99-002048 Department Of Labor And Employment Security, Division Of Workers` Compensation vs. Eastern Personnel Services, Inc. Status: Closed Recommended Order on Tuesday, October 12, 1999.

Summary: Petitioner properly issued a Stop Work Order and assessed the penalties because Respondent failed to secure workers` compensation insurance.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND )

EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, DIVISION )

OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 99-2048

)

EASTERN PERSONNEL SERVICES, )

INC., )

)

Respondent. )

_________________________________)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

A formal hearing was conducted in this case by video

teleconference on August 17, 1999, before the Division of

Administrative Hearings, by its Administrative Law Judge,

Suzanne F. Hood. The Administrative Law Judge was located in

Tallahassee, Florida. The parties and witnesses were located in

Jacksonville, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: David C. Hawkins, Esquire

Department of Labor and

Employment Security

Suite 307, Hartman Building

2012 Capital Circle, Southeast

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189

For Respondent: Paul L. Day, pro se

Eastern Personnel Services, Inc.

Building Three

7373 Hodgson Memorial Drive

Savannah, Georgia 31406

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

The issues are whether Respondent violated Sections 440.10

and 440.38, Florida Statutes (1997), by not securing workers'

compensation insurance for its Florida employees; and if so,

whether Petitioner properly issued a Stop Work Order and assessed

civil penalties pursuant to Sections 440.107(5) and 440.107(7),

Florida Statutes (Supp. 1998).

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On March 2, 1999, Petitioner Department of Labor and

Employment Security, Division of Workers' Compensation

(Petitioner), issued a Stop Work Order directing Respondent

Eastern Personnel Services, Inc. (Respondent) to shut down its

operation at a construction site located on Amelia Island,

Florida. Petitioner issued the Stop Work Order due to

Respondent's failure to secure workers' compensation insurance

pursuant to Sections 440.10 and 440.38, Florida Statutes. In

conjunction with the Stop Work Order, Petitioner assessed a civil

penalty in the amount of $100 against Respondent pursuant to

Section 440.107, Florida Statutes.

On March 2, 1999, Petitioner issued a Request for Business

Records pursuant to Section 440.107, Florida Statutes. The

Request for Business Records directed Respondent to furnish

Petitioner with certain records on or before March 4, 1999.

Respondent did not comply with the request.

Petitioner issued a Notice and Penalty Assessment Order

dated March 31, 1999, assessing an administrative penalty against

Respondent in the amount of $93,492. Petitioner issued the

Notice and Penalty Assessment Order based on the amount of

Respondent's evaded workers' compensation insurance premium

pursuant to Section 440.107, Florida Statutes.

On or about April 20, 1999, Respondent filed a Petition for

Formal Hearing or Request for Review with Petitioner. Petitioner

referred Respondent's hearing request to the Division of

Administrative Hearings on May 4, 1999.

The parties filed a Joint Response to Initial Order on

May 12, 1999. On May 17, 1999, the undersigned issued a Notice

of Hearing by Video Teleconference, scheduling this matter for

formal hearing on August 17, 1999.

On June 16, 1999, Petitioner filed a Notice of Service of

Division's Request for Admissions, First Set of Interrogatories,

and of Request for Production of Documents. Respondent's

responses to these discovery requests were due on or before

July 21, 1999, pursuant to Rules 1.340(a), 1.350(b), and

1.370(a), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Respondent did not

respond to Petitioner's discovery requests.

On or about July 22, 1999, Petitioner served Respondent with

a copy of a proposed motion for order to compel discovery,

together with a cover letter. The cover letter requested

Respondent's immediate response or objection to the above-

referenced discovery requests. Petitioner received no response

to its July 22, 1999, letter.

On July 28, 1999, Petitioner filed Division's Motion for

Order to Compel Discovery. Specifically, the motion sought to

compel responses to the following: (a) Division's First Set of

Interrogatories; (b) Division's Request for Production of

Documents; and (c) Division's Request for Admissions.

On July 29, 1999, Petitioner filed notices that it intended

to take the depositions of Linda Burtchett and Stanley Benner.

Petitioner served these notices on Respondent by Federal Express,

Overnight Delivery, that same day.

