CHARLES FOGARTY, in his capacity as Director, Rhode Island Department of Labor and Training
v.
WILLIAM GORMAN d/b/a BILLY G'S TREE SERVICE
W.C.C. 2013-02542
Rhode Island Worker Compensation
State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations Providence, SC
September 18, 2019
FINAL DECREE OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This
matter came on to be heard by the Appellate Division upon the
claim of appeal of the respondent/employer, and upon
consideration thereof, the employer's appeal is denied
and dismissed, and it is
ORDERED,
ADJUDGED, AND DECREED:
That
the findings of fact and the orders contained in a decree of
this Court entered on December 27, 2013 be, and they hereby
are, affirmed.
Nicholas
DiFilippo, Administrator.
Ferrferi, C. J., Olsson, J., Hardman, J.
DECISION
OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
OLSSON, J.
This
matter is before the Appellate Division on the employer's
claim of appeal from the trial judge's finding that the
employer, William Gorman (Gorman),1 failed to comply with a
valid Consent Order/Agreement executed by attorneys for the
parties to resolve allegations that the employer was not
covered by a valid workers' compensation insurance policy
in violation of Rhode Island General Laws § 28-36-15. Based
upon that finding, the trial judge ordered the employer to
pay a penalty in the amount of $150,000 to the Department of
Labor and Training (DLT) in accordance with the terms of the
Consent Order/Agreement. After a thorough review of the
record and consideration of the arguments put forth by the
employer in his reasons of appeal, we deny the appeal and
affirm the decision and decree of the trial judge.
A
summary of the employer's interactions with the
Workers' Compensation Court (WCC) and DLT is necessary to
understand the limited issues to be addressed by the
Appellate Division. In 2007, Edgar Velazquez
(Velazquez[)2 filed an original petition, "W.C.C.
No. 2007-05102, alleging that he sustained a laceration to
his face in an incident involving a chainsaw on March 31,
2006 while employed by Gorman, As a result of this claim, DLT
became aware that the employer was in violation of § 28-36-15
due to his failure to maintain statutorily required
workers' compensation insurance. Pursuant to that
statute, DLT has jurisdiction to enforce the insurance
requirement and assess penalties on employers who violate the
statute. While Velazquez's petition was being adjudicated
in the WCC, DLT began proceedings against Gorman, with the
intention of fining him for failing to maintain workers'
compensation insurance for the employees working for him at
Billy G's Tree Service.
Gorman
hired attorney Michael St. Pierre (St. Pierre) to represent
him before both the WCC and DLT. In that capacity, St. Pierre
began negotiations with both Velazquez's counsel and with
the counsel for the DLT in an attempt to resolve both
matters. In a letter to Gorman dated January 17, 2008, St.
Pierre explained the terms of the Consent Order/Agreement
that he had reached with DLT on Gorman's behalf and he
enclosed a copy of the document as well. See
Pet'r's Ex. 4, The Consent Order/Agreement provided
that a $150,000 fine would be imposed, but reduced to only
$500, provided Gorman satisfied all the conditions of the
agreement. These conditions included the requirement that
Gorman pay the $500 fine within ninety (90) days of the date
of the execution of the agreement, that he maintain and keep
in full force and effect workers' compensation insurance
coverage for his employees and that he pays all valid
workers' compensation claims which accrued during the
period he was not insured, including Velazquez's claim.
With regard to the Velazquez claim, St. Pierre explained that
a settlement had been reached whereby Gorman would pay
Velazquez Thirty Thousand and 00/100 ($30,000.00) Dollars
over the next ten (10) years at the rate of Three Hundred and
00/100 ($300.00) Dollars per month for each month from
February through November each year. This settlement of the
Velazquez claim would need to be approved by the WCC. Twice
in the letter St. Pierre stresses that if Gorman does not
make the required payments to Velazquez, DLT has the right to
impose the $150,000 penalty which would not be dischargeable
in bankruptcy. At the time the DLT Consent Order/Agreement
was signed, St. Pierre was authorized to act as legal counsel
for Gorman in the DLT and Velazquez matters.
Apparently,...
