18-001804 Department Of Financial Services, Division Of Workers&Apos; Compensation vs. Horace Bradley Sheffield Builders, Llc Status: Closed Recommended Order on Friday, July 27, 2018.

Summary: Petitioner failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that a payroll recipient was not working under the auspices of a subcontractor with workers' compensation coverage.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL

SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS'

COMPENSATION,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 1 8 - 1804

HORACE BRADLEY SHEFFIELD

BUILDERS, LLC,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a fina l hearing was conducted in

this case on June 12 , 201 8 , in Tallahassee, Florida, before

Garnett W. Chisenhall, a duly - designated Administrative Law

Judge (ÐALJÑ) of the Division of Administrative He arings

(ÐDOAHÑ).

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Jonathan Anthony Martin, Esquire

Florida Department of Financial Services

Legal Services Division

200 East Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florid a 32399

For Respondent: Horace B. Sheffield

Horace B. Sheffield Builders, LLC

4564 Ambervalley Drive

Tallahassee, Florida 32312

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE S

The issue is whether Horace Bradley Sheffield Builders, LLC

(ÐSheffield BuildersÑ) , ha d in sufficient workersÓ compensation

insurance during the time period in question ; and, if so, the

amount of the resulting penalty.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On October 12 , 201 7 , the Department of Financial Services,

Division of WorkersÓ Compensation (Ðthe D epartment Ñ), served a n

Amended Order of Penalty Assessment requiring Sheffield Builders

to pay a penalty of $11,082.56 for having an insufficient amount

of workersÓ compensation insurance .

Sheffield Builders respo nded by filing a Petition for

Administrative Hearing setting forth its position as follows:

c. [Sheffield Builders] received a copy of

Site Specific Stop - Work Order #17 - 181 - 1A on

April 21, 2017, by hand delivery by

investigator Lewis Johnson.

d. Stop - Wo rk Order was issued for hiring a

subcontractor without demanding or receiving

proof of WorkerÓs Compensation coverage.

[Horace Bradley Sheffield] hired his son,

Horace Bradley Sheffield III (BradleyÓs

Quality Framing and Trim, LLC) to build a

fence on a l ot [Horace Bradley Sheffield ]

owned at 7111 Summit Ridge Drive,

Tallahassee, FL 32312.

e. Horace Bradley Sheffield III (Bradley

Quality Framing and Trim, LLC) is [an]

independent contractor and doesnÓt work

exclusively for [Sheffield Builders] owned

by h is father. He told his father the day

prior [to] the inspection that his WC

coverage [was] still in effect. [Horace

Bradley Sheffield]Ós failure is that he did

not ask for proof of his sonÓs WC coverage

and believed what he was told.

f. [Horace Bradl ey Sheffield] doesnÓt

believe that trusting in a person and taking

a wor d from a dear loved son generates

workerÓs compensation fraud. [Horace

Bradley Sheffield] had nothing to gain by

hiring Horace Bradley Sheffield III

(BradleyÓs Quality Framing and Tri m, LLC)

and [if he had] had knowledge of [the lapse

in coverage] would have gladly paid or

loaned $55.00 for renewal.

g. [Sheffield Builders] requests relief

from this issued Stop - Work Order #17 - 181 - 1A

for the following reasons:

- [Sheffield Builders] had no intent

to commit the crime of WorkerÓs

Compensation Fraud, Failure to Secure

Coverage Section 440.105(4)(a)3,

Florida Statutes.

- [Horace Bradley Sheffield ] was

issued a $1000.00 (one thousand

dollars) Stop - Work Order fine for his

failure to deman d proof of coverage

from all subcontractors, including his

son.

- Sheffield III (BradleyÓs Quality

Framing and Trim, LLC) renewed WC

coverage immediately after he

discovered it was out of date and

affected [Horace Bradley Sheffield],

his father.

On Apri l 6 , 201 8 , the D epartment referred the instant case

to DOAH for a formal administrative hearing.

