20-002670 Department Of Financial Services, Division Of Workers&Apos; Compensation vs. Best Affordable Contractors, Llc Status: Closed Recommended Order on Tuesday, September 15, 2020.

Summary: Petitioner proved that Respondent failed to secure workers' compensation for it and its subcontractor. Penalty was appropriate.

P RELIMINARY S TATEMENT

On January 3, 2019, the Division issued and served a Stop - Work Order for

Specific Worksite Only, No. 19 - 002 - D1, and Order of Penalty Assessment

(collectively the “Stop - Work Order”) alleging that Respondent was not in

compliance with the workers’ compensation coverage requiremen t s of

chapter 440 . The Stop - Work Order was posted on the construction site and

provided to Vincent Marino on January 4, 2019, and ordered Respondent to

cease all business operations being conducted at 1203 Dancy Street,

Jacksonville, Florida . The Stop - Work Order set the penalty amount at two

times the amount that the employer would have paid in premiums had

workers’ compensation insurance been procured within the preceding two -

year period.

On February 1, 2019, the Division issued an Amended Order of Penalty

Assessment, which was served on Respondent on February 7, 2019.

On February 26, 2020, Respondent timely filed a request for hearing

(“Request”).

On June 3, 2020, the Division issued a 2nd Amended Order of Penalty

Assessment to Respondent, which was se rved on Respondent on June 11,

2020.

On June 11, 2020, the Request, Stop Work Order, and 2nd Amended

Order of Penalty Assessment were transmitted to DOAH for a formal administrative hearing. The final hearing was scheduled for August 4, 2020.

On July 27 , 2020, the Division filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Order of

Penalty Assessment, which indicated that the Division had prepared a 3rd

Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, reducing the penalty to $46,805.02.

The Motion was granted.

On July 31, 2020, the parties timely filed their Joint Pre - hearing

Stipulation and their respective witness and exhibit lists.

On August 3, 2020, the Division filed a Second Motion for Leave to Amend

Order of Penalty Assessment, which indicated that the Division had prepared

a 4th Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, further reducing the penalty to

$27,553.78. The Motion was granted, and this case proceeded on the 4th

Amended Order of Penalty Assessment.

The hearing convened as scheduled on August 4, 2020. At the final

hearin g, the Division presented the testimony of Deryck Gallegos, a

compliance investigator with the Division’s Bureau of Compliance; and Lynne Murcia, penalty auditor for the Division’s Bureau of Compliance . Petitioner’s

Exhibits 1 through 22, 23 (exclusive of pages 493 through 497), and 24 through 29, were received in evidence . Vincent Marino, Respondent’s

president and sole officer, testified for Respondent. Respondent’s Exhibits 1

through 3 were received in evidence.

The one - volume Transcript was filed on August 25, 2020 . The parties

timely filed their post - hearing submittals, which have been considered in the

preparation of this Recommended Order.

This proceeding is governed by the law in effect at the time of the

commission of the acts alleged to warran t imposition of a penalty. See

McCloskey v. Dep’t of Fin. Servs. , 115 S o. 3d 441 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013). Thus,

references to statutes are to Florida Statutes (2018), unless otherwise noted.

F INDINGS OF F ACT

1. On July 31, 2020, the parties filed a Joint Pre - hearing Stipulation, by

which the parties stipulated to the facts set forth in the following paragraphs

2 through 17.

Stipulated Findings

2. The Division is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory

requirement that employers secure the p ayment of workers’ compensation for

the benefit of their employees and corporate officers.

3. Respondent was engaged in business operations in Florida during the

entire period of January 4, 2017, through January 3, 2019.

4. On January 3, 2019, the Division ’s investigator, Deryck Gallegos,

commenced a workers’ compensation compliance investigation at Respondent’s work site at 1203 Dancy St., Jacksonville, Florida 32205.

5. On January 3, 2019, Respondent had a paid subcontractor,

Terry Wayne Lyons, Sr., perfo rming roofing work at 1203 Dancy St.,

Jacksonville, Florida 32205.

6. On January 3, 2019, Respondent’s subcon tractor, Terry Wayne Lyons,

Sr., had five paid employees performing roofing work at 1203 Dancy St.,

Jacksonville, Florida 32205: Terry Wayne Lyons, Sr.; Jahru Li - Ly Campbell;

Kevin Lee Hagan; Terry Wayne Lyons, Jr.; and Jonathan Wayne McCall.