The undersigned heard oral argument on Petitioner's Motion

for Order to Compel Discovery in a telephone conference on

August 3, 1999. During the conference, the undersigned directed

Respondent to respond to Petitioner's discovery requests on or

before August 6, 1999. Respondent indicated that he would

respond as directed. The undersigned also advised both parties

that they were required to exchange exhibits with each other, and

to file with the undersigned, copies of any exhibits that they

intended to present as evidence on or before August 12, 1999.

These rulings were memorialized in an Order Granting Motion to

Compel and Setting Forth Pre-hearing Instructions dated August 4,

1999.

On August 8, 1999, Petitioner took the deposition of Linda

Burtchett in Casselberry, Florida. Respondent did not make an

appearance at the deposition.

On August 10, 1999, Petitioner filed a notice that it would

take the deposition of Nora O'Connell. This notice was served on

Respondent by facsimile transmission that same day.

On August 11, 1999, Petitioner filed Division's Motion for

Order Imposing Sanctions for Discovery Violations by Eastern

Personnel Services, Inc. This motion sought sanctions against

Respondent due to its failure to furnish Petitioner with

responses to discovery requests as required by the undersigned's

order granting the above-referenced motion to compel.

Respondent's responses to Petitioner's First Set of

Interrogatories and Requests for Admissions were attached to the

Division's Motion for Order imposing Sanctions for Discovery

Violations by Eastern Personnel Services, Inc. However,

Respondent's discovery responses did not include the production

of documents pursuant to Petitioner's Request for Production of

Documents. Specifically, Respondent failed to provide Petitioner

with the following documents: (a) workers' compensation

insurance policy(s), including declarations and endorsements;

(b) payroll records; (c) proposed hearing exhibits; (d) documents

used in responding to interrogatories; (e) documents referenced

in answers to interrogatories; and (f) documents in support of

any allegation contained in the Petition for Formal Hearing.

On August 11, 1999, Petitioner took the deposition of

Stanley Benner. Mr. Benner and the court reporter were located

in Jacksonville, Florida. Petitioner and Respondent participated

in the deposition by telephone.

On August 12, 1999, Petitioner took the deposition of Nora

O'Connell. Ms. O'Connell and the court reporter were located in

Jacksonville, Florida. Petitioner and Respondent participated in

the deposition by telephone.

On August 12, 1999, Petitioner filed a Notice of Filing

Division's Exhibits, List of Exhibits, and List of Witnesses.

This notice stated, in part, that Petitioner intended to rely

upon the testimony of Linda Burtchett (via deposition), Stanley

Benner (via deposition), and Nora O'Connell (live and via

deposition). A copy of Ms. Burtchett's deposition was included

with Petitioner's pre-filed exhibits as Exhibit 9. Petitioner's

List of Exhibits indicated that Petitioner was awaiting receipt

of the deposition transcripts of Stanley Benner (Exhibit 10) and

Nora O'Connell (Exhibit 11).

On August 13, 1999, by facsimile transmission, Respondent

provided Petitioner with additional responses to Petitioner's

discovery requests. The documents produced did not include

Respondent's proposed hearing exhibits.

On August 13, 1999, Petitioner filed an Amended Notice of

Filing Exhibits, List of Exhibits, and List of Witnesses. This

amended notice stated that, in addition to the exhibits filed the

day before, Petitioner was filing copies of the deposition of

Stanley M. Benner as Exhibit 10 and the deposition of Nora

O'Connell as Exhibit 11, both of which were received by

Petitioner on August 13, 1999. The amended notice also states

that Petitioner was filing a copy of Respondent's discovery

responses as Exhibit 13.

On August 16, 1999, Petitioner filed a Second Amended Notice

of filing Division's Exhibits, List of Exhibits, and List of

Witnesses. The second amended notice stated that Petitioner was

filing a second copy of Ms. O'Connell's deposition as Exhibit 11

due to the inadvertent omission of three pages of the deposition

transcript during the photocopying process.

On August 16, 1999, Respondent furnished Petitioner with a

facsimile transmission in response to prior discovery requests.

