05-002289 Department Of Financial Services, Division Of Workers&Apos; Compensation vs. Raylin Steel Erectors, Inc. Status: Closed Recommended Order on Wednesday, October 19, 2005.

Summary: Respondent, employing subcontractors and sub-subcontractors in Florida, is required to pay assessments for work performed after October 1, 2003, when it did not have the required workers` compensation coverage under Section 440.38, Florida Statutes.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL )

SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' )

COMPENSATION, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) C ase No. 05 - 2289

)

RAYLIN STEEL ERECTORS, INC., )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

This cause came on for formal hearing before Robert S.

Cohen, Administrative Law Judge with the Division of

Administrative Hearings, on August 18, 2005, in Jacksonville,

Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: John M. Iriye, Esquire

Department of Financial Services

Division of Workers' Compensation

200 East Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 4229

For Respondent: All e n P. Clark, Esquire

Foley & Lardner, LLP

One Independent Drive, Suite 1300

Jacksonville, Florida 3220 2

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue is whether Respondent, Raylin Steel Erectors,

Inc., employed persons in the State of Florida without obtaining

workers' compensation coverage meeting the requirements of

Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. If Respondent failed to obtain

the required insurance, the subsequent issue is whether the

penalty in the amount of $140,975.32 , was properly assessed by

Petitioner, Florida Department of Financial Services, Division

of W orkers' Compensation, pursuant to Section 440.107, Florida

Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 69L .

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Petitioner issued a Stop Work Order and Order of Penalty

Assessment against Respondent, ordering Respondent to stop wo rk

and cease all business operations in Florida. Petitioner then

requested business records from Respondent , which it used to

assess a penalty of $150,598.05 against Respondent. In the Pre -

Hearing Stipulation jointly filed by the parties prior to

hearing , Petitioner moved for leave to amend the penalty

assessment to $140,975.32. At the commencement of the hearing,

the m otion was granted , and the latter penalty amount became

that which Petitioner seeks to impose upon Respondent.

At the hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of Allen

DiMaria, Investigator for the Division of Workers' Compensation

(the " Division"), and Robert Lambert, District Supervisor for

the Division, and offered Exhibit Letter s A through R, all of

which were admitted into evidence. Respondent presented the

testimony of Linda Rowan, s ecretary/ t reasurer of Respondent, and

John F. Scarborough, v ice p resident and part owner of

Respondent, and offered Exhibit Nos. 1 A through E, 2A through E,

3A and B, 4A through C, and 5 , all of which w ere admitted into

evidence.

A Transcript was filed on August 31, 2005 . After the

hearing, Petitioner and Respondent filed Proposed Findings of

Fact and Conclusions of Law on September 21, 2005.

References to statutes are to Florida Statutes (2004)

unl ess otherwise noted.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Division is the state agency responsible for

enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure the

payment of workers' compensation for the benefit of their

employees. The Division maintains records of all Notices of

Coverage for workers' compensation reported to it. Insurers are

required by law to report all Florida workers' compensation

policies to the Division.

2. Respondent is a Georgia corporation located in Adel,

Georgia. Respondent is in the business of erecting pre -

engineered metal buildings not exceeding two stories in height.

3. Respondent, at all times involved in this matter, was

engaged as a subcontractor to various general contractors for

construction work performed in the State of Florida. All of the

work performed in Florida for purposes of these proceedings was

actually performed by sub - subcontractors of Respondent.

Respondent testified that it did not use any of its own

employees to perform work at any of the sites involved in these

proceedings.

4. Petitioner, based upon field interviews, determined

that at least some of the employees working at Respondent's job

site in Jacksonville, Florida , claimed to be employed by

Respondent.

5. Respondent had obtained workers' compe nsation coverage

in Georgia which provided for out - of - state coverage for Florida

under Section 3C of the policy, but no listed coverage for

Florida under Section 3A.

6. Four of the sub - subcontractors used by Respondent to

perform work in Florida, Celaya Steel Co., DC Construction,

Ronald Weeks , d/b/a RTW Construction, and J CB Steel Erectors,

Inc., had "other states coverage" in force, including Florida,

in Section 3C (but not 3A) of their workers' compensation

policies. Two companies used by Respondent to perform work in

Florida, Edward Leggett and Southern Steel Erectors , were not

covered by the "other states coverage" provision of Georgia

workers' compensation policies.

