Whether Petitioner is entitled to in line of duty disability retirement as defined in Section 121.021(13), Florida Statutes. Whether the Petitioner's retirement date should be established immediately following her termination of service as a full time employee of the State of Florida. The parties had no motions or other preliminary matters to be considered prior to the presentation of evidence. Both parties stipulated that the Petitioner is entitled to disability retirement benefits as a result of total and permanent disability within the meaning of Section 121.091(4)(b), Florida Statutes. The Respondent introduced into evidence Respondent's Exhibits 1 - 4 which consisted of medical reports and other documents filed by the Petitioner pursuant to her application for retirement which are a part of her official records in the Division of Retirement. The exhibits also include copies of correspondence concerning her application with the Division of Retirement. Exhibit 24, a medical report of Dr. Jaime M. Benavides, dated August 26, 1975, was placed in the record for the first time by the Petitioner at the hearing. Neither of the parties objected to the admission of Exhibits 1 - 24. Counsel for Petitioner and Respondent made opening statements, and closing arguments. The Petitioner presented the testimony of four witnesses, including herself, at the hearing. Respondent had no witnesses. The parties stipulated that: Petitioner became an employee of Monroe County in March, 1956 and remained in that status until 1962 and also from 1963 until October 1, 1971 when she commenced employment for the State of Florida. She transferred from the State and County Officers and Employees Retirement System to the Florida Retirement System on December 1, 1970. She remained a member of the Florida Retirement System until her termination of employment on September 28, 1973, at which time she had 16.5 years creditable service under the Florida Retirement System.Petitioner should be granted permanent and total disability for in line of duty injury.

Petitioner is entitled to line of duty benefits for his disabilities

This matter arose when the claimant applied for in line of duty disability retirement and was advised of the denial of his application of in line of duty disability benefits. The claimant was advised of his right to a hearing pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, and filed a Petition for a hearing to determine whether he was entitled to disability in line of duty benefits. The matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for hearing pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.Petitioner injured on the job and entitled to line of duty disability

Prior to the hearing a short pre-hearing conference was held. It was stipulated to by the parties that Hadden was a member of the Florida Retirement System, had over 17 years of creditable service, and that Hadden could no longer perform the duties of an automotive mechanic because of his physical limitations. Hadden had applied for regular disability retirement benefits. The Division controverted Hadden's eligibility for such benefits on the basis that while Hadden could not perform the duties of an automotive mechanic that his physical condition did not prevent him from rendering useful and efficient service to the State in some other capacity calling for less strenuous activity.Petitioner should get disability retirement benefits because he cannot serve usefully in any other position due to illiteracy and physical incapacity.

In a short pre-hearing discussion it was determined that the Division of Retirement did not controvert the status of the applicant as being totally and permanently disabled; however, it did controvert whether the disability arose totally out of an in-line duty accident, although the Division of Retirement did not controvert the fact that the applicant had had an accident on duty which had resulted in some degree of physical impairment. Specifically at issue were the affects of a mastectomy and of a degenerative bone disease upon the applicant's total physical disability. It was also agreed that the applicant had no psychological overlay contributing to her disability.Petitioner showed her disability arose out of her duties and so she is entitled to line of duty benefits.

Prior to convening the hearing, a short prehearing conference was held in which it wad developed that the Division of Retirement controverted Jones' eligibility for in-line-of-duty disability retirement on the basis that Jones' disability did not arise totally from his injury suffered while a member of FRS.Petitioner entitled to and should receive disability benefits for in the line of duty injury.

Petitioner permanently injured while working/aggravated existing condition gotten at work which hadn't impaired his work. Recommended Order/Final Order: grant Petitioner line of duty benefits.

PETITIONER'S ELIGIBILITY FOR DISABILITY RETIREMENT PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 121, FLORIDA STATUTES.Petitioner injured at work but not in scope of duties entitled to retire on permanent/total disability, but not in line-of-duty retirement.

Respondent gave Florida Retirement System (FRS) benefits to Petitioner in lump sum as per her request. Petitioner has no standing to ask for monthly benefits as well.