The transmittal letter represented for the first time that

Respondent did not have employees at the Foley & Associates

construction site before the second quarter in 1998.

On August 16, 1999, Respondent furnished the undersigned and

Petitioner with copies of 6 exhibits by facsimile transmission.

Respondent's cover letter dated August 13, 1999, states that

Respondent intended to present the 6 exhibits as evidence at the

hearing. The 6 exhibits included the following: (a) a letter

dated August 9, 1999, from Stanley Benner's attorney relative to

Mr. Benner's claim against Respondent for an alleged workers'

compensation injury that occurred on November 9, 1998; (b) a

Georgia State Board of Workers' Compensation form entitled

Employer's First Report of Injury or Occupational Disease

relative to an alleged January 18, 1999, injury of Linda Rix in

Fernandina, Florida, listing Respondent as employer; (c) a

Certificate of Insurance representing that Respondent had

workers' compensation insurance in Florida, Georgia, and South

Carolina with Safeco Insurance Company of America, from

December 29, 1998, through December 29, 1999, covering employees

provided to Saxon & Associates; (d) a Notice of Class Code

Approval form dated March 2, 1999, indicating that Class Code

8227 was approved for Respondent's Safeco Insurance Company of

America policy number 7260735 and including coverage in Florida

for employees provided to Foley & Associates; (e) a Workers'

Compensation Change Endorsement, issued on March 16, 1999,

relative to Safeco Insurance Company of America policy number

WC7260735, representing that Respondent had workers' compensation

insurance in Florida effective December 29, 1998, through

December 29, 1999; and (f) a memorandum prepared by Respondent to

show the amount of its lost billing and lost gross profits since

March 2, 1999.

At the hearing on August 17, 1999, Petitioner presented the

testimony of 3 witnesses. Petitioner also offered 14 exhibits,

which were accepted into evidence.

Respondent presented the testimony of 1 witness. Respondent

also offered the above-referenced 6 exhibits, which were not

accepted in evidence.

The undersigned granted Petitioner's Renewed Motion for

Order Imposing Sanctions for Discovery Violations by Eastern

Personnel Services, Inc., ore tenus , by excluding Respondent's

exhibits for several reasons. First, Respondent failed to

provide responses to any of Petitioner's discovery requests until

after the August 3, 1999, telephone conference. Second,

Respondent failed to comply in a complete and/or timely fashion

to the undersigned's Order Granting Motion to Compel and Setting

Forth Pre-hearing Instructions. Finally, Respondent's failure to

disclose his exhibits until the day before the hearing left

Petitioner with no opportunity to question Linda Burtchett

regarding inconsistencies between her testimony, as the

authorized representative of Safeco Insurance Company of America,

and the offered exhibits.

The court reporter filed a copy of the hearing Transcript on

September 7, 1999. The parties' proposed recommended orders were

due to be filed ten days thereafter.

On September 10, 1999, the court reporter filed a copy of

Petitioner's Exhibit 14. This exhibit, which should have been

attached to the original Transcript, was Petitioner's rebuttal

evidence to Respondent's representation on August 16, 1999, that

Respondent did not have employees at the Foley & Associates

construction site before the second quarter of 1998.

On September 15, 1999, Respondent filed an ex parte letter.

Respondent's letter requested an extension of time in which to

file a proposed recommended order due to complications associated

with a forced hurricane evacuation in Savannah, Georgia.

On September 16, 1999, the undersigned issued an Order

Granting Extension of Time to File Proposed Recommended Orders.

That same day, the undersigned issued a Notice of Ex Parte

Communication, publishing Respondent's letter.

On September 21, 1999, the undersigned issued an Amended

Order Granting Extension of Time to File Proposed Recommended

Orders. Said order advised the parties that proposed recommended

orders were due to be filed on September 24, 1999.

Respondent filed its Proposed Recommended Order on

September 22, 1999. Petitioner filed its Proposed Recommended

Order on September 23, 1999.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner is the state agency that is charged with the

responsibility of enforcing the statutory requirements for

employers to provide their employees with workers' compensation

coverage.

2. Respondent is a business, located in Savannah, Georgia,

that supplies workers on a temporary basis to client businesses.