Via a Notice of Hearing issued on April 10 , 201 8 , the

undersigned scheduled a final hearing for June 12 , 201 8 .

The final hearing was convened as scheduled on June 12 ,

2017. At the outset of the final hearing, the undersigned

granted the DepartmentÓs Agreed Motion for Leave to Amend Order

of Penalty Assessment, and the Department announced that the new

p roposed penalty was $7,801.92.

T he D epartment presented the testimony of Eunika

Jackson and Lewis Johnson . T he D epartment offered E xhibits 1

through 1 4 , and all of the aforementioned exhibits were accepted

into evidence . During the final hearing, the undersigned

granted leave for the Department to file an add itional exhibit ,

and it did so on June 14, 2018 . That additional exhibit is

designated a s the DepartmentÓs Exhibit 15.

Horace Bradley Sheffield testified on his own behalf and

offered no exhibits .

The T ranscript was filed with DOAH on June 26 , 201 8 .

T he Department filed a timely P roposed R ecommended O rder on

July 6, 2018, that has been considered by the undersigned in the

preparation of this Recommended Order.

Sheffield Builders filed an untimely Proposed Recommended

Order on July 12, 2018. Because Sheffield Builders had been

proceeding pro se, the undersigned elected to consider Sheffield

BuildersÓ Proposed Recommended Order during the preparation of

this R ecommended O rder.

FINDING S OF FACT

Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at th e

final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the

following Findings of Fact are made:

1. The D epartment is the state agency responsible for

enforcing the requirement in chapter 440, Florida Statutes

(201 6 ), 1/ that employers in Florida secure workersÓ 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. The D epartment fulfills its enforcement duty by

conducting compliance investigations , and a compliance

investigation can begin with a D epartment investigator visiting

a worksite.

4 . Lewis Johnson is employed in Tallahassee , Florida , as a

compliance investigator for the D epartment .

5. Mr. Johnson monitors construction and non - construction

entities to ensure that they have obtained workersÓ compensation

coverage.

6. On April 20 , 2017, M r . Johnson was conducting routine

checks in the Killearn Lakes area of Tallahassee. He had just

visited three worksites and found that the construction firms

working those sites had workersÓ compensation coverage.

7. Mr. Johnson then drove past a site where a fence was

being built:

As I saw the fence being built, I stopped

momentarily. I took a picture to document

the work activity. I then got out and I

made contact with the two workers. The

first worker identified himself as Horace

Bradley Sheffield [III] , he advised that he

was the subcontractor, owned his own

business, BradleyÓs Quality Framing and

Trim, LLC. He had another gentleman there

with him, that gentleman was initially very

quiet.

I asked Sheffield III whom he worked for, he

told me that he was employed by his dad. I

asked him who hi s dad was, he said that his

dad was Horace Bradley Sheffield, and that

his dad owned Horace Bradley Sheffield

Builders, LLC, and that he was the general

contractor for the home that was under

construction, and that he was working

directly for his dad.

I t hen spoke briefly with the gentleman

that was with Horace Bradley III regarding

his employment. Initial l y during my

conversation with Horace Bradley III, he

said that he was trying out this worker.

He said that heÓd only Î heÓd been on the

job for two da ys himself, but this was

this guyÓs first day, and he was just trying

him out. So in my conversation with the

employee who was identified as Colter

Gilmore, Colt er said ÐNo, IÓm being paid

$10 dollars an hour,Ñ and so I documented

that information.

8 . After the conversation with Mr. Sheffield III ,

M r . Johnson looked for any records pertaining to Quality Framing

and Trim, LLC , within the Coverage and Compliance Automated

System (ÐCCASÑ) and the Division of Corporations.

9 . CCAS is a database maintaine d by the Dep artment, and it

enables Department investigators , such as Mr. Johnson , to

ascertain if any construction company operating in Florida has

workersÓ compensation coverage.

