16-007532 Department Of Financial Services, Division Of Workers&Apos; Compensation vs. Cobalt Shore Investments, Llc Status: Closed Recommended Order on Tuesday, May 9, 2017.

Summary: The Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, proved by clear and convincing evidence that it assigned the correct class code to the payroll at issue.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL

SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS'

COMPENSATION,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 16 - 7532

COBALT SHORE INVESTMENTS, LLC,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a final hearing was conducted in this

case on February 27, 2017, in Tallahassee, Florida, before

Garnett W. Chisenhall, a duly - designated Administrative Law

Judge (ÐALJÑ) of the Division of Administrative Hearings

( ÐDOAHÑ).

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Tabitha G. Harnage, Esquire

Department of Financial Services

200 East Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

For Respondent: Jamison Jessup , Qualified Represent ative

2955 Enterprise Road, Suite B

DeBary, Florida 32713

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue in this case is whether Petitioner correctly

calculated the penalty to be imposed on Respondent for failing

to have a sufficie nt amount of workersÓ compensation coverage

during the time period in question.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On December 10, 2015, the Department of Financial Services,

Division of WorkersÓ Compensation (Ðthe DivisionÑ), served a

Stop - Work Order and Order of Pe nalty Assessment on Cobalt Shore

Investments, LLC (ÐCobaltÑ).

The Division issued an Amen ded Order of Penalty

Assessment on February 1, 2016, requiring Cobalt to pay a

$117,086.16 penalty.

After evaluating records provided by Cobalt, the Division

issued a 2 nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on May 17,

2016, reducing the aforementioned penalty to $ 16,232.32.

Cobalt requested an administrative hearing, and the

Division referred this ma tter to DOAH on August 18, 2016, where

it was assigned case number 16 - 4692.

Via a Notice of Hearing issued on September 15, 2016, the

undersigned scheduled a final hearing for October 24, 2016.

On October 18, 2016 , the parties filed an ÐAgreed Motion to

Continue Final HearingÑ (the ÐMotion to ContinueÑ). In support

the reof, the Division noted that the parties were attempting to

settle their dispute and that unforeseeable circumstances had

prevented the Division from deposing a key witness.

Accordingly, the parties requested that the undersigned continue

the final heari ng Ðto a later date.Ñ

After considering the assertions set forth in the Motion to

Continue, the undersigned issued an ÐOrder Closing File and

Relinquishing JurisdictionÑ that: (a) granted the Motion to

Continue; (b) canceled the final hearing; and (c) r elinquished

jurisdiction to the Division without prejudice to either party

moving to re - open the case.

On December 9, 2016, the Division filed a ÐMotion to Reopen

FileÑ notifying the undersigned that the parties had been unable

to reach a settlement and that a formal administrative hearing

was necessary to resolve their dispute.

The undersigned issued an Order on December 21, 2016,

re - opening the formal administrative hearing as case

number 16 - 7532.

On January 11, 2017, the undersigned scheduled the final

hearing to occur on February 27, 2017.

The undersigned issued an Order on February 17, 2017,

allowing Scott Shirey and Mark Shirey to testify by telephone

during the final hearing.

The final hearing was convened as scheduled on February 27,

201 7. During the course of the final hearing, the Division

presented the testimony of Phil Sley and Chris B yrnes . T he

Division offered E xhibits 1 through 10 that were admitted into

evidence without objection. Cobalt offered the testimony of

Scott Shirey . With no objection from the Division, t he

undersigned accepted CobaltÓs E xhibits 1 through 5 into

evidence.

At the beginning of the final hearing, the undersigned

granted the DivisionÓs ore tenus motion to allow a 3 r d Amende d

Order of Penalty Assessment. A s a result, the penalty at issue

was reduced from $16,232.32 to $13,687.24.

At the close of the proceedings on February 27, 2017, the

undersigned left the record open so that the Division could

depose Mark Shirey in lieu of live testimony. However, the

D ivision filed a ÐMotion to Close RecordÑ on March 7, 2017,

notifying the undersigned that the Division no longer wished to

depose Mark Shirey.

