17-005900 Department Of Financial Services, Division Of Workers&Apos; Compensation vs. A.S.A.P. Flooring, Inc. Status: Closed Recommended Order on Monday, February 12, 2018.

Summary: Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent failed to secure workers' compensation insurance for its employee during the audit period, and Petitioner correctly calculated the penalty to be imposed.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIA L

SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS Ó

COMPENSATION,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 17 - 5900

A.S.A.P. FLOORING, INC.,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

REC OMMENDED ORDER

On January 10, 2018, Administrative Law Judge Hetal Desai of

the Division of Administrative Hearings conducted the final

hearing at sites in Tallahassee and Tampa, Florida, by video

teleconferenc e .

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Jonathan Anth ony Martin, Esquire

Florida Department of Financial Services

Legal Services Division

200 East Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

For Respondent: Eric Reinartsen , pro se

A.S.A.P. Flooring, Inc.

215 Mason Street

Brandon, Florida 33511

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE S

Whether Respondent violated the provisions of chapter 440,

Florida Statutes (2016) , 1/ by failing to secure the payment of

wor kers Ó compensation coverage, as alleged in the Third Amended

Order of Penalty Assessment; and, if so, what penalty is

appropriate.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On October 24, 2016, the Department of Financial Services,

Division of Workers Ó Compensation ( Ð Departme nt Ñ ) , issued a

Stop - W ork Order ( Ð SWO Ñ ) to Respondent A.S.A.P. Flooring, Inc.

( Ð ASAP FlooringÑ) for failing to secure workers Ó compensa t ion

for its emplo yees as required by chapter 440 . T he Department

also issued a n Order of Penalty Assessment (ÐOPAÑ) , wh ich was

amended multiple times . 2/

On June 13, 2017, Respondent timely filed a request for a

formal administrative hearin g to dispute the SWO and OPAs.

On October 27, 2017, the Department referred this matter to

the Division of Administrative Hearings ( Ð D OAH Ñ ). DOAH assigned

an Administrative Law Judge (ÐALJÑ) to hear the dispute who

noticed the matter for final hearing.

A week before the final hearing, on January 3, 2018 , t he

Department amended its penalty assessment in the Third Amended

OPA .

A pre - heari ng conference call was scheduled for January 8,

2017, but ASAP Flooring Ó s representative and owner, Eric

Reinartsen , did not call in and could not be reached.

The final hearing was held as scheduled on January 10, 2018 .

At the hearing , the Department pr esented the testimony of

Christina Brigantty, a Department compliance investigato r ; and

Lynne Murcia, a Department penalty auditor (ÐAuditorÑ) . The

Department offered Exhibits 1 through 11 and 13 through 17, which

were adm i tted into evidence. Respondent offered no exhibits and

only the testimony of Mr. Reinartsen .

The Transcript of the final hearing was filed with DOAH on

January 19, 2018. Although the Department timely filed a

proposed recommended order (ÐPROÑ), Respondent did not file any

post - hearing submittal . The Department Ó s PRO was considered in

preparing this Recommended Order .

FINDING S OF FACT

Parties .

1. The Department is responsible for enforcing the

requirements of chapter 440, which mandate employers in Florida

secure the payment of workers Ó compensation insurance to cover

their employees in case of workplace injuries . § 440.107, Fla.

St a t.

2. 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.

3. Ms. Brigantty is a Department compliance investigator .

Her job is to ensure compliance by employers in her district with

the workers Ó 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 financia l documenta tion, and researches

various data banks for corporate and workers Ó compensation

status .

Department Ó s Investigation and Assessment .

4 . On October 24, 2016, Ms. Brigantty was driving around

Pinellas County as part of her work duties. She stopped to

condu ct a random check at a residential construction site located

at 358 3 Douglas Place, Palm Harbor, Florida 34683 (ÐJobsiteÑ).