1 0 . CCAS indicated that Quality Framing and Trim, LLC , had

been dissolve d and had no workersÓ compensation coverage . CCAS

also revealed that Mr. Sheffield IIIÓs exemption had expired on

July 10, 2015.

11. After repor ting to his supervisor that Mr. Sheffield

was paying his son as a subcontractor, Mr. Johnson received

authoriz ation to issue a Stop - Work Order to Mr. Sheffield III on

April 20, 2017.

12. After i ssuing the Stop - Work Order, Mr. Johnson

testified that he :

placed a call to Mr. Horace Bradley

Sheffield, the owner of Horace Bradley

Sheffield Bu ilders, LLC, BradleyÓs dad,

and I made h im aware of the fact that I

had just issued his son a Stop - Work Order

for violation of Florida Statute 440; did

not have proof of compliance. And then we

spoke on the phone regarding that, and he

expressed that he did not know, he did not Î

he was unaware that his sonÓs workersÓ comp

exemption had expired. What he said that

was most interesting was that he did hire

his son as a subcontractor; that he was

paying his son directly. I asked him how

much, he was paying his son approximately

$ 4.50 a square foot to build a fence, and so

that was the renumeration between son and

father for the build.

And so I then expressed to him that,

because of that violation, his son being in

violation of Florida Statute 440, that he

himself was also in vi olation because, as a

general contractor, it is Mr. SheffieldÓs

job to demand and require the proof of

workersÓ compensation coverage from any

employer to include a subcontractor.

Q: And did Mr. Sheffield do that in this

case?

A: No, sir, he did not. He sort of

indicated that he just failed to do so.

13. Mr. Johnson learned through CCAS that Sheffield

Builders had no workersÓ compensation policy but that

Mr. Shef field had an exemption for himself.

14. After conferring wi th his supervisor regar ding

Mr. SheffieldÓs lack of workersÓ compensation coverage for those

working for Sheffield Builders, M r . Johnson served a S top - W ork

O rder and an Order of Penalty Assessment on Mr. Sheffield via

hand - delivery on April 21 , 2017 .

1 5 . The S top - W ork O rd er required Sheffield Builders to

cease all business operations at the Killearn Lakes worksite and

was to remain in effect until lifted by the D epartment .

1 6 . The Order of Penalty Assessment notified Sheffield

Builders that it was required to pay a n a mount :

[e]qual to 2 times the amount the

employer would have paid in premium when

applying approved manual rates to the

employerÓs payroll dur ing periods for

which it failed to secure the payment of

workersÓ compensation within the preceding

2 - year perio d. Employers who have not

been previously issued a Stop - Work Order

may receive a cr edit for the initial

payment of the estimated annual workersÓ

compensation policy premium [for] the dollar

or percentage amount attributable to the

initial payment of the est imated workersÓ

compensation expense to a licensed employee

leasing contract. In all cases a minimum

penalty of $1,000 is assessed against the

employer. Section 440.107(7)(d), F.S.

17 . M r . Johnson also served on April 21, 2017 , a ÐRequest

for Product ion of Business Records for Penalty Assessment

CalculationÑ (Ðthe Request for ProductionÑ) .

18 . Through the Request for Production , the D epartment

sought various types of financial documents pertaining to

Sheffield BuildersÓ payroll during the period be tween

December 10 , 201 5 , and April 20 , 2017 (Ðthe noncompliance

period Ñ ) , so that it could calculate the penalty to be imposed

on Sheffield Builders.

19 . The business records requested by the D epartment

consisted of payroll documents such as time sheets , check stubs,

earnings records, and federal income tax documents; account

documents such as all business check journals and statements,

including cleared checks for all open and closed business

ac counts; check and cash disbursements; proof of any workersÓ

compensation insurance or exemptions; and subcontractor

information.

2 0 . The Request for Production required Sheffield Builders

to provide the aforementioned records within 10 business days of

receiving the Request for Production.

