IN THE MATTER OF BEVERLY HOSIER, INDIVIDUALLY, AND D/B/A KLEEN FREEX
No. UE-2017-11-346
Arkansas Workers Compensation
Before the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission
December 31, 2020
Hearing
before Administrative Law Judge Barbara W. Webb in Little
Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Commission’s Compliance Division appeared by and
through Patrick Neal, Compliance Division investigator, and
Honorable David Pake, Attorney-at-Law.
Employer appeared by and through Ms. Beverly Hosier, pro se.
HONORABLE BARBARA WEBB, Administrative Law Judge.
STATEMENT
OF THE CASE
Following
an investigation by the Compliance Division of the Arkansas
Workers’ Compensation Commission, the employer was
charged with violations of the Arkansas Workers Compensation
Law; specifically, failing and/or refusing to secure
workers’ compensation coverage for its employees.
Following unsuccessful efforts by the Compliance Division to
ensure coverage for the employer’s employees, and after
communication advising the employer that it was in violation
of the law, the matter was ultimately referred to this
Administrative Law Judge for a review and determination
concerning what action, if any, should be taken.
On May
8, 2019, the initial Order and Notice of Hearing was filed,
charging the employer with non-compliance of the law and
assessing the maximum statutory penalty of Ten Thousand
Dollars ($10,000.00) pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §
11-9-406. (Commission Exhibit 1). The Order provided that it
would become final twenty (20) days after the
employer’s receipt, unless a written request for a
hearing was filed with the Commission. In addition, the
employer was directed and ordered to obtain and show proof of
workers’ compensation insurance within the same twenty
(20) days, unless a written request for a hearing was filed,
at which time the employer would be permitted to appear on
June 25, 2019, and show cause, if any there be, why the
employer should not be required to obtain workers’
compensation insurance and/or pay the penalty assessed. A
written request for hearing was made by Ms. Hosier. A Motion
for Continuance was submitted by David Pake. The case was
rescheduled to July 23, 2019, and was rescheduled again to
August 27, 2019.
A
hearing was conducted on August 29, 2019, in this case.
Testimony was offered on behalf of the Compliance Division by
Mr. Patrick Neal. Beverly Hosier and Amber Tisdale testified
on behalf of the Employer. The record consists of the
transcript of the August 29, 2019, hearing, consisting of the
testimony of the witnesses, Exhibits I-IV from the Compliance
Division, and Respondent-Employer Exhibits 1-2.
By
agreement of the parties, the issues litigated at the hearing
were:
(1) Whether Kleen Freex is an Employer has a sufficient
number of employees to require her to carry workers’
compensation coverage.
(2) Whether Kleen Freex was in compliance with the Arkansas
Workers’ Compensation Act during the period of time
relevant to these proceedings
The
Respondent contends that she uses independent contractors to
perform cleaning contracts when she is not able to perform
them herself.
Beverly
Hosier testified that she is a sole proprietor. She also
testified that she is also a personal trainer and a nutrition
specialist. She does business as Kleen Freex and has been in
business since 2015. She testified that she has no employees
but uses subcontractors. She explained that she injured her
foot and so she would refer her clients to other people to
clean their homes. She identified Amber Tisdale as one (1) of
five (5) people that she would call so the client’s
work did not get behind. She provide1099’s and the
contract is verbal. She also explained that on a large
deep-cleaning job, she might call one of her friends to bring
their supplies and help her out. She has never had
workers’ compensation but has paid for her
subcontractors to apply for Certificates of Non-Coverage. She
was advised by a female employee of the Workers’
Compensation Commission about the Certificate process. She
explained that the other women bring their own supplies and
only work when she needs extra help on her existing clients.
They are paid in cash directly by the client. If the client
leaves a check, she cashes the check and pays the
subcontractor. She carried liability insurance but explained
that if the subcontractor broke a lamp, her liability
insurance did not cover them. She explained that her business
has grown and that in 2019, she might clean six (6)
residential houses and a few...