5 . At the Jobsite, Ms. Brigantty observed two men -- later

identified as Eric Reinartsen and Wallace Humbert -- preparing

and insta lling 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.

6 . Mr. Reinartsen admitted ASAP Flooring did not have

wor kers Ó compensation. At the time , he believed ASAP Flooring

was exempt from the workers Ó compensation insurance requirements

due to his role as a corporate officer and because it only had

one employee.

7 . During the initial interview, Ms. Brigantty learn ed

Mr. Humbert had worked for ASAP Flooring for four or five months

and was paid a flat fee per job.

8 . After meeting with Mr. Reinartsen, Ms. Brigantty checked

the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations website

to confirm Respondent Ó s st atus as an active corporation, and that

Mr. Reinartsen was its only officer.

9 . Mr. Brigantty then used the Department Ó s database,

Coverage and Compliance Automated System ( Ð CCAS Ñ ), which

contained information on employers and their workers Ó

compensation status and any exemptions . According to CCAS, at

the time of Ms. Brigantty Ó s inspection , ASAP Flooring had no

workers Ó compensation insurance. CCAS also reflected Respondent

had an exemption from the workers Ó 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.

10 . On October 24, 2016, after confirming ASAP Flooring had

at least one employee, but had not secured workers Ó compensation

insur ance, the Department issued a SWO and had it personally

served on Mr. Reinartsen at the Jobsite. 3 /

11 . At this time, the Department also served Mr. Reinartsen

with a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty

Assessment Calculations. I n resp onse , Respondent provided bank

statements, check images, check stu bs, tax information and

e - mails to the Department . These documents showed that during

the previous tw o - year period ( Ð look - back period Ñ) , October 24,

2014 , to October 24, 2 0 1 6, Respondent h ad a number of employees,

but did not have workers Ó co mpensation coverage for them.

12 . At the hearing, Respondent did not dispute ASAP

Flooring was required to have workers Ó compensation insurance,

the status of the people identified as employees, or th e fact

that it did not have adequate workers Ó compensation coverage. 4/

Penalty Calculatio n .

13 . To calculate the penalty assessed against Responden t,

the Department Ó s Auditor utilized the information she gleaned

from documents submitted by Respondent an d through

Mr. Reinartsen Ó 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 ÐworksheetÑ) to compute the final

penalty assessment amount . The worksheet for the Third OPA is

attached as Appendix ÐAÑ to this Recommended Order (ÐAppx. AÑ) .

14 . Through her review of ASAP Flooring Ó s business records

and Mr. Reinartsen Ó s deposition testimony, the Auditor con firmed

(1) the individuals who were direct employees or construction

subcontractors during those periods of non - compliance ( App x . A,

column ÐEmployer Ó s PayrollÑ) ; (2) the periods of non - compliance

( App x. A, column Ð b Ñ ) ; (3) the gross payroll for those

indi viduals during these p eriods of non - compliance (Appx . A,

column ÐcÑ ) ; and (4) the services provided by those individuals.

15 . T he Auditor used the services to determine the

classification codes created by the National Council on

Compensation Insurance ( ÐNCCIÑ), and listed i n the NCCI Ó s Scopes

Manual, which has been adopted by the Department through Florida

Administrative Code Rule 69L - 6.021(1) . The se classification

codes are four - digit codes assigned to various occupations by the

NCCI to assist in the c alculation of workers Ó compensation

insurance premiums.

16 . To derive the gross pay figures in the worksheet

(Appx. A, column ÐcÑ ) the Auditor explained she utilized payment

information in the ASAP Flooring Ó s business records. Although

Respondent init ially 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.