The undersigned issued an Order on March 14, 2017, granting

the DivisionÓs Motion to Close Record , and directing the parties

to file their proposed recommended orders 10 days following the

filing of the final hearing transcript with DOAH.

The T ranscript was filed with DOAH on March 16, 2017.

On March 24, 2017, Respondent filed a Motion requesting

that the deadline for filing proposed recommended orders be

extended from March 27, 2017, to April 10, 2017. After

concluding that Respondent had demonstrated good cause for an

extension, t he undersigned issued an Order on March 27, 2017,

granting the Motion.

The partie sÓ P roposed R ecommended O rders were timely filed

on April 10, 2017, and th e undersigned considered those P roposed

Recommended O rders in the preparation of this R ecommended O rder.

FINDING S OF FACT

Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the

final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the

following Findings of Fact are made:

1. The Division is the state agency responsible for

enforcing the requirement in chapter 440, Florida Statutes

(201 5 ), 1/ that employers in Florida secure wor kersÓ compensation

coverage for their employees.

2. While an exemption can be obtained for up to three

corporate officers, any employer in the construction industry

with at least one employee must have workersÓ compensation

coverage. § 440.02(15), Fla. Stat.

3. Scott Shirey owns Cobalt , and his brother Mark Shirey

works for him. Cobalt is in the business of Ðhouse flipping . Ñ

4. In order to flip a house, Cobalt utilizes a consistent

process over the course of several weeks. 2 / The process requires

Mark Shirey to evaluat e the sales prices of other houses in

close proximity to a Cobalt - owned ho use . Mark Shirey then

formulates an estimate of how much Cobalt could expect to

receive in a sale. In order to achieve a particular return on

CobaltÓs invest ment, Mark ShireyÓs sales forecast governs how

much Cobalt elects to invest in renovating a particular house

and preparing it for sale.

5. Mark Shirey then decid es exactl y how to renovate a

particular house and hir es contractors to do certain jobs.

6. Prior to any actual work being done on a ho use , Mark

Shirey conducts a Ðtrash roll - offÑ by removing furniture,

curtains, food, and other items from the h o use .

7. At that point, the contractor s hired by Cobalt start

renovating the ho use . Mark Shirey m onitors their work, ensures

they are performing the work correctly, directs their work, and

acquires whatever materials they need.

8. In order to control costs and ensure that a particular

house will be profitable when it is flipped , Mark Shirey also

co nfers with the contractors as to how particular repairs are to

be accomplished.

9. In addition to supervising all manner of contractors

such as painters, sheet rockers, tilers, carpenters,

landscapers, plumbers, and electricians , Mark Shirey is also

res ponsible for paying them .

10. During the course of each renovation, Mark Shirey

periodically confers with his brother over the telephone and

updates him on the progress of particular project s .

1 1. At any one time, Mark Shirey can be in charge of

reno vating multiple houses.

12 . Scott Shirey uses the terms, Ðforeman,Ñ and

ÐsupervisorÑ to describe his brotherÓs work.

13. Chris B yrnes is a compliance investigator for the

Division , and he ascertains wheth er employers have workersÓ

compensation covera ge as required by Florida law .

14. On December 10, 2015, Mr. B yrnes was conducting random

compliance checks when he drove past 14 Cousineau R oad in

Pensacola, Florida.

15. He observed that the house at 14 Cousineau Road was

being renovated.

16. M r. B yrnes stopped and spoke to Michael Phare , Jr.

The latter had been measuring and cutting a piece of she etrock

in front of the house.

17. Michael Phare, Jr. told Mr. B yrnes that he was

assisting his father that week. Mr. B yrnes then went into the

ho use and observed Michael Phare , Sr. performing trim carpentry

work on the baseboards in a bathroom.

18. Michael Phare , Sr. stated to Mr. B yrnes that he was

working for the ho use Ós owner and had been doing so at other

locations since July of 2015.

