. Wharton's inquiry, he gave her Mr. Suzor's telephone number. In addition to Mr. Crawford, the other workers at the site were identified as Terry Jenkins and Frank Orduno. By checking the records the Department maintains in a computerized database, Ms. Wharton determined that S.A.C. did not carry workers' compensation insurance, but had coverage on its employees through Employee Leasing Solutions, an employee leasing company. She also determined, by consulting the Department's database, that none of the men had a workers' compensation exemption. Ms. Wharton telephoned Employee Leasing Solutions, which advised her that two of the workers at the site, Mr. Crawford and Mr. Jenkins, were on the roster of employees that the company maintained. The company advised her that the other worker, Mr. Orduno, was not on its roster of employees. This information was verified by an employee list that the leasing company provided to Ms. Wharton. On June 20, 2007, after determining that one worker at the work site had no workers' compensation coverage, Mr. Wharton prepared a Stop-Work Order. She then telephoned Mr. Suzor, told him that he had one worker at the site who did not have workers' compensation coverage and requested that he come to the work site. During the conversation, Mr. Suzor advised Ms. Wharton that Mr. Crawford was in charge at the work site, that she could give the Stop-Work Order to Mr. Crawford, and that he (Mr. Suzor) would meet her the following day. Ms. Wharton, after she telephoned Mr. Suzor, she conferred with her supervisor and then issued Stop-Work Order No. 07-125-D3, posting it at the work site and serving it on Mr. Crawford. On June 21, 2007, Mr. Suzor met with Ms. Wharton at her office. During that meeting, Ms. Wharton served a copy of Stop-Work Order No. 07-125-D3 on Mr. Suzor. She also served him with a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation ("Request for Business Records"). The Request for Business Records listed specific records that Mr. Suzor/S.A.C. should provide to the Department so that the Department could determine the workers who S.A.C. paid during the period of June 19, 2004, through June 20, 2007. The Request for Business Records notes that the requested records must be produced within five business days of receipt. According to the Request for Business Records, if no records are provided or the records provided are insufficient to enable the Department to determine the payroll for the time period requested for the calculation of the penalty in Subsection 440.107(7)(d), Florida Statutes, "the imputed weekly payroll for each employee, . . . shall be the statewide average weekly wage as defined in section 440.12(2), F.S. multiplied by 1.5." S.A.C. did not respond to the Department's Request for Business Records. On July 17, 2007, the Department had received no records from S.A.C. Without any records, Ms. Wharton had no information from which she could determine an accurate assessment of S.A.C.'s payroll for the previous three years. Therefore, Ms. Wharton calculated the penalty based on an imputed payroll. In her calculations, Ms. Wharton assumed that Mr. Orduno worked from June 21, 2004, through June 20, 2007, and that he was paid 1.5 times the state-wide average weekly wage for the class code assigned to the work he performed for each year or portion of the year. The Department then applied the statutory formula set out in Subsection 440.107(7)(d), Florida Statutes. Based on that calculation, the Department correctly calculated S.A.C.'s penalty assessment as $90,590.42, as specified in the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment dated July 17, 2007. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment reflecting the correct penalty amount was served on S.A.C.'s attorney, John Myers, Esquire, by hand-delivery, on July 17, 2007.3/ On July 21, 2007, S.A.C., through its former counsel, filed a Petition for Hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, enter a final order which affirms the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued July 17, 2007, assessing a penalty of $90,590.42, and the Stop-Work Order issued to Petitioner, S.A.C., LLC, on June 20, 2007. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of March, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of March, 2008.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2017), by failing to secure payment of workers’ compensation coverage, as alleged in the Stop-Work Order (“SWO”) and Amended Order of Penalty Assessment (“Amended Penalty Assessment”); and, if so, whether Petitioner correctly calculated the proposed penalty assessment against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence admitted at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: Background The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement of the Workers' Compensation Law that requires employers to secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage for their employees and corporate officers. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. The Department is also responsible for conducting random inspections of jobsites and investigating complaints concerning potential violations of workers’ compensation rules. At all times material to this matter, Native Cuts was a for-profit limited liability company engaged in business in the State of Florida. Native Cuts was organized as a business on January 19, 2010, and engaged in the business of construction and landscaping. Earl Lee, Jr. and Virginia Brown are Respondent’s managers. Earl Lee, Jr. is Respondent’s registered agent, with a mailing address of 316 North Lake Avenue, Leesburg, Florida 34748. Investigation On July 27, 2017, the Department’s investigator, Chuck Mays, conducted a random workers’ compensation compliance inspection at 27746 Cypress Glen Court, Yalaha, Florida 34797. At that time, Mr. Mays observed three men performing work. Mr. Mays testified that one man was observed operating a Bobcat utility vehicle (small tractor) to transport dirt from the front to the back of the structure, which was under construction. The two other men were removing debris, e.g., cut tree limbs, from the jobsite. Mr. Mays approached the man on the Bobcat and identified himself as an investigator. Mr. Mays began interviewing the Bobcat driver who reported that he and the other two workers at the jobsite were employees of Native Cuts, which the two men confirmed. Mr. Mays ultimately identified the three men at the jobsite as Rodolfo Ramirez, Mitchel Pike, and Dave Herrington. Based on his observations, Mr. Mays determined that the three men were performing construction-related work. Mr. Mays called Respondent’s manager, Mr. Lee, who identified the three men working at the jobsite as his employees. Mr. Mays asked Mr. Lee about the rate of pay and the length of employment for the employees and Mr. Lee referred Mr. Mays to Virginia Brown to obtain the information. Ms. Brown confirmed the three employees, and a fourth employee who was not present at the jobsite. Following the interviews on July 27, 2017, Mr. Mays researched the Division of Corporations system and established that Native Cuts was an active business. He then conducted a search of the Department’s Coverage Compliance Automated System (“CCAS”) and found Respondent did not have workers’ compensation coverage for its employees. Mr. Mays also conducted a further search of CCAS and discovered that Mr. Lee previously had an exemption, which expired on October 30, 2016. Based