The services that Respondent provides to its client businesses

include the payment of payroll, taxes, and workers' compensation

insurance for the temporary employees.

3. American Interstate Insurance Company (AIIC) provided

Eastern Personnel Services II, Federal Employers Identification

Number (FEIN) 58-2340211, with workers' compensation insurance

from November 18, 1997, through November 18, 1998, in the state

of Georgia. AIIC's policy number 97WAGA1109996 did not provide

coverage for any of Respondent's workers in Florida. AIIC is not

authorized in Florida to write insurance for an employer with

Respondent's assigned risk classification.

4. Safeco Insurance Company of America (SICA) provided

Respondent, FEIN 58-2340211, with workers' compensation insurance

from December 29, 1998, through December 29, 1999, in the states

of Georgia and South Carolina only. SICA's policy number

WC7260735 as originally drafted, and as it existed on March 2,

1999, did not provide coverage for any workers in Florida.

5. Paul Day is Respondent's president and sole officer and

shareholder. He is also the owner of Eastern Personnel Services

II, a sole proprietorship. According to AIIC's and SICA's

insurance policies, both entities have the same FEIN.

6. The record here indicates that there is no substantive

difference between Respondent and Eastern Personnel Services II.

Respondent's testimony to the contrary is not persuasive. 1/

For all practical purposes, Respondent and Eastern Personnel

Services II were under the exclusive management and control of

Mr. Day at all relevant times.

7. Beginning as early as August 28, 1997 and continuing

through March 2, 1999, Respondent provided employees to Foley &

Associates Construction Co., Inc. (Foley) at one or more work

sites on Amelia Island, Florida. Respondent did not secure

workers' compensation insurance for these workers.

8. Stanley Benner was one of the first of Respondent's

employees to begin working at Foley's Amelia Island job site. On

November 9, 1998, Mr. Benner was injured while working for

Respondent.

9. Mr. Benner filed a workers' compensation claim against

Respondent and AIIC seeking compensation for his injuries. He

subsequently learned that AIIC did not provide workers'

compensation insurance for Respondent in Florida. Mr. Benner has

received no compensation from Respondent or any insurance carrier

for his work-related injury.

10. On March 2, 1999, Mr. Benner's attorney filed a

complaint with Petitioner regarding Respondent's lack of workers'

compensation coverage. Robert Lambert, Petitioner's investigator

immediately went to Foley's job site to investigate the

complaint.

11. Upon his arrival at the construction site, Mr. Lambert

learned that Respondent had 21 employees performing general

contract labor for Foley that day. Foley's office manager

informed Mr. Lambert that Respondent had provided Foley with

between 15 and 20 laborers per day for one year.

12. Next, Mr. Lambert called Mr. Day who provided a

certificate of insurance from SICA by facsimile transmission.

However, the certificate listed Saxon and Associates, a business

located in Georgia, as the certificate holder. It did not

reference coverage for employees provided to Foley in Florida.

13. Mr. Lambert then called Linda Burtchett of HGI, Inc.

She is an insurance agent and the authorized representative of

SICA. HGI, Inc. is the producer of SICA's policy number

WC7260735.

14. Ms. Burtchett informed Mr. Lambert that SICA's policy

number WC7260735 did not cover Respondent's employees in the

state of Florida. To her knowledge, Respondent had never

reported any wages on a Florida payroll.

15. Mr. Lambert issued a Stop Work Order dated March 2,

1999. The Stop Work Order required Respondent to immediately

cease all work at the Foley construction site. It advised

Respondent that a civil penalty in the amount of $100 would be

assessed for each day that it failed to provide the required

workers' compensation coverage.

16. Later on March 2, 1999, Respondent requested HGI, Inc.

to provide coverage for its Florida employees working at the

Foley job site under SICA's policy number WC7260735. HGI, Inc.

complied with Respondent's request. Accordingly, Petitioner

correctly assessed Respondent with a civil penalty in the amount

of $100 in conjunction with the Stop Work Order.