19. Mr. B yrnes then met Mark Shirey . The latter stated

that Michael Phare , Sr. , Michael Phare , Jr. , and another person

at the job site (identified only as ÐMr. Toll e Ñ) worked for

Scott Shirey and that the ho use was owned by Cobalt.

20. Mr. B yrnes had not observed Mark Shirey performing any

work on the home, but Mark Shirey described himself as the

foreman and stated that he was direct ing work at the 14

Cousineau Road address for his brother.

21. Mark Shirey told Mr. B yrn e s that Michael Phare , Sr.,

M icha el Phare Jr. , and Mr. Toll e were independent contractors

who would be receivi ng 1099 tax forms from Cobalt.

22. Mr. B yrnes later spoke to Scott Shirey over the

telephone on December 10, 2015 , and the latter stated that the

four individuals Mr. B yrnes en countered at the 14 Cousineau Road

address were working for him. Scott Shirey described his

brother as being a supervisor.

23. T he Division served Cobalt with a Stop - Work Order and

Order of Penalty Assessment on December 10, 2015, and the

Division ulti mately determined that Cobalt had failed to obtain

sufficient workersÓ compensation coverage between January 1,

2015, and December 10, 2015 (Ðthe noncompliance periodÑ) .

See § 440.107(7)(d)1., Fla . Stat . (providing that the Division

is required to assess against any employer that has failed to

secure the payment of workersÓ compensation Ða penalty equal toÑ

the greater of $1,000 or Ð2 times the amount the employer would

have paid in premium when applying approved manual rates to the

employerÓs payroll duri ng periods for which it failed to secure

the payment of workersÓ compensation . . . within the preceding

2 - year period .Ñ)(emphasis added).

24. Phil Sley, a penalty auditor employed by the Division,

calculated the aforementioned penalty based on business r ecords

provided by Cobalt. Those business records included bank

statements, check images, and a spreadsheet produced by Cobalt.

25. For each person for whom Cobalt failed to obtain

sufficient workerÓs compensation coverage during the

noncompliance pe riod , Mr. Sley determined how much money Cobalt

paid each person during th at pe riod.

26. The gross payroll amount fo r each person is divided by

100 in order to create a percentage, and the percentage

associated with each person is then multiplied by an Ðapproved

manual rate.Ñ

27. An approved manual rate is associated with a

particular class code.

28. A class code describes an employeeÓs scope of work

based on the type of work he or she perform s on a daily basis.

29. The National Council on Compe nsation Insurance

publishes the Scopes Manual, and the Scopes Manual sets forth

class codes for numerous types of work.

3 0 . Multiplying the gross payroll percentage by an

approved manual rate results in a workersÓ compensation

insurance premium for a pa rticular employee.

3 1 . As required by section 440.107(7)(d)1, each premium

amount is multiplied by two in order to calculate a penalty

associated with each employee for whom workersÓ compensation

insurance was not obtained .

3 2 . Mr. Sley then added th e individual penalties

associated with each Cobalt employee in order t o calculate the

total penalty.

3 3 . The final penalty calculated by Mr. Sley (and set

forth in the 3 r d Amended Order of Penalty Assessment) i s

$13,687.24.

3 4 . During the final heari ng, CobaltÓs counsel announced

that it did not dispute anything in the 3 r d Amended Order of

Penalty Assessment other than the class code assigned to

$40,000 of salary paid to Mark Shirey during the noncompliance

period .

3 5 . In other words, Cobalt agreed that it did not have a

sufficient amount of workersÓ compensation coverage in place

during the audit period.

3 6 . Scott Shirey is of the opinion that Mark ShireyÓs

scope of work fa lls under class code 5606. According to Cobalt,

the penalty associated w ith the $40,000 of salary paid to Mark

Shirey during the noncompliance period should be $1,850.52.

3 7 . The Scopes Manual describes class code 5606 as

follows:

This classification is available only to

project managers, construction executives,

construc tion managers, or construction

superintendents having administrative or

managerial responsibility for construction

or erection projects. When determining

eligibility, it is the job duties, and not

the job titles, that are the main

consideration.