17 . 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 Ð80 : 20Ñ ratio n rule

for those payments Respondent claimed were partly labor and

pa rtly materials: considering 80 percent of the total payment as

ÐlaborÑ for penalt y calculation purposes; and excluding

20 percent for penalty calculation purposes as Ðmaterials.Ñ

18. Using the gross payroll ( Appx. A, column Ð c Ñ ) and the

appropriate NCCI manual rate (Appx. A, column ÐeÑ) , the Auditor

calculated the premium rate (Appx . A, column ÐfÑ) for each

individual or entity ( Appx. A, column ÐEmployer Ó s PayrollÑ) . She

then multiplied the premium rate by two to reach a penalty amount

(Appx. A, column ÐgÑ). T his calculation method to determine a

final penalt y is authorized by sect ion 440.107(7)(d)1. , and

rule 69L - 6.027.

19. Ultimately, based on the amounts indicated in the

worksheet, the Department issued a Third Amended OPA calculating

the penalty as $15,577.84.

20 . The Department applied a 25 percent reduction, yielding

a re maining penalty of $11,683 . 38 .

21 . According to the eviden ce, i n November 2016, Respondent

paid $1,000 to the Department as a Ðdown paymentÑ toward any

ultimate assessment. Applying this $1,000 as a credit to the

penalty in the Third OPA results in Res pondent owing $10,683.38 .

Respondent Ó s Defense s .

22 . 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 Ó s

failure to secure workers Ó compensation insurance for it s

employees.

23 . First, Respondent asserted Ms. Brigantty was not

properly outfitted to enter a construction site and therefore, h e

argued , she was violating rules set forth by the Occupational

Safety and Health Agency (ÐOSH AÑ). Ms. Brigantty admitted she

was not wearing a hard hat, an d did not think she was wearing

steel - toed boots with hard soles when she entered the Jobsite.

24 . Second, Respondent argued Ms. Brigantty did not issue a

SWO to a nother contractor at a neigh boring construction site who

was putting in pavers , identified only as ÐLuis.Ñ

Mr . Reinartsen could not provide the name of the other

contractor Ó s company, a last name, or any other identifying

information; nor did Respondent provide evidence that ÐLuisÑ was

in a similar situation: non - com pliant with and non - exempt from

c hapter 440. Ms. Brigantty did not rememb er going to the

neighboring site or speaking to anyone else during her stop at

the Jobsite.

25 . Finally, Respondent argued the penalty is subst antial

and payment in full ( as opposed to a payment plan sp read out over

a number of years) would put him and his small famil y - owned

company out of business.

Ultimate Findings .

26. The Department demonstrated, by clear and convincing

evidence, Responden t violated chapter 440 a s charged in the SWO

by failing to secure workers Ó compensa t ion coverage for its

employees.

27. The Department demonstrated, by clear and convincing

evidence, the penalty for this violation is $11,683.38.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

2 8 . D OAH has jurisdiction over the subject matter and

parties of this proceeding pursuant to sections 120.569

and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

29 . The Department seeks to penalize Respondent, and thus,

has the burden of proof to show by clear and convincing e vidence

that Respondent (1) committed the violations alleged in the SWO,

and (2) that the proper penalty was calculated and assessed in

the Third Amended OPA. See Dep Ó t of Banking & Fin. v. Osborne

Stern & Co. , 670 So. 2d 932, 935 (Fla. 1996); and Dep Ó t o f Fin.

Serv. v. Doherty Home Repair, Inc. , Case No. 17 - 3385, 2017 Fla.

Div. Adm. Hear. LEXIS 770, *14 - 15 ( Fla DOAH Dec. 27, 2017)

(defining Ðclear and convincingÑ as where the evidence is of

Ðsuch weight that it produces in the mind of the trier of fact a

firm belief or conviction, without hesitancy, as to the truth of

the allegations sought to be established .Ñ ) ( c itations omitted).

30 . Pursuant to sections 440.10, 440.107(2), and 440.38,

every employer is required to secure the payment of workers Ó

compens ation by obtaining insurance coverage for workplace

in j uries. Employers in Florida must obtain worke rs Ó compensation

insurance coverage for the benefit of their employees unless

exempted or otherw ise excluded under chapter 440.

