06-000024 Department Of Financial Services, Division Of Workers&Apos; Compensation vs. Twin City Roofing Construction Specialist, Inc. Status: Closed Recommended Order on Wednesday, August 30, 2006.

Summary: Respondent did not have workers` compensation coverage as required by Florida law, and it failed to produce payroll records timely. Petitioner correctly imputed payroll for calculation of a penalty of $108,188.05 for failure to have coverage.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL )

SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' )

COMPENSATION, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 06 - 0024

)

TWIN CITY ROOFING CONSTRUCTION )

SPECIALIST, INC., )

)

Respondent. )

__________________ _______________)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was held in this case

on June 29, 2006, by video teleconference, with the parties

appearing in West Palm Beach, Florida, before Patricia M. H art,

a duly - designated Administrative La w Judge of the Division of

Administrative Hearings, who presided in Tallahassee, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: John M. Iriye, Esquire

Department of Financial Services,

Division of Workers Compensat ion

200 East Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 4229

For Respondent: Steven N. Lippman, Esquire

Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler

401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Su ite 1650

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in

the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment filed February 2,

2006, and, if so, the penalty that should b e imposed.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On July 8, 2005, the Department of Financial Services,

Division of Workers' Compensation (" Department ") issued a Stop

Work Order directing Twin City Roofing Construction Specialist,

Inc. ("Twin City") to immediately "stop w ork and cease all

business operations" in Florida because it had failed to obtain

workers' compensation insurance coverage meeting the

requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2005), 1 and the

Florida Insurance Code. On the same date, the Department issued

an Order of Penalty Assessment against Twin City imposing a

penalty pursuant to Section 440.107(7)(d), Florida Statutes. On

October 13, 2006, the Department issued an Amended Order of

Penalty Assessment in which it assessed a penalty of $65,945.22

for Twin City's failure to obtain workers' compensation

insurance coverage as required by statute and a penalty of

$2,000.00 for Twin City's failure to stop work for two days

after the issuance of the Stop Work Order. Twin City timely

filed a Petition for Hearing Under Section 120.57(1), in which

it disputed the allegations contained in the Amended Order of

Penalty Assessment. The Department forwarded the matter to the

Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of an

Administrative Law Judge. Pur suant to notice, the final hearing

was held on June 29, 2006.

On February 2, 2006, the Department filed a Motion to Amend

Order of Penalty Assessment in which the Department requested

that it be allowed to amend the Amended Order of Penalty

Assessment to i nclude a recalculation of the penalty for failure

to secure workers' compensation insurance coverage based on the

highest classification applicable to Twin City's business; the

motion was granted in an order entered February 21, 2006. In

the Second Amende d Order of Penalty Assessment, the Department

assessed a penalty of $129,825.66 for Twin City's failure to

obtain workers' compensation insurance coverage as required by

statute and a penalty of $2,000.00 for Twin City's failure to

stop work for two days a fter the issuance of the Stop Work

Order. 2 On April 7, 2006, Twin City filed a Motion for Leave to

File an Amended Petition for Hearing, and the motion was granted

in an order entered April 21, 2006. In the Amended Petition for

Hearing, Twin City dispute d the Department 's penalty assessment

calculation on the grounds that it incorrectly included in the

calculation payroll for a person who was not an employee of Twin

City, for leased employees, for persons who did not work in

Florida during the time period covered in the penalty

assessment, and for persons who provided services on a

gratuitous basis. Twin City also contended that several of its

employees were covered by the company's Minnesota workers'

compensation insurance.

At the hearing, the Department presented the testimony of

Robert Barnes and Lee Pease, and Petitioner's Exhibits 1 through

8 and 10 through 16 were offered and received into evidence;

Petitioner's Exhibit 9 was offered but rejected. Twin City

offered the testimony of Fred Allen Ehlert , and Respondent's

Composite Exhibit 1 was offered and received into evidence.

Twin City's objection to receiving the testimony of Mr. Pease on

certain subjects was sustained, and the Department has submitted

a written proffer of the testimony it expected to elicit.