on his investigation and after consultation with his supervisor, Mr. Mays issued SWO No. 17-246-D4, and posted it at the jobsite. On July 28, 2017, Mr. Mays met with Ms. Brown at her home and personally served the SWO and Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation (“Business Records Request”). The Business Records Request directed Respondent to produce business records for the time period of July 28, 2015, through July 27, 2017 (“Audit Period”), within 10 business days from the receipt of the Business Records Request. On August 11, 2017, Respondent provided business records, including bank statements, checks, and receipts. The records were deemed sufficient to apply a 25-percent discount to Respondent for timely production of records. Penalty Calculation Generally, the Department uses business records to calculate the penalty assessment. Lynne Murcia, a Department penalty auditor, was assigned to review the calculation of the penalty assessment for Respondent. To calculate the penalty assessment, the Department uses a two-year auditing period looking back from the date of the SWO, July 27, 2017, also known as the look-back period. Penalties for workers' compensation insurance violations are based on doubling the amount of insurance premiums that would have been paid during the look-back period. § 440.107(7)(d), Fla. Stat. Ms. Murcia testified as to the process of penalty calculation. Ms. Murcia reviewed the business records submitted by Respondent, as well as notes, worksheets, and summaries from the original auditor.1/ Based on her review of the records, Ms. Murcia identified the individuals who received payments from Respondent as employees during the Audit Period. Ms. Murcia deemed payments to each of the individuals as gross payroll for purposes of calculating the penalty. In the penalty assessment calculation, the Department 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 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." Based on Mr. Mays’ observations at the jobsite, the Department assigned either NCCI classification (“class”) code 0042, entitled “Landscaping, Gardening, & Drivers” or class code 9102, entitled “Lawn Maintenance-Commercial or Domestic & Drivers.” The class code 0042 “applies to work involving new landscaping installations whereas class code 9102 applies to work involving maintenance of existing landscaping and/or lawn maintenance.” Mr. Mays testified that class code 0042 is considered construction work, whereas class code 9102 is considered nonconstruction work for workers’ compensation purposes. Generally, if a business provides proper payroll records to support a division, the appropriate code and correlating rate would apply based on the work performed. If the payroll records are not maintained to support the division of the work performed between class code 0042 and class code 9102, the highest rate of the two classifications is applied to the employee. Ms. Murcia testified that class code 0042 and class code 9102 were applied to Native Cuts employees due to the mixed work performed (Landscaping and Lawn Maintenance) by Respondent. However, class code 9102 was applied to most of the employees. Utilizing the statutory formula for penalty calculation specified in section 440.107(7)(d)1. and rule 69L- 6.027, the total penalty was calculated based on periods of non- compliance for employees based on the dates they received payments from Respondent and were not covered for workers’ compensation. Since Mr. Lee’s exemption expired on October 30, 2016, the calculation for his work performed was limited to the period after the expiration of his exemption, November 1, 2016, through July 27, 2017. Regarding records designated as cash payments, the Department determined that the Native Cuts’ records and receipts did not validate the payroll and expenses that corresponded with the company’s cash withdrawals. Pursuant to rule 69L- 6.035(1)(k), the Department included 80 percent of cash withdrawals as wages or salaries to employees. Penalty Calculation for Imputed Payroll The Department determined the calculated penalty for Rudolfo Ramirez, David Harrington, and Mitchel Pike, the workers who were identified at the jobsite as employees on July 27, 2017. Mr. Lee was also included in the calculation of penalty for the imputed payroll. The Department maintains that the business records submitted by Respondent were insufficient to determine Respondent’s payroll for these employees during the investigation period, thus, the Department used the statutory formula to impute payroll to these employees. The Department correctly assigned a class code of 0042 and calculated a penalty of $149.20 against Respondent for failure to secure payment of workers’ compensation insurance for each of these employees. The Department also calculated the penalty for Ms. Brown, who was not at the jobsite but participated in the investigation on July 27, 2017. The Department applied a classification code 9102 to Ms. Brown. However, the evidence presented at hearing demonstrated Ms. Brown maintained records for the business and was the person identified as maintaining the wage rate information for employees. The evidence of record does not support a finding that Ms. Brown provided any landscaping or construction services to Respondent. Ms. Brown’s work, at best, could be described as clerical work. The Department introduced no evidence of an appropriate NCCI class code for Ms. Brown. Thus, the Department did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the imputed payroll related to Ms. Brown should be included for purposes of calculating the penalty. The Department did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the penalty in the amount of $19.60 attributed to Ms. Brown should be included in the penalty assessment. Penalty Calculation for Uninsured Labor Ms. Murcia testified that the class code 0042 was applied to the general category of uninsured labor, as the work performed could not be determined from the payroll records. Thus, the highest rate, class code 0042, of the two classifications for work performed by Native Cuts, is applied to these individuals. The Department correctly calculated a penalty of $17,015.10 for these employees. Penalty Calculation for Remaining Employees In addition to the penalty calculated for the imputed payroll (excluding Ms. Brown) and uninsured labor, the Department applied the appropriate class code for the work performed and correctly calculated the penalty for Native Cut employees2/ in the amount of $52,350.10. Total Penalty Calculation Ms. Murcia calculated a total penalty of $69,534.34 against Respondent for failure to secure payment of workers’ compensation insurance for each of its employees during the audit period. The amount of the penalty should be reduced by the amount attributed to Ms. Brown in the amount of $19.60. Thus, the total penalty amount that should be assessed against Native Cuts is $69,514.40. Mr. Lee paid a $1,000.00 down payment for the penalty assessed.
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, assessing a penalty of $68,514.74 against Native Cuts Property Management, LLC. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 2019, 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 31st day of May, 2019.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to file a Petition for hearing to challenge the Stop-Work Order (SWO) and Amended Order of Penalty Assessment (AOPA) more than 21 days from the date of the SWO and the AOPA?