31 . Ð Employer Ñ is defined in section 440.02(16) to include

Ð every per son carrying on any employment.Ñ In turn, section

440.02(23) defines ÐpersonÑ as an Ðindividual, partnershi p,

association, or corporationÑ; s e ction 440.102(1 7)(a) defines

Ð [e] mploymentÑ as Ð any service performed by an employee for t he

person employing him or her.Ñ There is no question Respondent is

a corporation performing services in the construction industry,

and is an ÐemployerÑ for the purposes of chapter 440 during the

period from October 2 4 , 2014, to Octobe r 24, 2016.

32 . Ð Employee Ñ is defined in section 440.1 0 2(15) to mean

any person who receives remuneration from an employer for the

performance of any work or service. There was no dispute at the

hearing that the individuals and entities identified on the

worksheet as being on ASAP Flooring Ó s payroll were employees for

the purposes of c hapter 440.

33 . The Department proved, by clear and convincing

evidence, Respondent violated chapter 440 by failing to provide

workers Ó compensation coverage for its empl oyees.

34 . Section 440.107(7)(d)1. establishes the method for

calculating the penalty assessment against an employer who has

failed to secure workers Ó compensation coverage in violation of

this chapter. That statute states in relevant part:

In addition t o any penalty, sto p - work order,

or injunction, the department shall assess

against any employer who has failed to secure

the payment of compensation as required by

this chapter a penalty equal to 2 ti m es the

amount the employer would have paid in

premium w hen applying approved manual rates

to the employer Ó s payroll during periods for

which it failed to secure the payment of

workers Ó compensation required by this

chapter within the preceding 2 - year period

or $1,000, whichever is greater.

a. For employers who have not been

previously issued a stop - work order or order

of penalty assessment, the department must

allow the employer to receive a credit for

the initial payment of the estimated annual

workersÓ compensation policy premium, as

determined by the car rier, to be applied to

the penalty. Before applying the credit to

the penalty, the employer must provide the

department with documentation reflecting that

the employer has secured the payment of

compensation pursuant to s. 440.38 and proof

of payment to t he carrier. In order for the

department to apply a credit for an employer

that has secured workersÓ compensation for

leased employees by entering into an employee

leasing contract with a licensed employee

leasing company, the employer must provide

the dep artment with a written confirmation,

by a representative from the employee leasing

company, of the dollar or percentage amount

attributable to the initial estimated

workersÓ compensation expense for leased

employees, and proof of payment to the

employee le asing company. The credit may not

be applied unless the employer provides the

documentation and proof of payment to the

department within 28 days after service of

the stop - work order or first order of penalty

assessment upon the employer.

b. For employe rs who have not been

previously issued a stop - work order or order

of penalty assessment, the department must

reduce the final assessed penalty by 25

percent if the employer has complied with

administrative rules adopted pursuant to

subsection (5) and has p rovided such business

records to the department within 10 business

days after the employerÓs receipt of the

written request to produce business records.

35 . T he Department proved by clea r and convincing evidence

it correctly applied the penalty computati on method in

determining the penalty applicable to Respondent for the portion

of the look - back period in which Respondent was required to

provide workers Ó compensation coverage but failed to do so. This

amount is $11,683.38 .

36 . The Department proved, by clear and convincing

evidence, that $10,68 3.38 (representing the remaining p e nalty in

the amount of $11,683.38 , minus the $1,000 penalty Respondent has

already paid) is the correct amount Respondent owes the

Department .