Finally, o fficial recognition was granted Florida Administrative

Code Rule Chapter 69L - 6.

The transcript of the proceedings was filed with the

Division of Administrative Hearings on July 19, 2006. An order

was entered on August 4, 2006, grant ing an extension of time for

filing proposed recommended orders until August 17, 2006. The

parties timely filed their Proposed Recommended Orders, which

have been considered in the preparation of this Recommended

Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Based on the ora l and documentary evidence presented at the

final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the

following findings of fact are made:

1. The Department is the state agency charged with the

responsibility of enforcing the requirement of Section 4 40.107,

Florida Statutes, that employer s in Florida secure workers'

compensation insurance coverage for their employees.

§ 440.107(3), Fla. Stat.

2 . Twin City is a Minnesota corporation that registered to

do business in Florida on October 24, 2004. Duri ng the times

material to this proceeding, Twin City was engaged in the

roofing business.

3 . On July 8, 2004, an investigator employed by the

Department stopped at Twin City's office in Jupiter, Florida,

because he had observed vehicles parked around the o ffice that

had signs indicating that the company engaged in roofing work.

He arrived at the office early, and waited about 15 minutes,

when individuals began arriving in the office parking lot. Most

of the individuals wore shirts that carried the name "T win City

Roofing."

4 . When he consulted the database routinely used by the

Department to determine whether businesses operating in Florida

had workers' compensation insurance coverage as required by

Florida law, the Department's investigator found no reco rd that

Twin City had obtained a Florida policy providing workers'

compensation insurance coverage for its employees.

5 . Twin City did, however, have workers' compensation

insurance coverage through the Minnesota Workers' Compensation

Assigned Risk Plan, which issued a Standard Workers'

Compensation and Employers' Liability Policy covering Twin City

only under the Workers' Compensation Law of Minnesota. Pursuant

to Section 3.C. of the policy, the policy did not apply in any

state other than Minnesota.

6 . The Department's investigator issued a Stop Work Order

and an Order of Penalty Assessment on July 8, 2004, and

personally delivered them to the Twin City office. The Stop

Work Order required that Twin City "cease all business

opera tions in this state" an d advised that a p enalty of

$1,000.00 per day would be imposed if Twin City were to conduct

any business in violation of the Stop Work Order. Twin City

violated the Stop Work Order by continuing to engage in business

activities on July 12 and 13, 2005.

7 . At the same time he delivered the Stop Work Order and

the Order of Penalty Assessment to Twin City's office, the

Department's investigator hand - delivered a Request for

Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment

Calculation.

Identification of T win City's employees

8 . The Department's investigator questioned a number of

the individuals he saw in Twin City's parking lot on the morning

of July 8, 2005, and asked if they were employed by Twin City.

On the basis of a "Turn Around Report" provided later in the day

by Twin City, the Department's investigator verified that,

except for Aaron Colborn, Jimmy Benegas, and Jaime Andrade, the

individuals he questioned in the parking lot were leased

employees and that the leasing company provided these emplo yees

with workers' compensation insurance coverage , as required by

Florida law.

9 . Aaron Colborn and Jimmy Benegas were not leased

employees , and, based on the admission of Twin City, Aaron

Colborn and Jimmy Benegas were employees of Twin City during the

period extending from October 24, 2004, through July 8, 2005. 3

10 . Jaime Andrade was one of the individuals standing

outside the Twin City office on the morning of July 8, 2004.

Unlike the other individuals, Mr. Andrade was not wearing a

shirt bearing Tw in City's name . Mr. Andrade told the

investigator that he was a Twin City employee, that he had been

employed for only two days, and that he had not yet been paid.

His name did not appear on the list of leased employees provided

in the Turn Around Report . T he Department 's investigator

included Mr. Andrade as an employee of Twin City based on

Mr. Andrade's statements. The evidence presented by the

Department is not sufficient, however, to establish that Jaime

Andrade was an employee of Twin City during t his period.