21. Mr. Sheffield provided business records, and the

Department used those records to reduce the pr oposed penalty to

$7,801.92.

22 . Eunika Jackson , a penalty auditor employed by the

Department, calculated the aforementioned penalty based on the

business records provided by Mr. Sheffield .

23 . For each person for whom Sheffield Builders failed to

obtain workersÓ compensation coverage dur ing the noncompliance

period, Ms . Jackson determined how much money Sheffield Builders

paid each person during that period.

24. Sheffi eld Builders paid $32,477.00 to

Mr. Sheffield , III ; $1,578.00 to R is ocani Alfredo ; $16,861.50 to

Roland Hedrington ; and $100.00 to Adam Chew during the

noncompliance period .

25 . The gross payroll amount for each person wa s divided

by 100 in order to cre ate a percentage, and the percentage

associated with each person wa s then multiplied by an Ðapproved

manual rate.Ñ

26 . An approved manual rate is associated with a

particular class code.

27 . A class code describes an employeeÓs scope of work

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

28 . The National Council on Compensation Insurance

publishes the Scopes Manual, and the Scopes Manual sets forth

class codes for numerous types of work.

29 . Multiplying the gross payroll percentag e by an

approved manual rate results in a workersÓ compensation

insurance premium for a particular employee.

30 . As required by section 440.107(7)(d)1 ., Florida

Statutes, 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.

31 . M s . Jackson then added the individual penalties

associated with H orace Sheffield III, Risocani Alfredo, Roland

Hedrington, and Adam Chew in order to calculate the total

p enalty of $7,801.92 .

32 . With regard to Mr. Sheffield III, Mr. Sheffield

acknowledged at the final hearing that his son did not have

workersÓ compensation coverage during the tim e period in

question. Mr. Sheffield testified that his son had attempted t o

renew his exemption on - line but failed to realize that his

attempt had been unsuccessful.

33. Mr. Sheffield testified that Roland Hedrington had

workersÓ compensation through his employer , Professional

Electric al Systems. Also, Mr. Sheffield supplied t he Department

with the workersÓ compensation policy that Mr. Hedrington

provided to him.

34. M s . Jackson testified as to why s he included the

compensation paid to Mr. Hedrington in the penalty calculation:

Q: And so Roland Hedrington, why did you

put t hat individual down on the penalty?

A: He Ó s on there because the check images

that I reviewed had his name written on the

check images. [Mr. Sheffield] came back and

gave us a certificate of insurance for

Professional Electrical Services Î or

Systems, I did review that document. In

addition to that, I went in to CCAS to

determine whether or not if Mr. Roland had a

workersÓ comp exemption, because per statute

and rule, we cannot exempt the payments to

an individual if they do not have a workersÓ

comp exe mption, even though the company that

they work for may have a workersÓ comp

policy.

So in my review of CCAS, it was determined

that Professional Electrical did have a

valid workersÓ comp policy, but on the

exemption tab, there was only one individual

who had an exemption, and it wasnÓt

Mr. Roland. So therefore, the payments

issue d to Mr. Roland [are] considered

uninsured, because the payment was issued to

that individual and not the entity.

Q: Is Roland listed as an owner of the

company?

A: He wasnÓ t. When I did my research in

Sunbiz, I didnÓt find his name on the

employerÓs detail.

Q: And so from the records, Roland is

simply an employee of Professional

Electrical Systems, correct?

A: Yes.

Q: And so the payment that went from

[Sheffield B uild ers] in this case to

Roland did not go through the Î that

transaction was not pursuant [to] a workerÓs

compensation policy of Professional Systems,

correct?

A: Correct.

Q: Okay.

ALJ: So let me make sure I understand. So

the check in question Î or th e payment in

question to Mr. Roland Hedrington, he works

for some sort of LLC, but the check was made

payable to him as an individual?

A: Correct.

