12-0092. IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR A FINDING OF THE FAILURE TO INSURE WORKERS' COMPENSATION LIABILITY AND ASSESSMENT OF A CIVIL PENALTY AGAINST RHONDA SMITH and VICTOR SMITH d/b/a RandV ENTERPRISES ABC PLUMBING and ALL ALASKA CONSTRUCTION and MAINTENANCE LLC Uninsured Employer Respondents.

• Court: Alaska

Alaska Workers Compensation Decisions 2012. Workers' Compensation Board 12-0092. IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR A FINDING OF THE FAILURE TO INSURE WORKERS' COMPENSATION LIABILITY AND ASSESSMENT OF A CIVIL PENALTY AGAINST RHONDA SMITH and VICTOR SMITH d/b/a RandV ENTERPRISES ABC PLUMBING and ALL ALASKA CONSTRUCTION and MAINTENANCE LLC Uninsured Employer Respondents ALASKA WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARDP.O. Box 115512 Juneau, Alaska 99811-5512IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR A FINDING OF THE FAILURE TO INSURE WORKERS' COMPENSATION LIABILITY, AND ASSESSMENT OF A CIVIL PENALTY AGAINST, RHONDA SMITH and VICTOR SMITH, d/b/a RandV ENTERPRISES, ABC PLUMBING, and ALL ALASKA CONSTRUCTION and MAINTENANCE, LLC, Uninsured Employer, Respondents.AWCB Decision No. 12-0092Filed with AWCB Anchorage, Alaska on May 31, 2012AWCB Case No. 700003514INTERLOCUTORY DECISION AND ORDERThe January 25, 2011 petition for a finding of failure to insure for workers' compensation liability, and for civil penalty assessment, filed by the Special Investigations Unit of the Division of Workers' Compensation, State of Alaska, Department of Labor and Workforce Development (Division), was heard on May 30, 2012, in Anchorage, Alaska. Victor Smith appeared telephonically, testified, and represented Rhonda and Victor Smith, RandV Enterprises, ABC Plumbing, and All Alaska Construction and Maintenance, LLC (Employer). Christine Christensen appeared and represented the division. The record closed at the hearing's conclusion on May 30, 2012. The hearing was continued on May 30, 2012, by oral order. This decision examines and memorializes the order. ISSUE As a preliminary matter. Employer contended it was unavailable to participate in a lengthy hearing because Victor Smith was called as a witness in Anchorage Superior Court, which created an unintended and unavoidable court appearance. Employer did not want to proceed with the hearing and requested a continuance. The division did not oppose Employer's continuance request. Based upon these facts, the hearing was continued. Was the May 30, 2012 oral order continuing the hearing, because a party and a party's representative were unavailable, correct? FINDINGS OF FACT A review of the entire record establishes the following relevant facts by a preponderance of the evidence:

1) At a prehearing conference on March 14, 2012, the parties stipulated to

...