7. On January 3, 2019, Respondent’s subcontractor, Terry Wayne Lyons,

Sr. , had no workers’ compensation exemptions and no workers’ compensation

insurance covera ge.

8. On January 3, 2019, Respondent had no workers’ compensation

exemptions and no workers’ compensation insurance coverage.

9. On January 3, 2019, the Division issued a Stop - Work Order for Specific

Worksite Only and Order of Penalty Assessment to Respon dent. The Division

served the Stop - Work Order for Specific Worksite Only and Order of Penalty

Assessment on Respondent by personal service on January 4, 2019.

10. The Division served a Request for Production of Business Records for

Penalty Assessment Calcu lation on Respondent on January 4, 2019.

11. On February 1, 2019, the Division issued an Amended Order of

Penalty Assessment to Respondent. The Division served the Amended Order

of Penalty Assessment on Respondent on February 7, 2019. The Amended

Order of Penalty Assessment imposed a penalty of $353,349.72.

12. On June 3, 2020, the Division issued a 2nd Amended Order of Penalty

Assessment to Respondent. The Division served the 2nd Amended Order of

Penalty Assessment on Respondent on June 11, 2020. The 2nd A mended

Order of Penalty Assessment imposed a penalty of $68,705.29.

13. On July 30, 2020, the Division served a 3rd Amended Order of Penalty

Assessment to Respondent. The 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment

imposed a penalty of $46,805.02.

14. Througho ut the penalty period, Respondent was an “employer” in the

state of Florida, as that term is defined in section 440.02(16).

15. Respondent did not obtain exemptions from workers’ compensation

insurance coverage requirements for the entries listed on the pe nalty worksheet of the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment as “Employer’s

Payroll” during the penalty period.

16. Respondent did not secure the payment of workers’ compensat ion

insurance coverage, nor did others secure the payment of workers’

compensa t ion insurance coverage , for the entries listed on the penalty

worksheet of the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment as “Employer’s

Payroll” during the periods of non - compliance listed on the penalty

worksheet.

17. The manual rates, class codes, and gros s payroll identified on the

penalty worksheet of the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment are

correct to the extent a penalty is due.

Evidentiary Findings

18. Based on business records received from Respondent, the Division has

reca lculated the asses sed penalty. The proposed penalty has been reduced to

$27,553.78. Respondent has paid $1,000.00 for the release of the Stop Work

Order, leaving a remaining penalty of $26,553.78.

19. In determining the penalty, the Division reviewed Respondent’s

business a nd financial reco rds for a period of two years, f rom January 4,

2017 , through January 3, 2019. Respondent was cooperative and forthcoming

with the Division in providing its business and financial records.

20. Penalties are calculated first by establishing the nature of the work

being performed by employees. That is done by comparing the work to

descriptions provided in the National Council of Compensation Insurance

(NCCI) SCOPES® Manual. As relevant to this proceeding, the work being performed by persons wh o were employees of Respondent was as described in

SCOPES® Manual class codes 5551 (Roof ing - All Kinds & Drivers ) ;

8227 (Construction or Erection Permanent Yard); 5213 (Concrete

Construction NOC); and 8810 (Clerical Office Employees NOC).

21. Workers’ com pensation insurance premium rates are established

based on the risk of injury associated with a particular class code. The

greater the risk of injury, the greater the premium rate to insure that risk. Work such as roofing entails a significant risk of inju ry, and the approved

manual rate is thus very high. Office and clerical work entails a very low risk

of injury, and the approved manual rate is correspondingly very low.

22. When work is performed but it is not specifically identified, e.g.,

laborer, the h ighest rated classification code for the business being audited is

assigned to the employee. In this case, the highest rated classification code applicable to Respondent is class code 5551 , for roofing.