11 . The investigator also spoke with s everal individuals

in the Twin City office during his early - morning visit on

July 8, 2004, and during a visit later that morning. The

investigator spoke with James Geisen, the president of Twin

City, and Jeffrey Willett, Mr. Geisen's stepson, who both

identified themselves as Twin City employees. The investigator

also observed Karen Geisin, James Geisen's wife, apparently

working at a desk in the office , and he assumed that Mrs . Geisen

was also an employe e of Twin City.

12 . Twin City does not dispute that Mr. Geisen and

Mr. Willett were employed by Twin City during the time it did

business in Florida. 4 Mr. Geisen worked in Florida with Twin

City for approximately half of the period extending from

October 24, 2004, through July 8, 2005, and was paid a salary by

Twin City during this period. Mr. Willett worked in Florida

with Twin City for approximately half of the period extending

from January 1, 2005, through July 8, 2005, and was paid a

salary by Twin C ity during this period. Mr. Geisen and

Mr. Willett were, therefore, imputed to be employees of Twin

City for the period extending from October 24, 2004, through

July 8, 2005.

13 . Mrs. Geisen often accompanied her husband to Florida

during the period exte nding from October 24, 2005, through

July 8, 2005. She sometimes worked for Twin City in Florida,

but she did not receive any salary or other remuneration for her

services. Based on the admission of Twin City, however,

Mrs. Geisen was an employee of Twin City during the period at

issue. 5

14 . The employees of Twin City for the period at issue,

therefore, were James Geisin, Karen Geisin, Jeffrey Willett,

Aaron Colborn, and Jimmy Benegas.

Penalty assessment for failure to secure workers' compensation

covera ge .

15 . The penalty for failure to secure the workers'

compensation insurance coverage required by Florida law is

1.5 times the premium that would have been charged for such

coverage for each employee. The premium is calculated by

applying the approved manual rate for workers' compensation

insurance coverage for each employee to each $100.00 of the

gross payroll for each employee.

16 . Twin City failed to provide payroll records on which

the Department's investigator could base his calculation of the

pen alty for Twin City's failure to obtain the workers'

compensation insurance coverage required by Florida law within

45 days of the date of the July 8, 2005, request.

17 . Based on his observations and because of the lack of

payroll records for Twin City, th e Department's investigator

included as employees in his calculation the six individuals he

observed at Twin City on July 8, 2005, who were not identified

as leased employees: James Geisen; Karen Geisen; Jeff Willett;

Aaron Colborn; Jimmy Benegas, and Jai me Andrade.

18 . Because Twin City failed to provide payroll records

from which the Department 's investigator could determine the

gross payroll for these six individuals, the Department 's

investigator applied Florida's official statewide average weekly

wag e to determine the gross payroll to be imputed to each of the

six individuals. Florida's official statewide average weekly

wage was $626.00 per week for the period extending from

October 24, 2004, through December 31, 2004, and $651.38 for the

period exte nding from January 1, 2005, through July 8, 2005.

The gross payroll imputed to each of the six employees was,

therefore, $9,770.70 from October 24, 2004, through December 31,

2004, and $26,380.89 from January 1, 2005, through July 8, 2005.

19 . In calcula ting the premium for workers' compensation

insurance coverage , t he Department 's investigator use d the risk

classifications and definitions of the National Council of

Compensation Insurance, Inc. ("NCCI") S COPES Manual . Because

Twin City provided no payrol l records , the Department's

investigator classified all six individuals under the highest -

rated classification for Twin City's business operations , which

was classification code 5551, the classification code assigned

to employees of businesses engaged in r oofing activities of all

kinds. The approved Florida manual rate assigned to Scopes

classification code 5551 was $46.17 per $100 .00 of payroll for

the period extending from October 24, 2004, through December 31,

2004, and $37.58 per $100.00 of payroll for the period extending

from January 1, 2005, through July 8, 2005.

20 . T he Department 's investigator used these figures to

calculate the workers' compensation insurance coverage premium

for each of Twin City's employee s as $4,511.13 for the period

extendin g from October 24, 2004, through December 31, 2004, and

$9,913.94 for the period extending from January 1, 2005, through

July 8, 2005, for a total premium of $86,550.42. The penalty

assessment was calculated by m ultiplying the total premium

by 1.5, for a penalty of $129,825.66.