7. On September 16, 2004, Edward Leggett, as a sub -

subcontractor to Respondent, was engaged in the construction of

a pre - engineered metal building located at 3615 Dupont Center,

Jacksonville, Florida. The general contractor on this job was

BEKKA Corp oration . Allen DiMaria, Petitioner's investigator,

observed the type of work being p erformed on the project, patch

work on the roof. No steel erection, or any other type of work

was observed being performed on this project.

8. Respondent's workers' compensation code as its

principal business is listed under sheet metal work, NCCI Code

No. 5538. Petitioner admitted that this was the most

appropriate code classification to describe Respondent's

principal type of work.

9. The type of pre - engineered metal buildings erected by

Respondent's sub - subcontractors required various types of work .

The first phase of the work is steel erection, also known as

"red iron work." The next phase is erecting walls and

performing various types of trim work involved with sheet metal.

The third phase is roof work, and the final phase is trim work

and any punch list work required to complete the project.

10. Respondent's standard payment draw requests to its

customer, the general contractor, follows a sequencing under

which 25 percent is paid for steel erection, 50 percent for

sheet metal work and trim ou t, and 25 percent for roofing.

Respondent's sub - subcontractors are also paid in this same

manner. Further, Respondent's sub - subcontractors, who all were

out - of - state Georgia employers, generally provide per diem

travel expenses to their employees and ac count for overhead and

profit.

11. On September 17, 2004, after conducting a CCAS

database search which resulted in his finding no record of

workers' compensation coverage for either Respondent or Edward

Leggett, Mr. DiMaria issued a Stop Work Order and Order of

Penalty Assessment on Respondent. The Order required Respondent

to cease all business operations in Florida.

12. After the Stop Work Order was issued, Mr. DiMaria sent

a request for business records to Respondent. Linda Rowan,

Respondent's se cretary/treasurer, responded that Respondent had

no employees doing any work at any job sites in Florida, and

that all work was being performed by sub - subcontractors of

Respondent.

13. Mr. DiMaria then requested that Respondent send copies

of any subcon tracts, payment records, and insurance information

regarding work performed in Florida by Respondent's

subcontractors from 2002 to September 17, 2004, the date of the

Stop Work Order. In response to this request, Ms. Rowan mailed

copies of all subcontract s Respondent had with its sub -

subcontractors, all payment records related to these contracts,

and insurance certificates furnished by the sub - subcontractors.

Because Respondent had no employees performing any of the work,

it had no payroll records to send to Petitioner.

14. Petitioner requested no business records from

Respondent's sub - subcontractors to determine what actual payroll

was performed on the jobs in question.

15. Once the information was furnished to Petitioner,

Respondent heard nothing fur ther from Petitioner until the

Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was issued in the amount of

$150,598.05. Petitioner, on the eve of hearing, further amended

the penalty assessment to the amount of $140,975.32 .

16. In calculating the further Amended an d Final Penalty

Assessment, Petitioner asserted that it utilized the total

payments made by Respondent to its sub - subcontractors in lieu of

any payroll records, as the calculation of gross payroll. The

actual amounts paid to DC Construction on the BEKKA C orporation

job , performed from June 18 , 2004 to August 19 , 2004, and from

July 29 , 2004 to September 23 , 2004, were overstated by

$5,518 .00 . The amount of assumed payroll for the work performed

by Southern Steel from April 12 , 2002 to April 30 , 2002, was

understated by $800 .00 , based upon the actual payments received.

These assumed payroll amounts were then multiplied by the NCCI

classification code rates for steel erection for all work

performed by Respondent 's s ub - subcontractors in Florida during

2002, 2003, and 2004. That figure was then multiplied by 1.5 to

arrive at the penalty assessment.

17. Celaya Steel performed work in Florida between

August 28, 2003 , and September 30, 2003, for which it was paid

$7,602.00 , by Respondent. On a separate job , Celaya Steel was

paid $7,000.00 , for work performed between September 24, 2003 ,

and September 30, 2003. These precise breakdowns by job

performed by Celaya Steel are not included in the further

Amended Stop Work Order and Penalty Assessment, but were

in cluded in the original Penalty Assessment dated October 14,

2004. After deducting amounts paid for equipment rentals, the

cost of work performed by Celaya Steel after October 1, 2003, is

$13,528.00.