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is the state agency charged with the responsibility of enforcing the requirement that employers, in Florida, secure workers' compensation insurance coverage for their employees. § 440.107 (3) Fla. Stat. (2005).1 Petitioner, J and A Framing, Inc., during all times relevant to these proceedings, is a Florida for profit corporation, and is authorized to do business in this state. On October 20, 2005, Respondent's Investigator personally served a Request for Production of Business Records on a representative of Petitioner. On October 26, 2005, Respondent's Investigator personally served a SWO on Jorge Bernales, President of Petitioner. The SWO contained a Notice of Rights, on the second page, advising Petitioner, in bold print, that it had 21 days within which it may file a petition challenging the SWO. On October 31, 2005, Respondent's Investigator personally served an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment (AOPA) on Jorge Bernales, President of Petitioner, which also contained a Notice of Rights, on the second page, advising Petitioner, in bold print, that it had 21 days within which to file a petition challenging the AOPA. Marisol Hernandez, Bernales' girlfriend, who reads and speaks English fluently, was present when Respondent's Investigator served Bernales with the SWO and the AOPA. Petitioner filed its Petition with Respondent on March 6, 2006, which is more than 120 days from the date of the SWO and AOPA. Jorge Bernales testified that he was Petitioner's only corporate officer. Marisol Hernandez stated her only relationship with Petitioner was as the girlfriend of Jorge Bernales, its President, and that she is carrying Bernales' unborn child, and his income pays her rent and utilities. She was not employed by Petitioner. Counsel for Petitioner elicited testimony from Hernandez that she did "nothing" for the company and was not an employee or officer of Petitioner. The testimony of Bernales and Hernandez conflicts with the corporate records, admitted in evidence as a joint exhibit, and filed with the Florida Secretary of State, Division of Corporations. The accuracy of the corporate records has not been challenged. It is found that, the corporate records are more credible than the testimony of Bernales and Hernandez. Effective October 27, 2005, Hernandez was listed as the Vice President and therefore, was an employee of Petitioner. At all times material hereto, Bernales was the President and an employee of Petitioner. Petitioner's President and Vice President (collectively, "Officers") met with the Respondent's Investigator on several occasions. During their first meeting, Respondent served the Request for Production of Business Records (BRR) on Bernales. During Petitioner's second meeting with Respondent, Bernales and Hernandez were presented and received the SWO. Hernandez was able to read the Notice of Rights on the SWO, and did so at the final hearing when she read aloud, "[f]ailure to file a petition within 21 days of receipt of this Stop-Work Order constitutes a waiver of your right to request a hearing." During Petitioner's third meeting, the Officers received the AOPA. The Officers had every opportunity to read the AOPA, which contains a bold Notice of Rights, virtually identical to the one on the SWO. Bernales concentrated on raising enough money to pay the penalty. Bernales approached several banks, friends, and family members to get enough money in order to put a ten percent down payment on the assessment. Unable to secure sufficient funds, Bernales offered to pay Respondent a lesser amount in exchange for lifting the SWO. This request was denied. Bernales could understand and speak the English language, but was unable to read English. He knew and was present when Hernandez read and spoke English. Bernales did not seek Hernandez's assistance in understanding the SWO or the AOPA. Hernandez had actual possession of the SWO and the AOPA, but chose to read neither. The Officers went to Elisa Barron, Petitioner's accountant, to gather documents responsive to BRR. Both knew she could read and write English. Barron assisted Petitioner in collecting the documents requested on the BRR. Neither Officer asked Barron to assist them in understanding the terms of the SWO or the AOPA. Furthermore, the Officers had the SWO and AOPA with them, but did not show the SWO or the AOPA to Barron while they were at Barron's office. The Officers testified they were unable to recall whether Barron advised them to seek an attorney regarding the penalty assessment. However, Barron testified she advised Bernales to seek an attorney listed in the local Spanish language newspaper. Barron gave Bernales a copy of the newspaper. Barron's testimony is credible. In January 2006, Bernales retained Dan N. Godfrey, Esquire, to advise the company regarding the instant matter. Even after receiving the advice of counsel, Bernales waited until March 3, 2006, to request permission to file an untimely petition. On March 3, 2006, Petitioner filed a Petition for Hearing with Respondent requesting permission to file an untimely petition to challenge the SWO and AOPA. Petitioner presented no credible evidence that Respondent, or any of its employees, misled Petitioner or lulled it into inaction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, enter a final order dismissing the Petition, which requests permission to file an untimely petition challenging the SWO and the AOPA. DONE AND ORDERED this 2nd day of February, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of February, 2007.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 69L-6, by failing to maintain workers' compensation coverage for its employees, and if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement that employers in the State of Florida secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage for their employees. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Respondent, Door Depot of Palm Beach, Inc., is a Florida for-profit corporation engaged in the sale and installation of doors, which is encompassed within the construction industry.2/ Ms. Morris is Respondent's owner and sole corporate officer. Failure to Secure Workers' Compensation Coverage As a result of a public referral, Petitioner initiated an investigation to determine whether Respondent had the required workers' compensation coverage for its employees. Michelle Jimerson, a Compliance Investigator employed by Petitioner, researched Petitioner's Coverage and Compliance Automated System ("CCAS") internal database regarding workers' compensation coverage and compliance, and determined that Respondent did not have current workers' compensation coverage and had not previously secured coverage. Ms. Jimerson's research further revealed that Ms. Morris, as Respondent's sole corporate officer, had a current workers' compensation exemption covering herself, and that she had maintained such exemptions since August 2002. On May 11, 2011, Ms. Jimerson conducted an on-site visit to Respondent's place of business. At that time, Petitioner issued a Request for Business Records to Respondent, seeking copies of payroll documents; bank statements; business tax receipts; check stubs and check ledgers; names of subcontractors; records of payments or disbursements to subcontractors; contracts; and proof of workers' compensation coverage for, or exemptions held by, the subcontractors. Respondent produced the requested records. From a review of the records, Ms. Jimerson determined that Respondent had contracted with three subcontractors, Breeze Image, Inc.,3/ Mike Jacobs, and Ross Whitehouse, to provide construction industry services (specifically, door repair and installation work), between April 22, 2011, and May 10, 2011. Ms. Jimerson's review of Petitioner's CCAS database revealed that none of these subcontractors was exempt from the workers' compensation coverage requirement during the period in which they contracted with Respondent to provide construction industry services, that none had secured workers' compensation coverage for themselves, and that Respondent had not secured workers' compensation coverage for them during this period. Because Respondent came into compliance with chapter 440 during Petitioner's investigation and before initiation of this enforcement action, Petitioner did not issue a Stop-Work Order.4/ Nancy Morris testified on Respondent's behalf. She admitted that Respondent had not secured workers' compensation coverage for these subcontractors. She credibly testified that she had asked if they were exempt