21 . Because the evidence establishes that Twin City had

five rather than six employees during the period at issue

herein, the penalty calculation must be modified as follows:

The total penalty must be reduced by $21,637. 61 ($6,766 .70

$14,870.91) , for a revised total penalty of $ 108,188.05

($129,825.66 - $21,637.61) .

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

22 . The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the subject matter of this proceeding and of

the parties thereto pursuant to S ections 120.569 and 1 20.57(1),

Florida Statutes .

23 . The Department must prove by a preponderance of the

evidence that Twin City failed to provide its employees with

workers' compensation insurance coverage and that the civil and

administrative penalties assessed are correct. See Department

of Labor and Employment Security, Division of Workers'

Compensation v. Patrick Jackey, d/b/a Bert's World of Color ,

DOAH Case No. 98 - 2496 , page 5 (Recommended Order December 4,

1998)( "A lthough violations of Chapter 440 , Florida Statutes, can

result in a substantial fine, which may even render an employer

insolvent, the employer nonetheless does not have a license or

property interest at stake so as to raise the standard of proof

to clear and convincing evidence " ); Flori da Department of

Transportation v. J.W.C. Co., Inc. , 396 So. 2d 778, 788 (Fla.

1st DCA 1981)(" In accordance with the general rule, applicable

in court proceedings, 'the burden of proof, apart from statute,

is on the party asserting the affirmative of an is sue before an

administrative tribunal.' Balino v. Department of Health and

Rehabilitative Services, 3 48 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) .");

§ 120.57(1)(j), Fla. Stat.

24 . Every employer is required to secure the payment of

compensation for the benefit of its employees. §§ 440.10(1)(a)

and 440.38(1), Fla. Stat. The Department has the duty of

enforcing t he employer's compliance with the requirements of the

workers' compensation law. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat.

25 . An "employer" is defined as "every person carrying on

any employment." § 440.02(16)(a), Fla. Stat. "Employment . . .

means any service perform ed by an employee for the person

employing him or her." § 440.02(17)(a), Fla. Stat . An d

"employee means any person who receives remuneration from an

employer for the performance of any work or service while

engaged in any employment . . . ." § 440.02(15 )(a), Fla. Stat.

26 . Based on the findings of fact herein, the Department

carried its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence

that Twin City was an employer as defined in Section

440.02(16)(a), Florida Statutes, and that it engaged in

activit ies of employment as that term is defined in Section

440.02(17)(a), Florida Statutes, between October 24, 2004, and

July 8, 2005. The Department also carried its burden of

providing by a preponderance of the evidence that Twin City

engaged in the roofing business . By its own admission, Twin

City employed James Geisen, Karen Geisen, Jeffrey Willett, Aaron

Colborn, and Jimmy Benegas during the period at issue .

27 . Twin City consistently maintained that it never

employed an individual named Jaime Andrade. Based on the

findings of fact herein, the Department has failed to prove by a

preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Andrade was a Twin City

employee. The Department relied exclusively on statements

Mr. Andrade made to the Department 's investigator in rea ching

its conclusion that Mr. Andrade was an employee of Twin City,

but the Department presented no other persuasive evid ence

relating to Mr. Andrade's status as a Twin City employee , and it

failed to establish that Mr. Andrade's statements were

"admission s" that could be used against Twin City pursuant to

the exception to the hearsay rule found in Section 90.803(18),

Florida Statutes . Because of the limitation on the use of

hearsay evidence in administrative proceedings, the hearsay

statements of Mr. Andr ade cannot be used to establish that he

was, in fact, a Twin City employee. See § 120.57(1)(c) , Fl a.

Stat . ("Hearsay evidence may be used for the purpose of

supplementing or explaining other evidence, but it shall not be

sufficient in itself to support a finding unless it would be

admissible over objection in civil actions.") . 6

28 . As noted in the findings of fact herein, Twin City did

not have workers' compensation insurance coverage for five

employees working in Florida during the period at issue.