18. Southern Steel Erectors performed work as a sub -

su bcontractor of Respondent from April 12, 2002 , to April 30,

2002, for which it was paid $7,300.00.

19. Ronald Weeks , d/b/a RTW Construction , performed work

on May 14 , 2004, with a gross payroll of $1,420.00.

20. JCB Steel Erectors, Inc. , performed work from

October 30 , 2003 to December 04 , 2003, with a gross payroll of

$5,873.00.

21 . Based upon insurance certificates received from its

sub - subcontractors, Respondent believed that its s ub -

subcontractors' workers were covered by workers' compensation

insurance.

2 2 . Petitioner calculated its original and final Amended

Penalty Assessments using Florida premium rates and the class

code for steel erection only. In the Final Penalty Assessment,

the penalty was revised slightly due to equipment charges th at

were offset against the sub - subcontract amounts so that the

assumed payroll was calculated based upon actual payments

received by the sub - subcontractors, not the original subcontract

amounts, except as to DC Construction where the subcontract

amount, no t the actual payments made to DC on the BEKKA

Corporation job were used. Celaya Steel started this job, was

later replaced by DC Construction, which was further replaced by

Edward Leggett which finished the remaining roof - patching work

on the project and was paid $ 4 ,000.00 for its work.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

2 3 . The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the subject matter of and the parties to this

proceeding. § § 120.569 and 120.57(1), Fla. Stat.

2 4 . Since an administrative fine dep rives the person fined

of substantial rights in property, such fines are punitive in

nature. Accordingly, pursuant to the reasoning in Department of

Banking and Finance, Division of Securities and Investor

Protection v. Osborne Stern, Inc. , 670 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1996)

and the Recommended Order, adopted in toto by Petitioner in

Dept. of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation

v. U & M Contractors, Inc. , DOAH Case No. 04 - 3041 (FO April 27,

2005), it is concluded that Petitioner bears the burden of proof

herein by clear and convincing evidence. See also Triple M

Enterprises Inc., v. Department of Financial Services, Division

of Workers' Compensation , DOAH Case No. 04 - 2524 (RO January 13,

2005) .

2 5 . Section 440.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2003) , states:

(1)(a) Every employer coming within the

provisions of this chapter shall be liable

for, and shall secure, the payment to his or

her employees, or any physician, surgeon, or

pharmacist providing services under the

provisions of s. 440.13, of the compensation

payable under ss. 440.13, 440.15, and

440.16. Any contractor or subcontractor who

engages in any public or private

construction in the state shall secure and

maintain compensation for his or her

employees under this chapter as provided in

s. 440.38.

2 6 . Section 440.107, Florida Statutes, provides , in part ,

as follows:

(1) The Legislature finds that the failure

of an employer to comply with the workers'

compensation coverage requirements under

this chapter poses an immediate danger to

public health, safety, and welfare.

* * *

(7)(a) Whenever the department determines

that an employer who is required to secure

the payment to his or her employees of the

compensation provided for by this chapter

has failed to secure the payment of workers'

c ompensation required by this chapter or to

produce the required business records under

subsection (5) within 5 business days after

receipt of the written request of the

department, such failure shall be deemed an

immediate serious danger to public health,

safety, or welfare sufficient to justify

service by the department of a stop - work

order on the employer, requiring the

cessation of all business operations. If

the department makes such a determination,

the department shall issue a stop - work

within 72 hou rs. The order shall take

effect when served upon the employer or, for

a particular employer work site, when served

at that work site. In addition to serving a

stop - work order at a particular work site

which shall be effective immediately , the

department shall immediately proceed with

service upon the employer which shall be

effective upon all employer work sites in

the state for which the employer is not in

compliance. A stop - work order may be served

with regard to an employer's work site by

posting a co py of the stop - work order in a

conspicuous location at the work site. The

order shall remain in effect until the

department issues an order releasing the

stop - work order upon a finding that the

employer has come into compliance with the

coverage requireme nts of this chapter and

has paid any penalty assessed under this

section. The department may require an

employer who is found to have failed to

comply with coverage requirements of s.