1. ÐPr oject Manager, Construction

Executive, Construction Manager, or

Construction SuperintendentÑ are defined as

those persons exercising operational control

indirectly through full - time job supervisors

or foremen of the employer.

2. When exercising control t hrough a

subcontractor, each subcontractor must have

a job supervisor or foreman at the specific

job site in order to permit the assignment

of this classification. The supervisor or

foreman of the subcontractor may manage one

site or multiple sites. If a ny of the

subcontractors do not have a job supervisor

or foreman at any job site visited by the

construction executive, all of the payroll

of the construction executive for that

policy year is assigned to the highest rated

construction class code applicabl e. A sole

proprietor or owner/operator with no

employees, working as a subcontractor for

the insured, would prevent the assignment of

this classification to a construction

executive because the subcontractor does not

have the required job supervisor or fo reman.

3. This code does not apply to any person

who is directly in charge of or who is

performing any degree of actual construction

work. Such person must be assigned to the

classification that specifically describes

the type of construction or erectio n

operation over which they are exercising

direct supervisory control provided separate

payroll records are maintained for each

operation. Any such operation for which

separate payroll records are not maintained

must be assigned to the highest rated

class ification that applies to the job or

location where the operation is performed .

4. Code 5606 is not available for division

of a single employeeÓs payroll with any

other classification.

(emphasis added).

3 8 . The Scopes Manual continues by stating th at :

Code 5606 is intended to cover the project

manager, construction executive,

construction manager, or construction

superintendent of both specialty and general

contracting risks. The project manager,

etc., will spend some time in the office and

the r emainder of time visiting various job

sites conferring with the job superintendent

or foreperson to keep track of the progress

of the work being conducted at each job or

project. The qualifications established for

the use of Code 5606 are that the project

manager, etc., of a construction or erection

concern must be exercising supervision

through superintendents or forepeople of the

employer and cannot have direct charge over

the workers at the construction or erection

site . The project manager may also ex ercise

supervision through subcontractors,

superintendents, or forepeople, but each

subcontractor must have an on - site

superintendent or foreperson at each and

every job site. The important element is

determining their job duties and not their

title as we ll as that the supervision must

be indirect rather than direct.

(emphasis added).

39 . With regard to Mark ShireyÓs duties, Scott Shirey

testified as follows:

Q: Okay. So earlier Î let me go back. So

you said we Î thereÓs a Î that you might

call M ark Shirey a supervisor; is that

right?

A: I would call him Î I donÓt know. I

would call him a house flipper. ThatÓs what

IÓm saying, thatÓs where it gets strange.

IÓm not sure what I would call him. Yes, he

might supervise people, yes, he might be a

foreman, but he is me, we flip houses,

thatÓs what we do. And if thereÓs a

classification code for that, IÓd love to

have it.

Q: You mentioned when Mr. Jessup was

questioning you that Mark would keep you up -

to - date and keep you apprised of the

constr uction at the different houses; is

that right?

A: ThatÓs correct.

Q: How would Mark know about the progress

or lack thereof at each individual house to

be able to tell you?

A: Well, he would go by and observe it and

see whatÓs happening.

Q: What el se would he do?

A: I mean, thatÓs Î I mean, he would go to

Home Depot. If someone needed something, he

would go to Home Depot and he would have a

discussion with people on the quickest way

to do the work.

Q: Okay. You said he keeps track of the

contr actors and also pays them on Friday,

right?

A: ThatÓs correct.

Q: What does Ðkeeping track of the

contractorsÑ mean?

A: ÐKeeping track of the contractorsÑ is

calling them to say ÐWhere are you, how long

will the job take?Ñ A lot of phone calls.

Tha tÓs pretty much it.

Q: Would he also go to the sites and check

on the progress also?

A: Correct.

Q: You said earlier that Mark goes to the

sites and makes sure the sites are working

correctly. Can you elaborate on that?

A: Yeah, IÓm looking at spe cific examples.