17. Mr. Day testified that the endorsement to the SICA

policy provided coverage for Respondent's Florida employees

retroactive to September 29, 1998. He also testified that

another of Respondent's Florida employees was injured at the

Foley construction site on January 18, 1999, and received

compensation under the SICA policy. Mr. Day's testimony is not

credited in light of Ms. Burtchett's testimony.

18. On March 2, 1999, Petitioner informally requested

Respondent to provide business records to establish the value of

its Florida payroll during the three years before Petitioner

issued the Stop Work Order. Respondent refused to provide

Petitioner with any payroll records.

19. Petitioner obtained records maintained by Foley

regarding Respondent's employment activities at the Amelia Island

job site. Foley's records showed the number of employees that

Respondent employed, the number of hours worked by each employee,

and their hourly rate of pay. Respondent admitted and Foley's

records confirmed that Respondent's payroll at the Foley

construction site was $209,249.86 between January 5, 1998 and

March 1, 1999.

20. The National Council of Compensation Insurance (NCCI)

classifies Respondent as a temporary labor service. According to

the NCCI, the employment activities conducted by Respondent's

employees at the Foley construction site have an assigned

insurance premium rate in the conservative amount of $22.34 for

each $100 of payroll. Therefore, Respondent's evaded insurance

premium on a payroll of $209,249.86 is $46,746.

21. The administrative penalty is twice the evaded premium

of $46,746 or $93,492. On March 31, Petitioner properly issued a

Notice and Penalty Assessment Order requiring Respondent to pay

an administrative penalty in the amount of $93,492.

22. Respondent's untimely discovery responses indicated

that its Florida payroll was $196,701.62 in 1998 and $65,165.36

in 1999. Petitioner could have assessed Respondent with an

administrative penalty in the amount of $115,743.26.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

23. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this

proceeding pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida

Statutes.

24. Petitioner must prove by a preponderance of the

evidence that Respondent failed to provide his Florida employees

with workers' compensation insurance and that the civil and

administrative penalties assessed are correct. Department of

Labor and Employment Security, Division of Workers' Compensation

v. Patrick Jackey, d/b/a Bert's World of Color , DOAH Case No.

98-2496 (Recommended Order December 4, 1998)(Although violations

of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, can result in a substantial

fine, which may even render an employer insolvent, the employer

nonetheless does not have a license or property interest at stake

so as to raise the standard of proof to clear and convincing

evidence).

25. Every employer is required to secure the payment of

compensation for the benefit of its employees. Sections

440.10(1)(a) and 440.38, Florida Statutes (1997).

26. Respondent is an employer as defined by Section

440.02(14), Florida Statutes (1997). Beginning as early as

August 1997 and continuing through March 2, 1999, Respondent was

engaged in activities of employment as that term is defined in

Section 440.02(15), Florida Statutes (1997).

27. Petitioner has the duty of enforcing the employer's

compliance with the requirements of the workers' compensation

law. Section 440.107(1), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1998).

28. Section 440.107(5), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1998),

states as follows:

(5) Whenever the division 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 do so, such failure shall be deemed

an immediate serious danger to public health,

safety, or welfare sufficient to justify

sever by the division of a stop-work order on

the employer, requiring the cessation of all

business operation at the place of employment

or job site. The order shall take effect

upon the date of service upon the employer,

unless the employer provides evidence

satisfactory to the division of having

secured any necessary insurance or self-

insurance and pays a civil penalty to the

division, to be deposited by the division

into the Workers' Compensation Administration

Trust Fund, in the amount of $100 per day for

each day the employer was not in compliance

with this chapter.

29. Section 440.107(7), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1998),

states as follows:

(7) In addition to any penalty, stop-work

order, or injunction, the division may assess

against any employer, who has failed to

secure the payment of compensation as

required by this chapter, a penalty in the

amount of:

(a) Twice the amount the employer would have

paid during periods it illegally failed to

secure the payment of compensation in the

preceding 3-year period based on the

employer's payroll during the preceding 3-

year period; or

(b) One thousand dollars, whichever is

greater.

Any penalty assessed under this subsection is

due within 30 days after the date on which

the employer is notified, except that, if the

division has posted a stop-work order or

obtained injunctive relief against the

employer, payment is due, in addition to

those conditions set forth in this section,

as a condition to relief from a stop-work

order or an injunction. Interest shall

accrue on amount not paid when due at the

rate of 1 percent per month.

