Cases

The question in this case concerned whether an employer had appropriate workers’ compensation coverage for several different employees for purposes of penalty assessment and stop work order as claimed by the Division of Workers’ Compensation.

 

Employer asserted that no coverage was required on one employee because she was a volunteer and did not qualify for workers’ compensation benefits. The employer admitted in response to a request for admission that this particular employee was employed. Court determined that this admission was not an admission that the employee was an employee for whom workers’ compensation coverage had to be provided. This particular employee was not paid for services provided to the employer and accordingly, the court determined that coverage was not required. There is no basis for a penalty assessment on this individual or for the issuance of a stop work order.

 

In regards to two other employees, the employer asserted that those employees’ payroll should not be imputed to them when they only worked in Florida for half of the period in question. In this instance, the employer refused to provide business records to the Division. By rule, such refusal requires the Division to impute missing payroll for the period requested in order to assess a penalty. Court determined in this instance, that the Division appropriately imputed income to the employees.

 

Finally, the employer challenged the Division’s use of the "roofing" classification code when calculating a penalty for not having appropriate coverage in place. Employer failed to produce any business records as required by Section 440.107(3), Florida Statutes, and Rule 69L-6.015. Accordingly, competent and substantial evidence was introduced that would support the classification given to the employer by the Division. The employer failed to produce any business records indicating that the employees in question engaged in non-roofing related activities.