from the workers' compensation coverage requirement, that they had told her they were, and that she had believed them. Penalty Assessment On May 24, 2011, Petitioner issued to Respondent a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation, seeking copies of payroll documents; bank statements; business tax receipts; check stubs and check ledgers; names of subcontractors; records of payments or disbursements to subcontractors; contracts; and proof of workers' compensation coverage for, or exemptions held by, the subcontractors. Respondent produced the requested documents. Using these documents, Petitioner's Penalty Calculator, Teo Morel, calculated the penalty assessment for Respondent. Section 440.107(7)(d)1., establishes a formula for determining the penalty to be assessed against an employer who fails to secure workers' compensation as required by chapter 440. Specifically, the penalty is one and a half (1.5) times the amount the employer would have paid in premium when applying approved manual rates to the employer's payroll during periods for which it failed to secure the payment of workers' compensation within the preceding three-year period, or $1000, whichever is greater. Petitioner has adopted a penalty worksheet for calculating the penalty prescribed by section 440.107(7)(d)1. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.027. Ms. Morel used the worksheet in calculating the penalty to be assessed against Respondent. Specifically, Ms. Morel identified the subcontractors for which Respondent had not secured workers' compensation and identified the applicable construction industry classification NCCI Manual code for each (here, classification code 5102). For each subcontractor, she identified the periods of noncompliance for the preceding three-year period as required by section 440.107(7)(d)1., determined the subcontractor's gross payroll amount and divided that amount by 100, then multiplied this amount by the NCCI Manual rate applicable to the 5102 classification code. This calculation yielded the workers' compensation premium Respondent should have paid for each subcontractor, had Respondent complied with chapter 440. The premium amount was then multiplied by 1.5 to determine the total penalty amount to be assessed. Pursuant to the information Respondent provided, and performing the statutorily prescribed calculation, Petitioner initially calculated the total penalty to be assessed as $20,266.59. Respondent subsequently provided additional business records consisting of raw job worksite notes. These documents showed that the subcontractors were paid a total contract amount for each job. However, the notes did not indicate the cost of materials per contract, and Respondent was unable to provide records containing this information. Because the cost of materials for each contract was indeterminable, pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.035(1)(i), Petitioner assumed that the materials cost constituted 20 percent of each contract, deducted this amount from each subcontractor's gross payroll, and recalculated the premium amount. As a result, the total penalty assessment was reduced by 20 percent, to $16,213.30. Respondent disputes the amount of the amended penalty assessment on the basis that materials costs for each contract constituted more than 20 percent of each contract's amount. However, Ms. Morris was unable to provide any evidence substantiating the cost of materials for each contract. Ms. Morris credibly testified that if Respondent is required to pay the assessed penalty of $16,213.30, it likely will be forced to go out of business. Ms. Morris fully cooperated with Petitioner throughout its compliance investigation leading to this enforcement action against Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order determining that Respondent violated the requirement in chapter 440, Florida Statutes, to secure workers' compensation coverage; imposing a total penalty assessment of $16,213.30; and providing that Petitioner will execute with Respondent a Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty, pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.025, under which Respondent shall make a down payment to Petitioner of ten percent of the total assessed penalty amount, which is $1,621.33, and shall repay the remaining penalty in 60 consecutive monthly installments. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of January, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S Cathy M. Sellers Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of January, 2012.
The Issue The issues are as follows: (a) whether Respondent failed to secure the payment of workers’ compensation for its employees; and if so, (b) whether Petitioner assessed an appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency that is responsible for enforcing the requirements Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, requiring employers to secure the payment of workers’ compensation for their employees. At all times relevant here, Respondent has been an active Florida corporation. Respondent’s business involves the installation of acoustic ceiling tiles. Respondent’s work in this regard constitutes construction. On March 16, 2010, Carl Woodall, Petitioner’s workers’ compensation compliance investigator, conducted a random compliance check at a construction site. The site was located at 707 Jenks Avenue in Panama City, Florida. Upon his arrival in the construction site, Mr. Woodall observed two individuals, Robin and Todd Calhoun, installing acoustic ceiling tiles in a commercial office building. The individuals informed Mr. Woodall that they were working for Jackie Shores. The individuals provided Mr. Woodall with contact information for Mr. Shores. Mr. Woodall initially contacted Mr. Shores by phone. Later, Mr. Woodall and Mr. Shores spoke in person at the construction site. Mr. Shores informed Mr. Woodall that he was employed by Respondent as a job supervisor. Mr. Shores also identified Robin and Todd Calhoun as Respondent’s employees. Mr. Shores informed Mr. Woodall that Respondent used Southeast Employee Leasing for workers’ compensation coverage, but that Robin and Todd Calhoun had not been signed up for coverage. Mr. Woodall then contacted George Kaspers from Southeast Employee Leasing to verify whether Respondent had secured workers’ compensation for Robin and Todd Calhoun. Mr. Kaspers confirmed that the Calhouns were not covered and that they did not have pending employee applications. On March 16, 2010, Mr. Kaspers faxed Mr. Woodall a list of Respondent’s employees that were covered by workers’ compensation insurance. The list did not name the Calhouns. Mr. Woodall next searched Petitioner’s Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) for proof of a workers’ compensation policy or officer exemptions. CCAS is a database that lists workers’ compensation insurance policy information and all workers’ compensation exemptions. The database did not list a current policy for Respondent or any valid exemptions. Mr. Woodall also reviewed the website maintained by the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations. The review showed that Respondent had been an active corporation since May 7, 2002. Based on his investigation, Mr. Woodall determined that Respondent had not secured workers’ compensation coverage for all of its employees as required by Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. On March 16, 2010, Petitioner issued, and served on Respondent, a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment, together with a Request for the Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation. The business records request applied to the period of March 17, 2007, through March 16, 2010. The request sought production of payroll records, workers’ compensation policy documents, employee leasing documents, temporary labor service documents, and workers’ compensation exemption documents. Mr. Woodall did not initially request subcontractor payroll and workers’ compensation documentation from Respondent because he did not see any subcontractors on site. He did not want to burden Respondent with a request for more documents that were necessary to determine a proper penalty. However, after Respondent failed to produce the requested records within the required time-period, the case was assigned to Monica Moye, Respondent’s penalty calculator, to prepare a penalty based on Respondent’s imputed payroll. On April 8, 2010, Mr. Woodall personally served an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on Respondent. The Order