When someone planted a plant in the wrong

place, he would say, ÐYou planted a plant in

the wrong place, go dig it up and move it,Ñ

or you Î ÐYou failed to put down a tarp good

enough, so youÓre getting paint on the new

floor,Ñ or ÐYou have installed a cabinet

incorrectly,Ñ you know, just like youÓre

observing and seeing what people do.

40 . The Division argues that class code 5437 should be

assigned to the $40,000 of salary paid to Mark Shirey between

January 1, 2015, and December 10, 2015.

4 1 . With regard to class code 5437, the Scopes Manu a l

provides that

Code 5437 is intended primarily for

specialist contractors performing interior

carpentry finish or trim such as the

installation of paneling, molding, cornices,

parquet or finished wooden flooring,

mantels, staircases, cabinets, and counters.

Carpentry of this kind generally involves

skilled workmanship. The installation of

interior doors by trim or finish carpenters

is also included in Code 5437. These

ÐspecialistsÑ will general ly be required to

perform a great degree of finish work, c ut

the door to the proper size to fit the

existing framework, perhaps do some routing

for any interlocking weather stripping or

safety strips, and drill holes for the

doorknob, hinges and striker pl ates.

4 2 . Assigning class code 5437 to the $40,000 paid to Mark

Shirey results in a penalty of $6,752 being associated with that

particular portion of CobaltÓs payroll , and that is the only

portion of the 3 rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in

dispu te .

4 3 . As explained below, the Division has proven by clear

and convincing evidence that class code 5606 is inapplicable to

the $40,000 paid to Mark Shirey and that class code 5437 for the

work performed by Mr. Phare, Sr. does apply.

4 4 . Furthermore, given that Mark Shirey was exercising

direct, on - site supervisory co ntrol over work performed at

14 Cousineau Road , it was appropriate that the highest rated

classification for the work being performed at the location be

assigned to Mr. Shirey.

CONCLU SIONS OF LAW

4 5 . D O AH has jurisdict ion over the parties to and

the subject matter of this proceeding pursuant to s ection s

120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

4 6 . Chapter 440 is known as the ÐWorkersÓ Compensation

Law.Ñ £ 440.01, Fla. Stat.

4 7 . E ve ry employer is required to secure the payment of

workers' compensation for the benefit of its employees, unless

the employee is exempted or excluded under c hapter 440. See

Bend v. Shamrock Servs. , 59 So. 3d 153, 157 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011 ).

Indeed, the Legis lature has declared that Ðthe failure of an

employer to comply with the workersÓ compensation coverage

requirements under [chapter 440] poses an immediate danger to

public health, safety, and welfare.Ñ £ 440.107(1), Fla. Stat.

4 8 . Accordingly, s ection 44 0.107(7)(a) , states, in relevant

part:

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'

compensa tion required by this chapter . . . ,

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 - wo rk order within

72 hours.

49 . The Division is required to assess against any

employer that has failed to secure the payment of workers'

compensation "a penalty equal to" the greater of $1,000 or

"2 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 2 - year period ."

(emphasis add ed). § 440.107(7)(d)1 ., Fla. Stat . This is a

penal statute that, if ambiguous, must be construed against

Petitioner. See Lester v. Dep't of Prof'l & Occ . Reg . , 348 So.

2d 923, 925 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).

5 0 . B ecaus e the Division seeks to impose an administrative

penalty or fine against Cobalt , the Division has the burden of

proving the material allegations by clear and convincing

evidence. Dep't of Ba nking & Fin. v. Osborne Stern & Co. ,

670 So. 2d 932, 935 (Fla. 19 96). Clear and convincing evidence

must make the facts "highly probable" and produce in the mind of

the trier of fact "a firm belief or conviction as to the truth

of the facts sought to be established," leaving "no substantial

doubt." Slomowitz v. Walker , 429 So. 2d 797, 799 (Fla. 4th DCA

1983).

5 1 . In order to meet its burden in the instant case , the

D ivision must demonstrate that : (a) Cobalt was required to

comply with the Workers' Compensation Law ; (b) that Cobalt failed

to comply with the requiremen ts of the Workers' Compensation Law ;

and that (c) the penalty assessed by the D ivision is appropriate.