23. The 4th Amended Order of Penalty Assessment revea ls payroll for

individuals engaged in work described in class codes as follows:

a) Anthony Wright - class code 5551

b) Donnell Eugene Johnson - class code 5551

c) Edward Tipton - class code 8227

d) Eugene Monts - class code 5213

e) James Dunlap - class code 5551

f) James Walters - class code 5551

g) Jorel Golden - class code 5551

h) Kelvin Morrison - class code 5551

i) Matthew Robinson - class code 5551

j) Vincent Marino - class code 8810

k) Jahru Li - Ly Campbell - class code 5551

l) Kevin Lee Hagan - cl ass code 5551

m) Jonathan Wayne McCall - class code 5551

n) Terry Lyons, Jr. - class code 5551

o) Terry Lyons, Sr. - class code 5551

24. Mr. Lyons, Sr. , was retained by Res pondent as a subcontractor.

Mr. Lyons , Sr. , previously held an exemption from worker s’ compensation as

an officer of his company, but it had expired on December 27, 2017.

Mr. Lyons, Sr. , was working at the 1203 Dancy Street worksite on January 3,

2019. The evidence was sufficient to establish that Mr. Lyons, Sr. , was

appropriately assigne d as class code 5551. His exemption was accepted up to

its date of expiration, so the period applicable to the penalty calculation for

Mr. Lyons, Sr. , was from December 28, 2017 , to January 3, 2019.

25. Mr. Lyons , Sr.’s employees who were working at the 1 203 Dancy

Street worksite on January 3, 2019, we re Mr. Campbell, Mr. Hagan, Mr. McCall, and Mr. Lyons, Jr. The evidence was sufficient to establish that

they were employees of Respondent’s uninsured subcontractor, and that they

were appropriately assigned as class code 5551.

26. Mr. Wright and Mr. Robinson were listed on Respondent’s Profit &

Loss Detail Sheet as “subcontract labor -- roofing.” Respondent was not able

to demonstrate that they were covered by workers’ compensation. The

evidence was sufficien t to establish that Mr. Wright and Mr. Robinson were

appropriately included in the penalty calculation, and that they were appropriately assigned as class code 5551.

27. Mr. Johnson, Mr. Dunlap, and Mr. Morrison were listed on

Respondent’s Profit & Loss De tail Sheet as “subcontract labor -- laborer.”

Respondent was not able to demonstrate that they were covered by workers’

compensation. The evidence was sufficient to establish that Mr. Johnson,

Mr. Dunlap, and Mr. Morrison were appropriately included in the penalty

calculation, and that they were appropriately assigned as the highest rated

classification code applicable to Respondent, class code 5551.

28. Mr. Tipton was listed on Respondent’s Profit & Loss Detail Sheet as

“subcontract labor -- handyman, yard work/clean up, truck detail.” Mr. Monts

was listed on Respondent’s Profit & Loss Detail Sheet as “subcontract labor --

laborer.” Ms. Murcia testified that Mr. Marin o provided information that

Mr. Monts did concrete work, rather than roofing. Respondent was not able to

demonstrate that they were covered by workers’ compensation. Mr. Marino

indicated that Mr. Tipton and Mr. Monts should have been identified as his

personal expenses, performing work at his home. However, they were

identified in Respondent’s re cords as subcontract labor, and the payments to

them were reported on Respondent’s 2017 income tax return as business

expenses. They each received multiple payments over an extended period.

The evidence was sufficient to establish that Mr. Tipton and Mr. M onts were

employees of Respondent. The evidence was s ufficient to establish that

Mr. Tipton was appropriately assigned a s class code 8227, and that

Mr. Monts was appropriately assigned as class code 5213. Nonetheless,

payments to the two were reduced by 20 percent to account for expenditures

for materials, with the remaining 80 percent constituting payroll. Fla.

Admin. Code R. 69L - 6.035(1)(i).

29. Mr. Marino was not an on - site employee of Respondent, but rather

performed administration and clerical function s for Respondent. Mr. Marino

previously had workers’ compensation, but it had been cancelled on

February 28, 2015. The evidence was sufficient to establish that Mr. Marino

was appropriately assigned as class code 8810. Mr. Marino obtained an

exemption from workers’ compensation as an officer of Respondent on

January 4, 2019.

30. The evidence established that James Walter s performed repairs to

Respondent’s truck. The evidence was no t clear and convincing that

Mr. Walters was an employee of Respondent.