assessed a total penalty in the amount of $77,492.93 against Respondent for failure to secure workers’ compensation coverage for its employees. On April 5, 2010, and April 7, 2010, Respondent provided bank records with check images to Petitioner for the period of March 1, 2007, through March 31, 2010. Ms. Moye used these records to calculate a 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. The second order was based on payments to employees and subcontractors that were not covered by workers’ compensation insurance or an exemption there from. The second order assessed a penalty in the amount of $13,018.63. After service of the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, Ms. Moye received additional information from Respondent regarding a subcontractor that was covered by its own workers’ compensation policy. After confirming the subcontractor's coverage, Ms. Moye removed all payments to that subcontractor from Respondent's penalty. Mr. Woodall subsequently issued a 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to Respondent, assessing a penalty in the amount of $7,105.35. Later, Ms. Moye received information from Respondent, indicating that two additional subcontractors had workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. This information resulted in the issuance of a 4th Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, assessing a penalty in the amount of $6,675.91. Classification codes are four digit codes assigned to occupation by the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc. (NCCI) to assist in the calculation of workers’ compensation insurance premiums. The codes are listed in the Scopes® Manual, which Petitioner has adopted by rule. After discovery was completed in this case, Petitioner determined that some of Respondent’s employees had been assigned an improper construction classification code of 5348 on the 4th Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. Code 5348 encompasses ceramic tile, indoor stone, and marble installation. The proper code for Respondent’s employees was 5020, which encompasses the installation of suspended acoustical ceilings. Based on information provided by Respondent during discovery, Petitioner also determined that one of Respondent’s clerical employees should be assigned classification code 8810 rather than construction code 5348. Additionally, Petitioner discovered that payments to two entities were payments for material rather than labor. Based on information learned during discovery, Petitioner prepared a 5th Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, assessing a total penalty in the amount of $8,621.46. To calculate the penalty of the 5th Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, Petitioner totaled the gross payroll paid to Respondent’s employees and subcontractors that were not covered by workers’ compensation for each period of non-compliance. Respondent conceded that all of the individuals and entities listed on the penalty worksheet performed services for Respondent during the time periods listed. Respondent also conceded that the gross payroll amounts were correctly calculated, that none of the individuals listed had secured an exemption, and that none of the payments to employees or subcontractors included in the penalty calculation were covered by a workers’ compensation policy. Approved manual rates are established by NCCI and adopted by Petitioner. The approved manual rates are calculated upon the risk assigned to the type of employment reflected by each classification code. Using the penalty calculation worksheet, Petitioner divided the gross payroll amount for each employee and subcontractor in each period of non-compliance by 100 and multiplied that figure by the approved manual rate for the classification code assigned to that employee or subcontractor. The product was the amount of workers’ compensation premium Respondent should have paid for each employee and subcontractor if Respondent had been compliant. The premium amounts were then multiplied by 1.5 to arrive at the penalty for each employee and subcontractor. The penalties for each employee and subcontractor for each period of non-compliance were then added together to come up with a total penalty of $8,621.48.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, enter a final order, affirming, approving, and adopting the 5th Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of December, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Jackie Shores M & M Coop Construction Co., Inc. 1401 Minnesota Avenue Lynn Haven, Florida 32444 Holly R. Werkema, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Julie Jones, CP, FRP Agency Clerk Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 Benjamin Diamond, General Counsel Department of Financial Services’ The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Honorable Alex Sink Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issue to determine in this matter is whether equitable tolling applies to excuse Respondent Mac Mar, LLC’s, late-filed petition for administrative review.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with enforcing the requirement of chapter 440, Florida Statutes, that employers in Florida secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage for their employees. See § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Respondent is a corporation located in Clermont, Florida, engaged in the roofing industry. On March 5, 2018, Department Investigator Keith Howe conducted a workers’ compensation compliance check at a residence located in Daytona Beach, Florida, where Petitioner was installing a new roof. The purpose of Mr. Howe’s visit was to determine whether Petitioner had workers’ compensation coverage for its employees, as required under chapter 440. Mr. Howe made a preliminary determination that persons working at the residence were not covered by workers’ compensation insurance. After Mr. Howe’s visit, on March 6, 2018, the Department issued and served on Respondent (via hand-delivery) a Stop-Work Order and Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation. The Stop-Work Order alleged that Respondent failed to secure the payment of workers’ compensation insurance for those individuals at the Daytona Beach worksite, in violation of sections 440.10(1), 440.38(1), and 440.107(2). On June 27, 2018, the Department served Respondent with the Amended Order via certified mail. The Amended Order includes two deadlines. The deadline referenced on the first page of the Amended Order states: Pursuant to Rule 69L-6.028, Florida Administrative Code, if the Division imputes the employer’s payroll, the employer shall have twenty days after service of the first amended order of penalty assessment to provide business records sufficient for the Division to determine the employer’s payroll for the period requested in the business records request for the calculation of the penalty. The employer’s penalty will be recalculated pursuant to subsection 440.107(7)(d), F.S., only if the employer provides all such business records within the twenty days after service of the first amended order of penalty assessment. Otherwise, the first amended order of penalty assessment will remain in effect. The Amended Order’s other deadline is found in the “Notice of Rights” on the second page, and states: You must file the petition for hearing so that it is received within twenty-one (21) calendar days of this agency action. The petition must be filed with Julie Jones, DFS Agency Clerk, Department of Financial Services, 612 Larson Building, 200 East Gaines Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399- 0390. FAILURE TO FILE A PETITION WITHIN THE TWENTY- ONE (21) DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THIS AGENCY ACTION CONSTITUTES A WAIVER OF YOUR RIGHT TO ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OF THE AGENCY ACTION. Ms. Anderson, who previously served as an attorney for the Department, testified that the Department assigned her to a separate workers’ compensation matter involving Respondent (case 18-069-D7). Ms. Anderson testified that she contacted Ms. Lairsey, Respondent’s chief operating officer, on July 20, 2018, to discuss whether Respondent would agree to waive the 21- day deadline to file the petition in that matter. By that date more than 21 days had already passed from Respondent’s receipt of the Amended Order. Ms. Lairsey’s testimony confirms this conversation. Ms. Lairsey testified that she returned Ms. Anderson’s call, to discuss case 18-069-D7, as well as the instant case. At the time and