440.38 to file with the department, as a

condition of release from a st op - work order,

periodic reports of a probationary period

that shall not exceed 2 years that

demonstrate the employer's continued

compliance with this chapter. The

department shall by rule specify the reports

required and the time for filing under this

sub section.

2 7 . Section 440.38, Florida Statutes (2003), states , in

part :

(1) Every employer shall secure the payment

of compensation under this chapter:

(a) By insuring and keeping insured the

payment of such compensation with any stock

company o r mutual company or association or

exchange, authorized to do business in the

state;

* * *

(7) Any employer who meets the requirements

of subsection (1) through a policy of

insurance issued outside of this state must

at all times, with respect to all employees

working in this state, maintain the required

coverage under a Florida endorsement using

Florida rates and rules pursuant to payroll

reporting that accurately reflects the work

performed in this state by such employees.

2 8 . Subsection (7) of Section 440.38, Florida Statutes was

added by the 2003 Florida Legislature, effective October 1,

2003. The statute in effect prior to that date did not

expressly require an employer, for workers' compensation

purposes, as cited in Section 440.38(7), Flori da Statutes, above

to "maintain the required coverage under a Florida endorsement

using Florida rates and rules pursuant to payroll reporting that

accurately reflects the work performed in this state by such

employees." Further, Petitioner's rule concerni ng the

requirement, Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L - 6.019, was not

adopted until Ju ne 1 7 , 200 4 . All of the work performed by

Respondent's sub - subcontractors prior to October 1, 2003, was

not required to meet the standards imposed by the "new" Section

440.38. This does not excuse Respondent from having workers'

compensation coverage for work performed by his employees in

Florida prior to October 1, 2003, but, clearly, a different

standard must apply. In this case, Respondent provided

undisputed proof that it had "other states coverage" in its

Georgia - issued workers' compensation policy for itself and for

four of the sub - subcontractors it employed in Florida: Celaya

Steel Co., DC Construction, Ronald Weeks d/b/a RTW Construction,

and J CB Steel Erectors , Inc., but did not have coverage for

Edward Leggett and Southern Steel.

29 . Section 440.02(16)(a), Florida Statutes (2003),

defines "employer" in relevant part as "every person carrying on

an employment. . . ." Further, "employment" is defined in

re levant part in Section 440.02(17)(a), Florida Statutes (2003)

as "any service performed by an employee for the person

employing him or her."

30 . Respondent is an "employer" for the purposes of

Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, because during the proposed

pen alty period of 2002 through September 1 7 , 2004, Respondent ,

as a subcontractor who engaged sub - subcontractors to perform

work in Florida, was an "employer engaged in employment

activities in Florida." The sub - subcontractors' employees were

also the statut ory employees of Respondent as contended by

Petitioner. See , e.g. , Fidelity Construction Co. v. Arthur J.

Collins & Sons, Inc. , 130 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 1961); McCollough v.

Bush , 868 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004).

31 . It is found by clear and convincing e vidence that

Respondent failed to comply with Section 440.38(7), Florida

Statutes (2003), because during th at portion of the penalty

period subsequent to October 1, 2003 , Respondent was working in

Florida without the required endorsement to its workers'

co mpensation insurance policy that would base its coverage on

Florida premium rates and rules. Respondent's policy indicates

that Respondent's coverage was issued in Georgia and was based

on Georgia's premium rates, not Florida premium rates. The

policy, i ncluding the " O ther S tates I nsurance" endorsement, does

not satisfy the requirements of Section 440.38(7) , Florida

Statutes (2003) . Respondent failed to maintain, at all times,

the Florida premium rate endorsement required by Section

440.38(7) , Florida St atutes (2003) . However, for the period of

any work performed prior to October 1, 2003, Petitioner failed

to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent's

"other states coverage" would not cover its sub - subcontractors

and their employees who wor ked on Respondent's projects in

Florida. Accordingly, no penalties or assessments are due to

Petitioner for work performed in Florida by Celaya Steel Co., DC

Construction, Ronald Weeks d/b/a RTW Construction , or JCB Steel

Erectors, Inc., from 2002 through September 17, 2004.