ALJ: All right. And the LLC had [a]

workersÓ compensation exemption?

A: Coverage and an exemption , yes.

ALJ: Okay. But the coverage did not apply

to Mr. Hedrington?

A: It wouldnÓt apply because the payment

was a direct payment to Mr. Hedrington, and

not the payment to Professional Electrical.

So if the payment was to Professional

Electrical, the n itÓs indicating that

Professional Electrical did the services,

and whoever that employer is, in turn, would

pay his employees, so the payments are

covered.

But because the payment document had

RolandÓs name on it, itÓs indicating itÓs a

direct transacti on between a subcontractor

and a general contractor, not the actual

entity that he works for.

ALJ: So let me ask a question. So because

a check was written to this individual,

Mr. Roland Hedrington, I guess in theory he

could have been working on his o wn accord,

and that Î and he doesnÓt have workersÓ comp

as an individual, so thatÓs why you put him

in the penalty calculation .

A: Correct.

ALJ: Okay. But if the check had been

written payable to the LLC that had

coverage, then it would not have gone to the

calculation?

A: Correct.

35. There is no dispute reg arding the mechanics behind

the DepartmentÓs calculation of the penalty. The only dispute

concerns the DepartmentÓs inc lusion of the funds paid to

Mr. Sheffield III , and Mr. Hedrington in th e penalty

calculation.

36. The Department has proven by clear and convincing

evidence that the payments from Sheffield Builders to Horace

Sheffield III, Risocani Alfredo, and Adam Chew were not covered

by workersÓ compensation coverage and that Sheffiel d Builders

should be fined $6,031.46.

3 7 . The Department has not proven by clear and convincing

evidence that Roland Hedrington was not working under the

auspices of Professional Electric al Systems when Mr. Hedrington

performed work for Sheffield Builders during the noncompliance

period. As a result, the payment to Mr. Hedrington should not

be included in the DepartmentÓs penalty calculation.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

3 8 . D O AH has jurisdict ion over the parties to and the

subject matter of this proceeding purs uant to s ection s 120.569

and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

39 . Chapter 440 is known as the ÐWorkersÓ Compensation

Law.Ñ £ 440.01, Fla. Stat.

40 . E very employer is required to secure the payment of

workers' compensation for the benefit of its employees, u nless

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 Legislature has declared that Ðthe failure of an

employer to comply with the workersÓ compensation coverage

req uirements under [chapter 440] poses an immediate danger to

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

41 . Accordingly, s ection 440.107(7)(a) states, in relevant

part:

Whenever th e department determines that

an employer who i s 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' compensation required by this

chapter . . . , such failure shall be deemed

an immediate serious danger to public

health, s afety, or welfare sufficient

to justi fy service by the department

of a stop - work o rder 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 orde r within 72 hours.

4 2 . The D epartment 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 statut e that, if ambiguous, must be construed against the

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

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

4 3 . B ecause the D epartment seeks to impose an

administrative penalty or fine against Sheffield Builders, t he

D epartment 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. 1996). Clear and

convincing evidence must make the facts "highly probable" and

pr oduce 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).

4 4 . In order to meet its burden in t he instant case , the

D epartment must demonstrate that : (a) Sheffield Builders was

required to comply with the Workers' Compensation Law ; (b) that

Sheffield Builders failed to comply with the requirements of the

Workers' Compensation Law ; and ( c) the penal ty assessed by the

D epartment is appropriate.

45. T here has been no dispute that Sheffield Builders

was re quired to comply with th e WorkersÓ Compensation Law

and that Sheffield Builders failed to do so with regard to

Risocani Alfredo and Adam Chew . There is also no dispute

that the Department correctly calculate d the portions of the

$7,801.92 fine attributable to the payme nts made to Mr. Alfredo

and Mr. Chew.