37 . The violation and penalty havi ng been proven , the

burden shifts to Respondent to establish its defenses as to why

it should not be penalized or , in the alternative, why it should

receive a lesser pe nalty. Respondent argu e d at the hearing that

it should not be penalized because the Dep artment violated OSHA

standards by not having Ms. Brigantty dress approp riately for a

construction site. The undersigned treats this argument as an

affirmative defense that the penalty should be dismissed or

reduced due to wrongdoing on the part of the De partment . See

Armstrong v. Ormond in the Pines , 734 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 1st DCA

1999 ) ( noting Ð an exception to a statute must be proven by the one

seeking to establish it Ñ ( c itations omitted ) ) . According to

Respondent, OSHA regulations require employees on c onstruction

site s to wear a hard hat and closed - toed work boots. Even if it

was true that Ms. Brigantty failed to wear this safety gear, DOAH

does not have jurisdiction over OSHA enforcement. More

importantly, state government entities - Î such as the Dep artment

-- are not subject to OSHA regulations. 29 U . S . C . S . § 652(5)

(defining Ð employer Ñ as Ða person engaged in a business affecting

commerce who has employe es, but does not include . . . any State

or political subd ivision of a State.Ñ). Regardless, th e

Department Ó s safety failures do not excuse Respondent Ó s non -

compliance with chapter 440.

38 . The second defense asserted by Respondent at the

hearing was that Ms. Brigantty could have issued a SWO to another

employer in the vicinity, but did not. The undersigned treats

this as an a ffirmative defense that the Department was

selectively enforcing the workers Ó compensation compliance

requirements, and therefore was acting arbitrarily . See Dep Ó t of

Bus. & Prof Ól Reg . v. Aleong , Case No. 10 - 2388PL, 2010 Fl a. Div.

Adm. Hear. LEXIS 1005, *18 ( Fla. DOAH Dec. 29 , 2010; Fla. DBPR

July 7, 20 1 1 )(ÐAn allegation that a governmental agency is acting

selectively or arbitrarily in taking enforcement action states a

valid affirmative defense in the administrative contex t.Ñ).

39. To establish Ðselective enforcementÑ as a defense to

Petitioner Ó s actions, Respondent has the burden of proving the

facts supporting the defense; it must prove the Department not

only failed to enforce the law against other offenders that were

similarly situated, but also that the difference in treatment was

motivated by an unjustifiable standard such as race, gender or

other arbitrary classification . See State v. A.R.S. , 684 So. 2d

1383, 1385 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)(ÐPetitioner is required to sho w

both that the passive enforcement system had a discriminatory

effect and that it was motivated by a discrimin atory purpose. Ñ

(c itation omitted ) ); Dep Ó t of Bus. & Prof Ó l Reg. v. Aleong , Cas e

No. 06 - 2717 , RO at 9 - 11 (Fla. DOAH Jan. 5, 2007 ; Fla. DBPR

Mar . 19, 2007) (rejecting selective enforcement defense where Ðthe

evidence did not prove that there were other similarly situated

veteri narians who were not prosecuted Ñ).

40 . Respondent Ó s affirmative defense of selective

enforcement is rejected . Respondent provided no evidence that

ÐLuisÑ was similarly situated ( i.e. , he was also an employer who

had no workers Ó compensation insurance for his employees and was

not exempt). There was also no testimony that Ms. Brigantty

failed to issue a SWO based on any impr oper motive . Respondent

has not met its burden of proof, as there wa s no evidence offered

that it wa s arbitrarily treated differently than other similarly

situated employers.

41 . Finally, Mr. Reinartsen asked for leniency, arguing the

Department Ó s penal ty demand and SWO has and will continue to

cause a significant hard ship to him personally and to A SAP

Flooring. He admitted at the hearing he was uninformed about the

workers Ó compensation rules and acknowledged he should have been

more diligent in gettin g proof from his subcontractors that they

were compliant with the requirements of chapter 440 .

Mr. Reinartsen cooperated with the Department and even assisted

it by correcting erroneous names of potential employees .

U ltimately , at the hearing Respondent took responsibility; it

conceded the employee status, characterization of work performed,

and dates put forth by the Department at the hearing .

4 2 . Chapter 440, however, does not provide mitigating

circumstances to reduce penalties; nor does it excuse n o n -

compliance because of ignorance of the statutory requirements,

and/or workers Ó compensation status of workers and

subcontractors . Nonetheless, the administrative rules allow the

Department to enter into a Payment Agreement Schedule to pay off

penalties incurred by those who have violated chapter 440.