30. Section 440.107(2), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1998)

requires employers to keep business records to enable Petitioner

to determine whether employers have complied with the workers'

compensation law. Because Respondent refused to provide those

records pursuant to Petitioner's request on March 2, 1999,

Petitioner had to base its Notice and Penalty Assessment Order on

examination of records provided by Foley.

31. Respondent's failure to have workers' compensation

insurance in place when Petitioner's investigator arrived at the

Foley construction site on March 2, 1999, violated the workers'

compensation law. Petitioner properly issued a Stop Work Order

and correctly assessed a $100 civil penalty.

32. Respondent failed to carry workers' compensation

insurance in the three years preceding March 2, 1999, during

which period Respondent had a Florida payroll of at least

$209,249. Based on that payroll, Petitioner properly issued a

Notice and Assessment of Penalty Order and assessed an

administrative penalty in the amount of $93,492. In retrospect,

Petitioner's penalty assessments are conservatively imposed.

33. It is not a defense to the issuance of the Stop Work

Order or the Notice and Penalty Assessment Order and associated

penalties, that Respondent obtained workers' compensation

coverage for its employees after Petitioner's investigator

visited the work site and correctly determined that Respondent

was not in compliance with the law. Respondent could not evade

its responsibilities under the law even if it had secured

retroactive coverage for its Florida employees.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of

law, it is

RECOMMENDED:

That Petitioner enter a final order affirming the Stop Work

Order and Notice and Penalty Assessment Order with their

associated penalties, plus any lawful interest.

DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of October, 1999, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

_________________________________ __

SUZANNE F. HOOD

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

[phone] SUNCOM 278-9675

Fax Filing [phone]

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 12th day of October, 1999.

ENDNOTE

1/ Mr. Day initially testified that Eastern Personnel Services,

Inc. (FEIN 57-1040201) provided employees to Foley prior to the

second quarter of 1998. According to Mr. Day, he created a sole

proprietorship under the name of Eastern Personnel Services II

(FEIN 58-2340211) in April 1998 and provided Foley with employees

until the stop-work order was issued in March 2, 1999. Mr. Day

claimed that Eastern Personnel Services II was incorporated in

South Carolina on April 28, 1998. Mr. Day then testified that

Eastern Personnel Services, a sole proprietorship with FEIN

57-1020401 was the first entity to provide employees to Foley in

Florida and that it was later incorporated using the FEIN

58-2340211. However, the documents related to AIIC's and SICA's

insurance policies (including the ones included with Respondent's

excluded exhibits), and the payroll records furnished by Foley,

indicate the following: (a) Eastern Personnel Services II was

insured under AIIC's policy for Georgia employees from

November 18, 1997, through November 18, 1998; (b) Eastern

Personnel Services, Inc. was insured under SICA's policy for

Georgia and South Carolina employees from December 29, 1998, to

December 29, 1999; (c) Foley paid Eastern Personnel Services,

Inc. for payroll services from December 18, 1997, to March 18,

1998; and (d) SICA added Florida as a covered state to Eastern

Personnel Services, Inc.'s policy in March 1999. The only

conclusion is that Mr. Day was operating illegally in Florida,

whether as a corporation or a sole proprietorship, and attempted

to evade responsibility for his actions using a corporate

eggshell theory.

COPIES FURNISHED:

David C. Hawkins, Esquire

Department of Labor and

Employment Security

Hatman Building, Suite 307

2012 Capital Circle, Southeast

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189

Paul L. Day, President

Eastern Personnel Services, Inc.

Building Three

7373 Hodgson Memorial Drive

Savannah, Georgia 31406

Sherri Wilkes-Cape, General Counsel

Department of Labor and

Employment Security

Hartman Building, Suite 307

2017 Capital Circle, Southeast

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189

Mary Hooks, Secretary

Department of Labor and

Employment Security

Hartman Building, Suite 303

2012 Capital Circle, Southeast

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152

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 with the agency that

will issue the Final Order in this case.