4 6 . Mr. Sheffield acknowledged during the final

hearing that Horace Sheffield III , had allowed his coverage

to lapse. Therefore, the Department correct ly included the

payments to Mr. Sheffield III , in the penalty calculation.

See § 440.10(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (providing that Ð[ i]n case a

contractor sublets any part or parts of his or her contract wo rk

to a subcontractor or subcontractors, all of the employees of

such contractor and subcontractor or subcontractors engaged on

such contract work shall be deemed to be employed in one and the

same business or establishment, and the contractor shall be

lia ble for, and shall secure, the payment of compensation to all

such employees, except to employees of a subcontractor who has

secured such payment.Ñ ) ; Fla. Admin. Code Rule 69L - 6.032(6)

(providing that Ð[i]f a contrac tor fails to obtain evidence

of workersÓ compensation insurance or evidence of a valid

Certificate of Election to Be Exempt as required 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 secur e the payment of compensation for all the

employees of the subcontractor pursuant to section 440.10(1)(b),

F.S., and if the contractor has failed to secure the payment

of c ompensation 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.

For penalty calculation purposes, the payroll for the contractor

shall also include the payroll of all uninsured subcontractors

and their employees.Ñ).

4 7 . T he Department takes the position that the payment to

Roland Hedrington should be included in the penalty calculation

because the check from Sheffield B uilders was made payable to

Mr. Hedrington rather than Professional Electrical Systems. The

Depar tment makes this argument despite the testimony from

Ms. Jackson indicating that Professional Electrical Systems had a

workersÓ compensation policy in effect.

4 8 . The fact that a check from Sheffield Builders was made

payable to Mr. Hedrington rather than to Professional Electrical

Systems does not amount to clear a nd convincing evidence that

Mr. Hedrington was not working under the auspices of Professional

Electrical Systems 2/ when he worked for Sheffield Builders d uring

the time period in question 3/ .

R ECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Find ings of Fact and Conclusions

of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial

Services, Division of WorkersÓ Compensation, enter a final order

imposing a penalty of $6,031.46 on Sheffield Builders, LLC .

DO NE AND ENT ERED this 27 th day of Ju l y , 201 8 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

G. W. CHISENHALL

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Flo rida 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 27 th day of Ju ly , 2018 .

ENDNOTE S

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

the 201 6 version of the Florida Statutes.

2/ Mr. Sheffield was under the impression during the final

hearing that Mr. Hedringto n was the owner of Professional

Electrical Systems. However, the DepartmentÓs Exhibit 15

demonstrates that Mr. Hedrington is not th e owner.

Nevertheless, that does not demo nstrate that Mr. Hedrington

was not working under the auspices of Professional Electrical

Systems when he performed work for Sheffield Builders.

3/ The DepartmentÓs Ðcoverage v s. complianceÑ argument has

not been overlooked. The Department asserted during the

final hearing and in its Proposed Recommended Order that an

injured e mployee of a subcontractor would be covered by workersÓ

compensation insurance if the sub contractor had coverage but

the general contracto r did not. The Department asserts that

a compliance issue arises if a general contractor such as

Sheffield Builders makes a check payable directly to an employee

of a subcontractor such as Professional Electrical Systems

because Sheffield ConstructionÓs Ð payment to Mr. Hedrington was

not run through Professional Electrical Ó s workersÓ compensation

coverage and no premium was taken out before Mr. Hedrington

cashed the check.Ñ However, any problems associated with

monitoring compliance with workersÓ compensa tion requirements do

not override the fact that the Department must prove its case by

clear and convincing evidence.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Jonathan Anthony Martin, Esquire

Florida Department of Financial Services

Legal Services Division

200 East Gaines Str eet

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

(eServed)

Horace B. Sheffield

Horace B. Sheffield Builders, LLC

4564 Ambervalley Drive

Tallahassee, Florida 32312

Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk

Division of Legal Services

Department of Financial Services

200 Ea st 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 s hould be filed with the agency that

will issue the Final Order in this case.