Sect ion 440.107 (7)(a) , Florida Statutes, authorizes the

Department to issue a stop work order whenever it determines

that an employer has failed to obtain workers' compensation

insurance coverage, and the effect of the order is to require

that the employer cea se all business operations in the state.

If an employer fails to cease all business operations, the

Department is required to levy a penalty of $1,000.00 per day

for each day the employer is in violation of a stop work order.

§ 440.107(7)(c ), Fla. Stat. Twin City does not challenge the

Department 's imposition of a $2,000 penalty for a two - day

violation of the Stop Work Order issued July 8, 2005.

29 . The Department is also required by Section

440.107(7)(d)1., Florida Statutes, to " assess against any

empl oyer who has failed to secure the payment of compensation as

required by this chapter 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 within the preceding 3 - year period or

$1,000, whichever is greater. ”

30 . The Department is authorized by Section 440.107(9),

Florida Statutes, to enact ru les to implement Secti on 440.107,

and it has done so in Florida Administrative Chapter 69L - 6.

Rule 69L - 6.015 requires employers in Florida to "maintain

employment records pertaining to every person to whom the

employer paid or owes remuneration for the performance of any

work or service in connection with any employment" for "the

current calendar year to date and for the preceding three

calendar years" and to "produce the records when requested by

the division pursuant to Section 440.107." Fla. Admin. Code

R . 69L - 6.015(1), (3) , and (11).

31 . As set forth in the findings of fact herein, Twin City

failed to provide any business records in response to the

D ivision’s Request for Production of Business Records for

Penalty Assessment Calculation. Section 440.107(7) (e) , Florida

Stat utes, provides as follows:

When an employer fails to provide

business records sufficient to enable the

department to determine the employer's

payroll for the period requested for the

calculation of the penalty provided in

paragraph (d), for penalty ca lculation

purposes, the imputed weekly payroll for

each employee, corporate officer, sole

proprietor, or partner shall be the

statewide average weekly wage as defined in

s. 440.12 (2) multiplied by 1.5 .

32 . In Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L - 6.028, the

Department has set forth the procedures to be used in imputing

payroll :

(2) When an employer fails to provide

business records suffi cient to enable the

department to determine the employer's

payroll for the period requested for

purposes of calculating the penalty provided

for in Section 440.107(7)(d), F.S., the

imputed weekly payroll for each employee,

corporate officer, sole proprieto r or

partner for the portion of the period of the

employer's non - compliance occurring on or

after October 1, 2003 shall be calculated as

follows:

(a) For employees other than corporate

officers, for each employee identified by

the department as an employ ee of such

employer at any time during the period of

the employer's non - compliance , the imputed

weekly payroll for each week of the

employer's non - compliance for each such

employee shall be the statewide average

weekly wage as defined in Section 440.12(2),

F.S., that is in effect at the time the stop

work order was issued to the employer,

multiplied by 1.5. Employees include sole

proprietors and partners in a partnership.

* * *

(c) If a portion of the period of non -

compliance includes a partial week of non -

compliance, the imputed weekly payroll for

such partial week of non - compliance shall be

prorated from the imputed weekly payroll for

a full week.

(Emphasis added.)

33 . Section 440.12(2), Florida Statutes, provides in

pertinent part:

For the purpose of this subsection, the

"statewide average weekly wage" means the

average weekly wage paid by employers

subject to the Florida Unemployment

Compensation Law as reported to the Agency

for Workforce Innovation for the four

calendar quarters ending each June 30, which

average weekly wage shall be determined by

the Agency for Workforce Innovation on or

before November 30 of each year and shall be

used in determining the maximum weekly

compensation rate with respect to injuries

occurring in the calendar year imm ediately

following. The statewide average weekly

wage determined by the Agency for Workforce

Innovation shall be reported annually to the

Legislature .

34 . In Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L - 6.021(1), t he

Department has adopted "the classification c odes and

descriptions that are specified in the Florida Contracting

Classification Premium Adjustment Program, and published in the

Florida exception pages of the National Council on Compensation

Insurance, Inc. (NCCI), Basic Manual (1996 ed., issued

Janua ry 21, 2003) " to determine the approved manual rates f or

different types of construction activities . "Roofing - All

kinds and Yard Employees, Drivers" is included as classification

code 5551 in the Florida exception pages of the NCCI Basic

Manual. Fla. A dmin. Code R . 69L - 6.021(1) (tt) .