31. Jorel Golden was identified solely as the payee on a single check

image. He did not appear on Respondent’s Profit & Loss Detail Sheet, and

there was no evidence as to why Mr. Golden was being paid. The evidence

was not clear and convincing that Mr. Golden was an employee of

Respondent.

32. The salaries of the employees were calculated based on Respondent’s

business records. The total gross payroll amounted to $170,139.07. Except for

the amount of payments to Mr. Walter s and Mr. Golden, that figure is

supp orted by clear and convincing evidence.

33. The penalty for Respondent’s failure to maintain workers’

compensation insurance for its employees is calculated as 2.0 times the

amount Respondent would have paid in premium s for the preceding two - year

period.

34. The NCCI periodically issues a schedule of workers’ compensation

rates per $100 in salary, which varies based on the SCOPES® Manual

classification of the business. The NCCI submits the rates to the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation, which approves the rates to be applied to the

calculation of premium s in Florida.

35. The workers’ compensation insurance premium was calculated by

multiplying one percent of the gross payroll ($17,013.91) by the approved

manual rate for each quarter (which varied depen ding on the quarterly rate),

which resulted in a calculated premium of $18,369.19. Clear and convincing

evidence supports a finding that the Division applied the correct rates in

calculating the premium.

36. The penalty was determined by multiplying the c alculated premium

by 2.0, resulting in a final penalty of $36,738.38.

37. In recognition of Respondent’s c ooperation in the investigation and the

timely submission of its business rec ords, the Division applied a 25 percent

reduction in the penalty ($9,184. 60), resulting in a total penalty of

$27,553.78.

38. The evidence established that the Division gave every benefit of the

doubt to Respondent to reduce the penalty, and its effect on Respondent, to

the extent allowed within the confines of the law and the records provided.

C ONCLUSIONS OF L AW

39. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the

subject matter and parties pursuant to sections 120.569 and 120.57(1),

Florida Statutes (2020).

40. The Division is the agency of the State of Fl orida charged, pursuant to

section 440.107(3), with the duty to:

enforce workers’ compensation coverage

requirements, including the requirement that the

employer secure the payment of workers’ compensation, and the requirement that the employer provide th e carrier with information to

accurately determine payroll and correctly assign classification codes. In addition to any other powers under this chapter, the department shall have the power to:

(a) Conduct investigations for the purpose of

ensuring emplo yer compliance.

(b) Enter and inspect any place of business at any

reasonable time for the purpose of investigating

employer compliance.

(c) Examine and copy business records.

* * *

(g) Issue stop - work orders, penalty assessment

orders, and any other orders necessary for the

administration of this section. (h) Enforce the terms of a stop - work order.

(i) Levy and pursue actions to recover penalties.

(j) Seek injunctions and other appropriate relief.

41. The Division has the burden of proof in this c ase and must show by

clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated the Workers ’

Compensation Law during the relevant period and that the penalty

assessments are correct. § 120.57(1)(j), Fla. Stat.; Dep’t of Banking & Fin.,

Div. of Sec. & Inv. Prot . v. Osborne Stern & Co. , 670 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1996);

Ferris v. Turlington , 510 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1987); Pou v. Dep’t of Ins. , 707 So.

2d 941 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). Clear and convincing evidence “requires more

proof than a ‘preponderance of the evidence’ but l ess than ‘beyond and to the

exclusion of a reasonable doubt.’” In re Graziano , 696 So. 2d 744, 753 (Fla.

1997).

42. It is well - established that the Department has “broad powers to

investigate employers, to halt any work where employers are not complying,

and to assess penalties on those who do not comply.” Twin City Roofing

Constr. Specialists, Inc. v. Dep't of Fin. Servs . , 969 So. 2d 563, 566 (Fla. 1st

DCA 2007).

43. Pursuant to sections 440.10 and 440.38, every “ employer ” is required

to secure the payme nt of workers' compensation for the benefit of its

employees unless exempted or excluded under chapter 440. Strict compliance with the Workers ’ Compensation Law is, therefore, required by the employer.

See, e.g., Summit Claims Mgmt. v. Lawyers Express Truc king, Inc. , 913 So. 2d

1182, 1185 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); C&L Trucking v. Corbitt , 546 So. 2d 1185,

1186 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989).