32 . Petitioner has failed to prove by clear and convincing

evidence that Respondent violated any applicable Florida

Statutes or rules prior to October 1, 2003. The penalties

assessed for work performed by Celaya Steel Co. , between

A ugust 28, 2003 , and September 30, 2003, and from September 24,

2003 , through September 30, 2003 , were assessed without Division

authority under Section 440.38(7), Florida Statutes, and Florida

Administrative Code Rule 69L - 6.028(2) and (4), since neither of

those provisions w as effective until after the dates the work

was performed.

3 3 . Had Respondent produced evidence of workers'

compensation coverage for Southern Steel Erectors for the time

period at issue, April 12, 2002 and April 30, 2002, it would

have avoided Petitioner's assessment of penalty for the same

reasons Celaya Steel Co. , is found not to have violated Chapter

440, Florida Statutes. Respondent did not produce at hearing

evidence of direct workers' compensation coverage for Southern

Steel Erec tors, other than an out - of - date Certificate of

Liability Insurance for the period of November 1, 1999 , through

November 1, 2000 . However, Respondent produced its own workers'

compensation policy for the relevant time period of Southern

Steel Erector's wor k in Florida. Since, statutorily, Southern

Steel Erectors is an "employee" of Respondent for its work done

in Florida, Respondent's "other states coverage" extends to

cover Southern Steel Erectors' work performed in Florida from

April 12, 2002 , through Ap ril 30, 2002. Accordingly, Respondent

has no liab ility for penalties for not providing evidence of

coverage from April 12, 2002 , through April 30, 2002.

3 4 . Even if Southern Steel Erectors were not covered by

Respondent's workers' compensation policy, Pe titioner erred in

how it calculated the penalties due for the work performed by

Southern Steel Erectors. Pursuant to Florida Administrative

Code Rule 69L - 6.028(4), when the records produced are not

sufficient to compute actual payroll, the penalty to be a ssessed

is $100 per day for each calendar day of noncompliance occurring

prior to October 1, 2003, pursuant to Section 440.107(5),

Florida Statutes. In this case, if Southern Steel Erectors were

not covered by Respondent's workers' compensation policy, th e

penalty would be $100 per day for 1 8 days, or $1, 8 00.00 for the

work performed by Southern Steel Erectors .

3 5 . Section 440.107(7)(d)1., Florida Statutes (2003),

states that an employer who fails to secure the payment of

workers' compensation is subject to

a penalty equal to 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 required by this chapter with in

the preceding 3 - year period or $1,000,

whichever is greater.

3 6 . The evidence was clear at hearing that the work

performed by Edward Leggett on the job inspected by Petitioner

on September 17, 2004 , consisted solely of roof patching work.

Therefore, the penalties assessed as to Edward Leggett in the

amount of $5,758.20 , were improperly assessed by Petitioner's

employing the steel erection code rate for 2004 , which did not

apply to any of the work performed by Edward Leggett. The

roofing code rate for 2004, NCCI Code No. 5551, was $46.17 per

hundred dollars of payroll. Applying that rate to the $4,000

assumed payroll times 1.5 yields a penalty of $2,770.20.

3 7 . It is undisputed that Respondent had no payroll

records for employees performing work in F lorida because none of

its own employees performed such work. Under these

circumstances, where no payroll information is available, the

NCCI classification code to be applied can be established by

other evidence. The only evidence in this case, other tha n that

related to Edward Leggett , who performed only roof patching

work, demonstrated that R espondent's sub - subcontractors

performed multiple tasks consisting of steel erection work,

sheet metal work, trimming out, and roofing work. Respondent

provided th e percentages of work performed by these sub -

subcontractors not as an estimate of the work each performed,

but as an accurate reflection of how these sub - subcontractors

were actually paid for the work performed. Therefore,

Petitioner incorrectly applied t he highest rated labor

classification when the work should have been divided into three

categories to reflect the proportionate values of the work

performed: 25 percent for red iron work (steel erection), 50

percent for sheet metal and trim, and 25 percent for roofing.

Even if the actual payment made for the various types of work

performed is ignored, Respondent's principal business

classification was coded under its own insurance policy as sheet

metal work, which classification was not used by Petitioner in

any of its penalty calculations.