date of this phone call, Respondent had not filed a petition for relief in the instant case, and the Department had therefore not assigned it to a Department attorney. During this telephone conversation, both Ms. Anderson and Ms. Lairsey testified that they discussed the potential for settlement in case 18-069-D7, and that Ms. Lairsey asked Ms. Anderson if the Department would consider consolidating that case with the instant case. Ms. Anderson testified that, during this telephone conversation, she was unaware of the instant case because Respondent had not yet filed a petition. After reviewing the Department’s database, Ms. Anderson testified that she discovered the Amended Order, but noted to Ms. Lairsey that Respondent had not yet filed a petition, and that if it did, the Department would consider it to be beyond the 21-day deadline, and thus late. Ms. Lairsey’s testimony is consistent with Ms. Anderson’s testimony concerning the discussion of the presumed lateness of the yet-to-be-filed petition in the instant case. Ms. Lairsey testified: So I understood that I was going to be late with the petition, or actually, I didn’t realize—I don’t remember—I didn’t know until that time that I was going to be late, but I wanted to know if I could get an extension of time or somehow find out a way to respond with why it was going to be late because of all the documentation that I needed to create the response. Ms. Anderson testified that she explained to Ms. Lairsey that because the Department would consider a petition in the instant case to be late-filed, it would issue an order to show cause, which “would give her a chance to respond to the Department and tell us why she believed her petition was late and to see if any of those reasons would amount to anything under the law where the Department could, in fact, look at the petition.” Ms. Lairsey testified that she believed that Ms. Anderson told her that a “response” would be accepted after the filing deadline. Ms. Lairsey also testified that she needed to obtain, review, and provide documentation concerning the allegations in the Amended Order to provide the Department with an “honest answer.” Ms. Lairsey also testified that she did not understand the deadlines stated in the Amended Order, although she ultimately testified, “Yes. I knew that it was—this is the one that was the 21 days from filing[.]”1/ Ms. Anderson testified that Respondent’s deadline for filing a petition in the instant matter was July 18, 2018. The undersigned finds that the Department served the Amended Order by certified mail that was received on June 27, 2018, and that July 18, 2018, is 21 days after the service of the Amended Order. The Department received Respondent’s petition for hearing on July 25, 2018, which was seven days after the filing deadline.2/ Thereafter, on August 7, 2018, the Division issued an Order to Show Cause, providing Respondent 21 days to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed as untimely, and to address whether any basis existed for the Department to equitably toll the 21-day deadline for filing the petition. On August 28, 2018, Respondent responded to the Order to Show Cause. The response states, in part: In this instance, there is sufficient evidence to support equitable tolling. Amanda Lairsey, Chief Operations Officer of MAC MAR, LLC, has been in continuous contact with the Division of Worker’s Compensation regarding matters that had arisen with MAC MAR, LLC. Specifically, Ms. Lairsey had been in communication with Taylor R. Anderson, Attorney for Workers Compensation. It is imperative that it be stressed in abundant clarity that MAC MAR, LLC does not believe that there was any responsibility or inaction or inappropriate action undertaken by Attorney Anderson. In Ms. Lairsey’s experience, she had been extremely helpful and professional in helping MAC MAR, LLC resolve its issues for which she was representing the Division. No representative of the Division was appointed or communicated for MAC MAR, LLC for the present matter. When Ms. Lairsey received the amended Order of Penalty Assessment on June 27, 2018, she asked Attorney Anderson whether or not she could be the assigned representative for the Division in this matter and explained that MAC MAR, LLC would need additional time to provide adequate information to the Division. Attorney Anderson indicated that she could not be the representative. Attorney Anderson stated that Ms. Lairsey would need to respond to the Order and that, if she failed to do so timely, that MAC MAR, LLC would receive a letter (which is apparently the Order to Show Cause) and would have to explain why it was filed untimely. Although it is apparent now that Attorney Anderson was properly communicating the requirements, Ms. Lairsey understood the statement to mean that MAC MAR, LLC could respond, and if it failed to do so timely, an explanation would be sufficient. Although it appears that it was not Attorney Anderson’s intention to lull Ms. Lairsey into thinking she could respond even if it was untimely, that is the unfortunate effect of Ms. Lairsey’s understanding of the communication from Ms. Anderson. Ms. Lairsey is not an attorney and did not appreciate the significance of the requirements of Equitable Tolling. The undersigned finds that Ms. Lairsey’s testimony at the final hearing contradicts Respondent’s response to the Order to Show Cause. Ms. Lairsey testified that she understood that Respondent’s petition in the instant matter was late. She testified that she did not understand the deadlines contained in the Amended Order, although Respondent apparently was able to timely file a petition in case 18-069-D7. And, Ms. Lairsey testified that she was aware that she would have an opportunity to respond to the Department’s Order to Show Cause to explain why the Respondent was filing a late petition--not that she believed she had the opportunity to have the Department accept a late- filed petition. Ms. Lairsey testified that she needed additional time to obtain, review, and provide documentation concerning the allegations in the Amended Order, in order to submit an accurate petition. However, the undersigned finds that Florida Administrative Code Rule 28-106.2015(5)(a) through (e) sets forth the substantive requirements for a petition for hearing. The subsections of this rule do not require a respondent to submit or identify documents or records relevant to the dispute. The undersigned finds that neither the Department nor Ms. Anderson lulled Respondent into inaction. Rather, the evidence adduced at hearing demonstrated that Ms. Anderson adequately explained to Ms. Lairsey that any petition filed in this matter was beyond the filing deadline, which Ms. Lairsey acknowledged she understood. Ms. Anderson explained that if Respondent filed a petition beyond the deadline, it would have an opportunity to respond to an Order to Show Cause, which it did. The undersigned further finds that Respondent has provided no evidence that it was, in some extraordinary way, prevented from exercising its rights, or that it timely asserted its rights mistakenly in a wrong forum.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Department dismiss Respondent’s petition for hearing as untimely. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT J. TELFER III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of May, 2019.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2016),1/ by failing to secure the payment of workers’ compensation coverage, as alleged in the Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment; and, if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Parties. The Department is responsible for enforcing the requirements of chapter 440, which mandate employers in Florida secure the payment of workers’ compensation insurance to cover their employees in case of workplace injuries. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. ASAP Flooring is owned and operated by Mr. Reinartsen; it has been an active corporation since 2006. ASAP Flooring provides flooring, painting and drywall services for construction projects. Ms. Brigantty is a Department compliance investigator. Her job is to ensure compliance by employers in her district with the workers’ compensation insurance regulations. Her job duties include conducting investigations triggered either through a report to the Department of non-compliance or through random inspections of workplaces and jobsites. As part of her investigative duties she conducts employer and employee interviews, collects financial documentation, and researches various data banks for corporate and workers’ compensation status. Department’s Investigation and Assessment. On October 24, 2016, Ms. Brigantty was driving around Pinellas County as part of her work duties. She stopped to conduct a random check at a residential construction site located at 3583 Douglas Place, Palm Harbor, Florida 34683 (“Jobsite”). At the Jobsite, Ms. Brigantty observed two men -- later identified as Eric Reinartsen and Wallace Humbert -- preparing and installing floors. After identifying herself as a compliance officer and interviewing them, she discovered Mr. Reinartsen was the owner of ASAP Flooring, and Mr. Humbert was an ASAP Flooring employee. Mr. Reinartsen admitted ASAP Flooring did not have workers’ compensation. At the time, he believed ASAP Flooring was exempt from the workers’ compensation insurance requirements due to his role as a corporate officer and because it only had one employee. During the initial interview, Ms. Brigantty learned Mr. Humbert had worked for ASAP Flooring for four or five months and was paid a flat fee per job. After meeting with Mr. Reinartsen, Ms. Brigantty checked the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations website to confirm Respondent’s status as an active corporation, and that Mr. Reinartsen was its only officer. Mr. Brigantty then used the Department’s database, Coverage and Compliance Automated System (“CCAS”), which contained information on employers and their workers’ compensation status and any exemptions. According to CCAS, at the time of Ms. Brigantty’s inspection, ASAP Flooring had no workers’ compensation insurance. CCAS also reflected Respondent had an exemption from the workers’ compensation insurance requirements for Mr. Reinartsen because he was its sole corporate officer, but there was no exemption for Mr. Humbert or for any other employees. On October 24, 2016, after confirming ASAP Flooring had at least one employee, but had not secured workers’ compensation insurance, the Department issued a SWO and had it personally served on Mr. Reinartsen at the Jobsite.3/ At this time, the Department also served Mr. Reinartsen with a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculations. In response, Respondent provided bank statements, check images, check stubs, tax information and e-mails to the Department. These documents showed that during the previous two-year period (“look-back period”), October 24, 2014, to October 24, 2016, Respondent had a number of employees, but did not have workers’ compensation coverage for them. At the hearing, Respondent did not dispute ASAP Flooring was required to have workers’ compensation insurance, the status of the people identified as employees, or the fact that it did not have adequate workers’ compensation coverage.4/ Penalty Calculation. To calculate the penalty assessed against Respondent, the Department’s Auditor utilized the information she gleaned from documents submitted by Respondent and through Mr. Reinartsen’s deposition testimony taken in these proceedings. She then applied the formulas and rules set forth in the Florida Administrative Code to the information and utilized a Penalty Calculation Worksheet (the “worksheet”) to compute the final penalty assessment amount. The worksheet for the Third OPA is attached as Appendix “A” to this Recommended Order (“Appx. A”). Through her review of ASAP Flooring’s business records and Mr. Reinartsen’s deposition testimony, the Auditor confirmed (1) the individuals who were direct employees or construction subcontractors during those periods of non-compliance (Appx. A, column “Employer’s Payroll”); (2) the periods of non-compliance (Appx. A, column “b”); (3) the gross payroll for those individuals during these periods of non-compliance (Appx. A, column “c”); and (4) the services provided by those individuals. The Auditor used the services to determine the classification codes created by the National Council on Compensation Insurance (“NCCI”), and listed in the NCCI’s Scopes Manual, which has been adopted by the Department through Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.021(1). These classification codes are four-digit codes assigned to various occupations by the NCCI to assist in the calculation of workers’ compensation insurance premiums. To derive the gross pay figures in the worksheet (Appx. A, column “c”) the Auditor explained she utilized payment information in the ASAP Flooring’s business records. Although Respondent initially asserted some of these payments were actually for both labor and materials, these distinctions were not detailed in the business records created at the time of service or payment. Regardless, pursuant to rule 69L-6.035(i) and (j), the Auditor excluded the cost of materials from the payroll calculations. Specifically, she applied an “80:20” ration rule for those payments Respondent claimed were partly labor and partly materials: considering 80 percent of the total payment as “labor” for penalty calculation purposes; and excluding 20 percent for penalty calculation purposes as “materials.” Using the gross payroll (Appx. A, column “c”) and the appropriate NCCI manual rate (Appx. A, column “e”), the Auditor calculated the premium rate (Appx. A, column “f”) for each individual or entity (Appx. A, column “Employer’s Payroll”). She then multiplied the premium rate by two to reach a penalty amount (Appx. A, column “g”). This calculation method to determine a final penalty is authorized by section 440.107(7)(d)1., and rule 69L-6.027. Ultimately, based on the amounts indicated in the worksheet, the Department issued a Third Amended OPA calculating the penalty as $15,577.84. The Department applied a 25 percent reduction, yielding a remaining penalty of $11,683.38. According to the evidence, in November 2016, Respondent paid $1,000 to the Department as a “down payment” toward any ultimate assessment. Applying this $1,000 as a credit to the penalty in the Third OPA results in Respondent owing $10,683.38. Respondent’s Defenses. At the final hearing, Mr. Reinartsen did not dispute any of the figures in the worksheet or the penalty amount. Rather, he raised three arguments unrelated to ASAP Flooring’s failure to secure workers’ compensation insurance for its employees. First, Respondent asserted Ms. Brigantty was not properly outfitted to enter a construction site and therefore, he argued, she was violating rules set forth by the Occupational Safety and Health Agency (“OSHA”). Ms. Brigantty admitted she was not wearing a hard hat, and did not think she was wearing steel-toed boots with hard soles when she entered the Jobsite. Second, Respondent argued Ms. Brigantty did not issue a SWO to another contractor at a neighboring construction site who was putting in pavers, identified only as “Luis.” Mr. Reinartsen could not provide the name of the other contractor’s company, a last name, or any other identifying information; nor did Respondent provide evidence that “Luis” was in a similar situation: non-compliant with and non-exempt from chapter 440. Ms. Brigantty did not remember going to the neighboring site or speaking to anyone else during her stop at the Jobsite. Finally, Respondent argued the penalty is substantial and payment in full (as opposed to a payment plan spread out over a number of years) would put him and his small family-owned company out of business. Ultimate Findings. The Department demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, Respondent violated chapter 440 as charged in the SWO by failing to secure workers’ compensation coverage for its employees. The Department demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, the penalty for this violation is $11,683.38.
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, ASAP Flooring, violated the requirement in chapter 440 to secure workers’ compensation coverage and imposing a total penalty of $11,683.38, less the $1,000 down payment, the balance to be paid in $100 a month increments. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of February, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HETAL DESAI 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 12th day of February, 2018.
Findings Of Fact 12. The factual allegations contained in the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment issued on October 17, 2011, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on November 4, 2011, and the 2"! Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on April 26, 2012, attached as exhibits and fully incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted as the Department’s Findings of Fact in this case.