44. Section 440.02(17) defines “employment” to include “any service

performed by an employee for the person employing him or her,” an d includes

“with respect to the construction industry, all private employment in which

one or more employees are employed by the same employer.”

45. Section 440.02(8) defines “construction industry” to include “ for - profit

activities involving any building, clearing, filling, excavation, or substantial

improvement in the size or use of any structure or the appearance of any

land.”

46. Section 440.02(16)(a) defines “employer ” to include “every person

carrying on any employment.”

47. Section 440.02(15)(a) de fines “employee” to include “any person who

receives remuneration from an employer for the performance of any work or

service while engaged in any employment.”

48. Section 440.02(15)(c)2. also defines “employee” to include :

All persons who are being paid b y a construction

contractor as a subcontractor, unless the

subcontractor has validly elected an exemption as

permitted by this chapter, or has otherwise secured the payment of compensation coverage as a subcontractor, consistent with s. 440.10, for work pe rformed by or as a subcontractor.

49. Section 440.10 (1)(b) provides that:

In case a contractor sublets any part or parts of his

or her contract work to a subcontractor or

subcontractors, all of the employees of such contractor and subcontractor or subcont ractors

engaged on such contract work shall be deemed to be employed in one and the same business or

establishment, and the contractor shall be liable

for, and shall secure, the payment of compensation to all such employees, except to employees of a subcon tractor who has secured such payment.

50. Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L - 6.015(8)(c) provides, in

pertinent part, that “[e]very contractor shall maintain evidence of workers’

compensation insurance of every subcontractor.…”

51. Rule 69L - 6.032(6) prov ides, in pertinent part, that :

If a contractor fails to obtain evidence of workers’

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 compensatio n 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 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 shal l also

include the payroll of all uninsured subcontractors and their employees.

52. The record contains clear and convincing evidence that Respondent

was an “ employer ” for workers ’ compensation purposes because it was doing

business in the construction i ndustry. The record is equally clear that the

persons at the 1203 Dancy Street site, and those listed in Respondent’s

business records as subcontract labor, were not covered by workers’

compensation insurance, making Respondent liable for the payment of

co mpensation to all such employees. See, e.g., VMS, Inc. v. Alfonso , 147 So. 3d

1071 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). As such, Respondent was required to secure and

maintain compensation for the employees listed in the 4th Amended Order of

Penalty Assessment, with the ex ception of Mr. Walter s and Mr. Golden,

pursuant to section 440.10.

53. Wages or salaries paid to employees by , or on behalf of , the employer

are considered part of an employer’s payroll. Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L -

6.035(1)(a).

54. Section 440.107(7)(d)1. pro vides that:

In addition to any penalty, stop - 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 times the amount the employer wo uld 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 2 - year period or $1,000,

whichever is gre ater.

55. Penalties are calculated by applying the formula established in the

Penalty Calculation Worksheet adopted in rule 69L - 6.027. Pursuant to the

formula, the penalty is calculated by multiplying one percent of the

employer’s uninsured gross payroll for the two years prior to incident by the

approved manual rate for each quarter, which results in a calculated avoided

workers’ compensation insurance premium for that two year period. That

premium is multiplied by 2.0, a figure set by the Legislature, t o determine a

final penalty. A credit of 25 percent may be applied against the final penalty

if the employer provided its business records to the Division during the

course of the investigation.

NCCI Classification Codes

56. Section 440.02(8) provides tha t the Division “may, by rule, establish

standard industrial classification codes and definitions thereof which meet

the criteria of the term ‘construction industry’ as set forth in this section.”

57. Rule 69L - 6.021(1) provides, in pertinent part, that:

The Division adopts the classification codes 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 (2001 ed.),

including updates through January 1, 2011.

58. Rule 69L - 6.021(3) provides that:

(3) The Division adopts the definitions published by

NCCI, SCOPES® of Basic Manual Classifications

(February 2011), including updates through

Febru ary 1, 2011, that correspond to the

classification codes and descriptions 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 and can be obtained by writing to the Division of Workers’ Compensation, Bureau of Compliance, 200 East

Gaines Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 4228.