3 8 . Respondent's "estimates" of per diem travel expenses

and accounting for overhead and profit were not supported by

Rule 18 of the NCCI Basic Manual , which does not allow estimates

of non - payroll items to be made . Th erefore, these non - payroll

items must be included in any penalty assessed by Petitioner.

3 9 . The final amended penalty assessment was improperly

computed by showing the total amount paid to DC Construction as

$48,839.58, when, based upon Respondent's payr oll records , the

actual amount paid was $43,321.58 . Petitioner apparently used

the total subcontract price for DC Construction when, in fact,

Edward Leggett finished the job when DC failed to complete it.

Therefore, the final penalty assessed against DC Construction

was overstated by $7,943.43 ($5,518.00 x 95.97 x 1.5).

40 . Petitioner also incorrectly included in its final

penalty computations the amount paid to Southern Steel Erectors

at $5,700.00, whereas the actual payments made to Southern Steel

Erec tors totaled $6,500.00.

41 . No penalty is applicable to Southern Steel Erectors or

to Celaya Steel Co. , for work performed prior to October 1,

2003. Even if a penalty were to be imposed for this time

period, the appropriate rate would be $100 for each d ay of

noncompliance.

42 . Based upon the foregoing, it is found by clear and

convincing evidence that the original and final amended

penalties assessed in this matter were improperly calculated

and/or assessed.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the Findings of Fa ct and Conclusions of Law, it

is

RECOMMENDED that the Division of Workers' Compensation

issue a further and final Amended Penalty Assessment Order as

follows:

1. Edward Leggett . The gross payroll of $4,000.00 should

be multiplied at the rate of 40 tim es the Roofwork NCCI approved

manual rate of $46.17 per hundred, then times 1.5 for a revised

final penalty of $2,770.20.

2. DC Construction . The actual payments made to DC

Construction were $43,321.58 which should be applied at the rate

of 25 percent o f the payment times the NCCI steel erection code

5059 rate, 50 percent of the payment times the sheet metal and

trim NCCI code 5538 rate, and 25 percent of the payment times

the roofing work NCCI code 5551 rate. This results in a revised

penalty for the D C Construction work of $28,971.32.

3. C elaya Steel Co. Only the amounts for work performed

after October 1, 2003, $13,528.00 shall be applied for

assessment purposes. Applying the appropriate codes as used for

the DC Construction work (25 percent steel erection, 50 percent

sheet metal and trim, and 25 percent roofing) yields a final

revised penalty of $9,047.07.

4. Southern Steel . No work was performed by Southern

Steel Erectors after October 1, 2003. Accordingly, no penalty

is to be assessed for an y work performed by Southern Steel

Erectors.

5. Ronald Weeks d/b/a RTW Construction . Applying the same

NCCI codes as applied to the work performed by DC Construction

and Celaya Steel Co. (25 percent steel erection, 50 percent

sheet metal and trim, and 25 percent roofing) , yields a final

revised penalty of $768.33.

6. JCB Steel Erectors . Applying the same NCCI codes as

applied to the work performed by DC Construction, Celaya Steel

Co., and Ronald Weeks d/b/a RTW Construction (25 percent steel

erection , 50 percent sheet metal and trim, 25 percent roofing)

yields a final revised penalty of $2,883.73.

7. The total revised penalties and assessments (Items 1 - 6

above) are $44,440.65.

DONE AND ENTERED this 1 9 th day of October , 2005, in

Tallahassee, Leon C ounty, Florida.

S

ROBERT S. COHEN

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675 SUNCOM 278 - 9675

Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 1 9 th day of October , 2005 .

COPIES FURNISHED :

John M. Iriye, Esquire

Department of Financial Services

Division of Workers ' Compensation

200 East Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 3239 9 - 422 9

All e n P. Clark, Esquire

Foley & Lardner , LLP

One Independent Drive, Suite 1300

Jacksonville, Florida 32202

Honorable Tom Gallagher

Chief Financial Officer

Department of Financial Services

The Capitol, Plaza Level 11

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 03 00

Carlos G. Muñiz, General Counsel

Department of Financial Services

The Capitol, Plaza Level 11

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0307

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

will issue the Final Order in this case.