The Issue Whether KP Roofing Masters, LLC ("Respondent"), failed to secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage for its employees, and if so, whether the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation ("Department"), correctly calculated the penalty imposed against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with enforcing the requirement of chapter 440 that employers in Florida secure workers' compensation coverage for their employees. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Respondent was a business providing services in the construction industry. Its principal office is located at 7100 Northwest 12th Street, Suite 210, Miami, Florida 33126. The Investigation. On September 26, 2014, the Department's compliance investigator, Cabrera, observed two individuals performing roofing work on a house in Coral Gables, Florida. Investigator Cabrera interviewed the individuals, identified as Rodolfo Moscoso and Jairo Alvarado. Both men informed Cabrera that they worked for Respondent. Cabrera then checked the permit board located at the jobsite and confirmed that Respondent pulled the permit for the roofing work. After gathering the information at the jobsite, Cabrera consulted the Division of Corporations’ website to determine, inter alia, the identity of Respondent's corporate officers. Cabrera found that Jorge Cappelleti ("Cappelleti") was Respondent's sole corporate officer. Cabrera then consulted the Department's Coverage and Compliance Automated System ("CCAS") for proof of workers' compensation coverage and for exemptions associated with Respondent. An exemption is a method in which a corporate officer can exempt himself from the requirements of chapter 440. See § 440.05, Fla. Stat. (2014). CCAS is the Department's internal database that contains workers' compensation insurance policy information and exemption information. Insurance providers are required to report coverage and cancellation information, which is then input into CCAS. Cabrera's CCAS search revealed that Respondent did not have a workers' compensation policy or an employee leasing policy. Cabrera additionally discovered that Cappelleti had a valid exemption. Cabrera then called Cappelleti who confirmed that the two men at the jobsite were his employees and that the employees were not covered by workers' compensation insurance. Based on the information gathered, on September 26, 2014, Cabrera issued Respondent a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment. On September 29, 2014, Cabrera served Respondent with the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment. Cabrera simultaneously served Respondent with the Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation ("BRR"). The BRR requested documents that would enable the Department to determine Respondent's payroll for the time period of September 27, 2012, through September 26, 2014. In response to the BRR, Respondent ultimately provided the Department with bank statements, check details, a general ledger, and other records. Penalty Calculation. In October 2014, the Department assigned Penalty Auditor Ruzzo to calculate the penalty assessed against Respondent. Ruzzo reviewed the business records produced by Respondent and properly identified the amount of gross payroll paid to Respondent's employees on which workers' compensation premiums had not been paid. Ruzzo researched Respondent and Respondent's subcontractors to determine those periods when they were not compliant with chapter 440 during the audit period. Ruzzo determined that Respondent was not compliant for the period of September 27, 2012, through September 26, 2014. However, Respondent's corporate officer was not included in the penalty for the periods in which he had an exemption. Additionally, Respondent's compliant subcontractors were not included in the penalty. The business records ultimately produced by Respondent were sufficient for Ruzzo to calculate a penalty for the entire audit period, except for September 26, 2014. For that day, Ruzzo imputed the payroll. On June 2, 2015, based on Ruzzo's calculations, the Department issued a 4th Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to Respondent. On September 1, 2015, the 4th Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served on Respondent. The 4th Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a penalty of $68,525.42. For the penalty assessment calculation, Ruzzo consulted the classification codes listed in the Scopes® Manual, which has been adopted by the Department of Financial Services through Florida Administrative Code Rules 69L-6.021 and 69L-6.031. Classification codes are assigned to various occupations to assist in the calculation of workers' compensation insurance premiums. Ruzzo assigned the class codes based on information provided to him by Cappelleti. Ruzzo then utilized the corresponding approved manual rates for those classification codes and the related periods of non-compliance. Ruzzo applied the correct approved manual rates and correctly utilized the methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)l. and rules 69L-6.027 and 69L-6.028 to determine the penalty. The Penalty Associated With Subcontractor Emerald. Respondent only disputes the portion of the penalty associated with its subcontractor, Emerald, in the amount of $8,434.86 for the period of non-compliance from January 1, 2014, through April 8, 2014. Section 440.10(1) provides in relevant part: In case a contractor sublets any part or parts of his or her contract work to a subcontractor or subcontractors, all of the employees of such contractor and subcontractor or subcontractors engaged on such contract work shall be deemed to be employed in one and the same business or establishment, and the contractor shall be liable for, and shall secure, the payment of compensation to all such employees, except to employees of a subcontractor who has secured such payment. A contractor shall require a subcontractor to provide evidence of workers’ compensation insurance. A subcontractor who is a corporation and has an officer who elects to be exempt as permitted under this chapter shall provide a copy of his or her certificate of exemption to the contractor. Noticeably absent from the statute is the time period within which this evidence of coverage must be provided to the contractor or the nature of the required evidence. Rule 69L-6.032(1) provides: In order for a contractor who is not securing the payment of compensation pursuant to Section 440.38(1)(a), F.S. to satisfy its obligation to obtain evidence of workers’ compensation insurance or a Certificate of Election to Be Exempt from a subcontractor pursuant to Section 440.10(1)(c), F.S., such contractor shall obtain and provide to the Department, when requested, the evidence specified in subsections (2), (3), (4) or (5) herein. (Emphasis added). Rule 69L-6.032 sets forth the contractor requirements for obtaining evidence that the subcontractor possesses workers' compensation insurance. If a subcontractor is a client company of a leasing company, such as Emerald, rule 69L-6.032(3) specifies that the evidence shall be a Certificate of Liability Insurance ("Certificate"). According to the deposition testimony of Cappelleti (Exhibit 11, offered into evidence by the Department), when Emerald began providing services to Respondent in January 2014, Emerald represented that its workers were covered by a policy through an employee leasing company. In fact, a Certificate, obtained by Respondent sometime before it was requested by the Department, indicates that Emerald had coverage for the period of January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014. This period encompasses the period of time for which the Department now seeks to penalize Respondent. Although Respondent obtained proof of coverage from Emerald, this occurred after Emerald was paid by Respondent for work occurring between January 1, 2014, and April 8, 2014. Ruzzo checked the CCAS and found that the Certificate for Emerald was inaccurate. Emerald apparently did not join the leasing company insurance policy until April 9, 2014. Although a contractor does not have a duty to further investigate when presented with what appears to be a valid Certificate, Ruzzo's calculations penalized Respondent for the period of non-compliance of Emerald because Respondent did not seek the proof of coverage until after Emerald's workers were already on the job for Respondent. The Department has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent employed Mr. Moscoso and Mr. Alvarado on September 26, 2014; that Respondent was engaged in the construction industry in Florida during the period of September 27, 2012, to September 26, 2014; and that Respondent failed to carry workers' compensation insurance to cover its employees as required by Florida's Workers' Compensation Law from September 27, 2012, to September 26, 2014. The Department has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Ruzzo correctly utilized the methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)l. However, the Department failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that a penalty for Emerald's period of non-compliance, in the amount of $8,434.86, should be included in the total penalty assessment of $68,525.42.
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, KP Roofing Masters, LLC, violated the requirement in chapter 440, Florida Statutes, to secure workers' compensation coverage, and imposing upon it a total penalty assessment of $60,090.56. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY 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 2nd day of March, 2016.