5 2 . T here is no dispute that Cobalt was required to comply

with the WorkersÓ Compensation Law and that Cobalt failed to do

so. Cobalt only disputes the DivisionÓs decision to apply class

code 5437 rather than 5606 to $40,000 paid to Mark Shirey during

the noncompliance period .

5 3 . However, given the testimony from Scott Shirey

regarding Mark ShireyÓs responsibilities , the plain language of

the descrip tion for class code 5606 clearly indicates that it

should not be applied to Mark ShireyÓs work. See generally

Wilder v. State , 194 So. 3d 1050, 1052 (Fla. 1 st DCA 2016)(noting

that the resolution of the case began and ended with the plain

language of the relevant statute s).

5 4 . The description for class code 5606 expressly states

that Ð[t]his code does not apply to any person who is directly in

charge of or who is performing any degree of actual construction

work.Ñ As noted above in the Findings of Fac t, Mark Shirey

exercises direct control over the contractors that he hires .

Indeed, the evidence was clear and convincing that Mark Shirey

very closely supervises the work of each contractor that Cobalt

hires. 3/

5 5 . Class code 5606 also provides that a project manager,

construction executive, or a construction manager who does

exercise direct control over work at a job site Ðmust be assigned

to the highest rated classification that applies to the job or

location where the operation is performed.Ñ

5 6 . Mr. B yrnes witnessed Michael Phare , Sr. performing trim

carpentry work on the baseboards in a bathroom, and that work

clearly falls within the scope of class code 5437.

5 7 . Accordingly, the Division has proven by clear and

convincing evidence that cla ss c ode 5437 applies to the

$40,000 at issue paid to Mark Shirey during the noncompliance

period. 4/

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial

Services, Division of Work ersÓ Compensation, enter a final order

imposing a penalty of $13,687.24 on Cobalt Shore Investments,

LLC .

DONE AND ENT ERED this 9 th day of May, 2016, in Tallahassee,

Leon County, Florida.

S

G. W. CHISENHALL

Adminis trative 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 9 th day of May, 2016 .

ENDNOTE S

1/ Unless stated otherwise, all statutory citations will be to

the 201 5 version of the Florida Statutes.

2/ With regard to the process utilized by Cobalt, Scott Shirey

testified that

[y]es, because we kind of have Î we have a

formula. You know, if youÓre a house

flipper, youÓve got to have a formula about

being able to do something over and over

again to make money. So we have a formula

on how long we have to do something. If

youÓve ever seen any of these fl ipping

shows, time is money, so youÓve got to have

a system to go this is what we do, this is

what we do for the first two weeks, this is

what we do the third week, this is what we

do for this, and you just keep repeating it

if you want to make money.

3/ The Division could have argued that Mark Shirey engages in

Ðactual construction workÑ when he cleans a particular house.

However, it is not necessary to reach that question given the

unambiguous testimony that Mark Shirey exercised direct control

ove r the contractors he hired.

4/ In light of Scott ShireyÓs testimony regarding the range of

contractors that Mark Shirey typically supervised, the Division

could possibly have argued that a class code with a higher

approved manual rate should have been applied to the payroll at

issue. Instead, the Division utilized the class code applicable

to the work Mr. Burns witnessed being performed on December 10,

2015, at 14 Cousineau Road in Pensacola. To whatever extent

class code 5437 was not the highest rat ed classification that

could have been utilized, that worked to CobaltÓs benefit.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Tabitha G. Harnage, Esquire

Department of Financial Services

200 East Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0333

(eServed)

Jamison Jessup

2955 Ent erprise Road, Suite B

DeBary, Florida 32713

(eServed)

Scott Shirey

Cobalt Shore Investments, LLC

10409 Snapdragon

Austin, Texas 78739

Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk

Division of Legal Services

Department of Financial Services

200 East Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0390

(eServed)

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 wi th the agency that

will issue the Final Order in this case.