See Fla. Adm in . Code R. 69L - 6.025. Under this rule an employer

pays ten percent of the total penalty or $1,000.00, whichever is

greater, as a down payment and thereafter pays off the penalty

pursuant to an installment schedule . Here, Respondent has

already paid the $1,000 and is willing to pay the remainder of

the penalty in increment s of around $100.00 a month until paid

off . The undersigned strongly recommends the Department

facilitate a payment agree ment schedule with ASAP Flooring to

enable it to pay off the penalty over a period time given the

following factors: (1) Respondent is a small business with no

previous non - compliance history; (2) Mr. Reinartsen fully

cooperated with the Department; (3) s ome of Respondent Ó s non -

compliance was based on the representations of other businesses

Mr. Reinartsen believed had sufficient workers Ó compensation

coverage ; (4) Respondent took steps to comply w ith the law by

obtaining worker s Ó compensation coverage ; and (5) the assessed

penalty will result in a substantial hardship on Respondent.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is RECOMMENDED that:

The Department of Financial Services, D i vision of Worker s Ó

Compensation, e nter a final order determining that Respondent,

A SAP Flooring, violated the requirement in chapter 440 to secure

workers Ó 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, Florid a 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 .

ENDNOTE S

1/ All references to statutes, regulations and rules are to the

2016 v ersion s in effect during the initial issuance of the Stop -

Work Order .

2/ Although the record does not establish the date or amount of

the original OPA, the Department served the first Amended OPA for

$23,114.02 on March 2, 2017. A subsequent ame nded OP A was served

on Respondent on October 27, 2017, in the amount of $13,671.33;

this Second OPA was attached to the Request for Administrative

Hearing forwarded to DOAH on that same date.

3 / The parties had entered into an Agreed Order of Con ditional

Relea se from Stop - Work Order on November 4, 2016. In that Agreed

Order , the Department lifted the SWO ( thereby allowing ASAP

Flooring to provide services ) , because ASAP Flooring had obtained

proper workers Ó compensation coverage and had paid $1,000 toward

any ultimate penalty. Respondent also agreed to make periodic

payments. The Department later reinstated the SWO, because

Respondent failed to enter into a ÐPayment Agreement Schedule for

Periodic Payment of Penalty with the DepartmentÑ and failed to

make a p ayment toward the penalty assessment within 28 days. As

of the final hearing date , the SWO was still in effect.

4 / Although during the investigative process Mr. Reinartsen

challenged the Department Ó s identification of some of the

individuals as Respond ent Ó s ÐemployeesÑ and asserted these

individuals were actually employees of subcontractors, he later

learned ASAP Flooring was responsible for providing workers Ó

compensation insurance to these workers from other subcontractors

because they were not covere d , as he was led to believe. See

Florida Administrative Code Rule 69 L - 6.032 (6), which states in

relevant part:

If a contractor fails to obtain evidence of

workers Ó compensation insurance or evidence

of a valid Certificate of Election to Be

Exempt as requ ired herein and the

subcontractor has failed to secure the

payment of compensation pursuant to

Chapter 440, F.S., the contractor shall be

liable for, and shall secure the payment of

compensation for all the employees of the

subcontractor pursuant to Secti on

440.10(1)(b), F.S., and if the contractor

has failed to secure the payment of

compensation pursuant to Chapter 440, F.S.,

the contractor will be issued a Stop - Work

Order and a penalty will be assessed against

the contractor pursuant to Section

440.107(7 )(d)1., F.S. (Emphasis added).

COPIES FURNISHED:

Jonathan Anthony Martin, Esquire

Florida Department of Financial Services

Legal Services Division

200 East Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

(eServed)

Eric Reinartsen

A.S.A.P. Flooring, Inc.

215 Mason Street

Brandon, Florida 33511

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 hav e 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.