59. Rule 69L - 6.035(4) provides that:

For purp oses of calculating a penalty pursuant to

subparagraph 440.107(7)(d)1., F.S., the payroll for every employee, corporate officer, sole proprietor,

and partner will be assigned to the workers’ compensation classification code that corresponds

to their respec tive job duties as evidenced in the

employer’s business records, or, if the business

records are not sufficient for such assignment, to the highest rated workers’ compensation classification code associated with any employee’s

activities based on the inves tigator’s actual

physical observation of work activities.

60. The 4th Amended Order of Penalty Assessment charged Respondent

with failing to obtain workers’ compensation insurance coverage for

employees engaged in work described in classification codes 55 51 (Roofing -

All Kinds & Drivers ) ; 8227 (Construction or Erection Permanent Yard); and

5213 (Concrete Construction NOC). Each of those codes is listed in rule s 69L -

6.021(2) and 69L - 6 .031(6)(b). The 4th Amended Order of Penalty Assessment

also charges Resp ondent with failing to obtain workers’ compensation

insurance coverage for employees engaged in work described in classification

code 8810 (Clerical Office Employees NO C). That code is listed in rule 69L -

6 .031(6)(c). The Division established, by clear and convincing evidence, that it

applied the correct classification codes to the employees listed in the 4th

Amended Order of Penalty Assessment.

Approved Manual Rates

61. Section 440.10(1)(g) provides, in pertinent part, that:

Subject to s. 440.38, any emplo yer who has

employees engaged in work in this state shall

obtain a Florida policy or endorsement for such employees which utilizes Florida class codes, rates, rules, and manuals that are in compliance with and

approved under the provisions of this chapter and

the Florida Insurance Code.

62. Section 627.091(1), Florida Statutes, provides, in pertinent part, that:

(1) As to workers’ compensation and employer’s

liability insurances, every insurer shall file with the [Office of Insurance Regulation] every m anual

of classifications, rules, and rates, every rating

plan, and every modification of any of the foregoing

which it proposes to use. …

63. Florida Administrative Code Rule 69O - 189.016(2) provides, in

pertinent part, that:

Any insurer authorized to tra nsact workers’

compensation and employer’s liability insurance in

Florida shall file with the Office [of Insurance

Regulation] every manual of classifications, rules,

rates, rating plans, deviations and every modification of any of the foregoing, which it proposes to use. … No insurer shall use any workers’ compensation and employer’s liability

classification, rule, rate or rating plan unless it has

been filed with the Office [of Insurance Regulation] and the filing has been affirmatively approved.

64. The re was no dispute that the Office of Insurance Regulation approved

the rates that were applied by the Division in this case.

65. The Division established, by clear and convincing evidence, that it

applied the correct approved manual rates to Respondent’s p ayroll in

calculating the proposed penalty listed in the 4th Amended Order of Penalty

Assessment.

66. The Division correctly applied a 25 percent credit against the

calculated penalty in recognition of Respondent’s timely submission of its

business recor ds during the course of the investigation.

Conclusion

67. Based on the foregoing, the Division proved, by clear and convincing

evidence, that Respondent is liable for payment of a penalty in the amount of

$27,553.78, subject to a recalculation upon the su btraction of payments made

to Mr. Walter s and Mr. Golden from Respondent’s payroll, for its failure to

secure and maintain workers’ compensation insurance for its employees and

its subcontracted labor as set forth in the 4th Amended Order of Penalty Assess ment.

R ECOMMENDATION

Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it

is

R ECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of

Workers’ Compensation enter a final order assessing a penalty of $27,553.78,

against Resp ondent, Best Affordable Contractors, LLC, for its failure to

secure and maintain required workers’ compensation insurance for its

employees and subcontracted labor, subject to recalculation as provided

herein, and subject to Respondent’s previous payment o f $1,000.00.

D ONE A ND E NTERED this 15th day of September , 2020 , in Tallahassee,

Leon County, Florida.

E. G ARY E ARLY

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 30 60

(850) 488 - 9675

Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 15th day of September , 2020 .

C OPIES F URNISHED :

V incent M arino

Best Affordable Contractors, LLC

1348 Clements Woods Lan e

Jacksonville, Florida 32211

(eServed)

Leon Melnicoff, Esquire Department of Financial Services

200 East Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 4229

(eServed)

Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk

Division of Legal Services

Department of Financial Serv ices

200 East Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0390

(eServed)

N OTICE OF R IGHT T O S UBMIT E XCEPTIONS

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.