35 . In Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L - 6.021(2), t he

Department has adopted

the definitions published by NCCI, SCOPES ®

of Basic Manual Classifications (January,

2003) that correspond to the classification

codes and des criptions adopted in subsection

(1) above. The definitions identify the

workplace operations that satisfy the

criteria of the term "construction industry"

as used in the workers' compensation law.

The definitions are hereby incorporated by

reference . . . .

36 . As noted in the findings of fact herein, the

Department assigned classification code 5551 to the employees of

Twin City. I n the absence of payroll records for Twin City's

five employees , the Department could not ascertain the nature of

the work or service performed by the employees . It was,

therefore, justified as a matter of law in applying the highest

classification code appropriate for Twin City's business in

ascertaining the approved manual rate to be used in calculating

the workers' compens ation premium that would have been paid by

Twin City had it secured workers' compensation insurance

coverage pursuant to Florida law.

37 . Based on the findings of fact herein, the Department

has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that it correctly

calculated the imputed payroll for each employee of Twin City

for the period at issue herein. T he Department's total penalty

c alculation is incorrect, however, insofar as payroll and

premium for Jaime Andrade is included in the calculation of the

penalty to be imposed pursuant to Section 440.107(7)(d)1. Th e

total penalty must , therefore, be reduced by $21,637.61 for a

revised total penalty of $108,1 88.05 .

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is RECOMMENDED tha t the Department of Financial

Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, enter a final

order:

1. Finding that Twin City Roofing Construction

Specialists, Inc., failed to have Florida workers' compensation

insurance coverage for five of its employees, in violation of

Sections 440.10(1)(a) and 440.38(1), Florida Statutes;

2 . Assessing a penalty against Twin City in the amount of

$108,188.05, which is equal to 1.5 times premium based on

imputed payroll for these five employees and on the approved

manual ra te for the classification c ode 5551 for the period

extending from October 24, 2004, through December 31, 2004, and

from January 1, 2005, through July 8, 2005, as provided in

Section 440.107(7)(a ), (d), and (e) , Florida Statutes;

3 . Finding that Twin City engaged in business operations

for two days during the pendency of the Stop Work Order issued

July 8, 2005, in violation of Section 440.107(7)(a), Florida

Statutes, and imposing a penalty of $ 2,000 .00, against Twin City

for engaging in business operations on July 12 and 13, 2005, as

provided in Section 440.107(7)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes.

DONE AND ENTERED t his 30th day of August , 200 6 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

_________________________ __________

PATRICIA M. HART

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

12 30 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 30th day of August , 200 6 .

ENDNOTES

1 / All references to the Florida Statutes herein are to the 2005

edition unless otherwise indicated.

2 / Twin City does not contest the assessment of the $2,000.00

penalty for violating the Stop Work Order.

3 / See Petitione r's Exhibit 8, paragraph 2. Twin City did not

request permission to withdraw or amend this admission, and it

is, therefore, conclusively established for purposes of this

proceeding. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.370(b); see also § 120.569(2)(f),

Fla. Stat.

4 / See endnote 3, infra.

5 / See endnote 3, infra.

6 / The D epartment presented some attenuated circumstantial

evidence purporting to link Mr. Andrade to two leased employees

working for Twin City, but the evidence was not sufficient to

permit a reasonable infe rence that Mr. Andrade was a Twin City

employee.

COPIES FURNISHED:

John M. Iriye, Esquire

Department of Financial S ervices

Division of Workers Compensation

200 East Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 4229

Steven N. Lippman, Esquire

Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler

401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1650

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

Tom Gallagher, Chief Financia l Officer

Department of Financial Services

The Capitol, Plaza Level 11

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0300

Carlos G. Mu ñiz, General Counsel

Department of Financial Services

The Capitol, Plaza Level 11

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0300

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUB MIT 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.