Whether at the time of his father's death, Armando Martinez, Jr., was a "dependent beneficiary" of his father, a vested member of the Florida Retirement System, so as to be entitled to his father's retirement benefits?Son of deceased member of FRS proved he was provided half of support from father at time of death so as to meet statute's definition of dependent beneficiary.
Whether the effective retirement date of Petitioner as determined by Respondent is correct.Petitioner is not entitled to have her effective retirement date moved to an earlier date, nor is she entitled to collateral estoppel.
Whether the Petitioner is entitled to receive Health Insurance Subsidy payments retroactive to July 1995, the month she began to receive retirement benefits from the Respondent as the surviving spouse of a member of the Florida Retirement System.Petitioner failed to establish entitlement to retroactive Health Insurance Subsidy payments for more than six months prior to the date she submitted her application for such benefits. Petition should be dismissed.
The issues are: (1) Whether Walter Vernon Creech (Petitioner) is entitled to purchase past service in the Florida Retirement System (FRS) for a period of service with the City of Live Oak (City), during which time he became vested in the City's local retirement plan and elected to retain those vested benefits prior to commencement of employment with the Suwannee County Sheriff's Department, and (2) whether Petitioner is entitled to variance and waiver of regulations which prohibit purchase of prior service for FRS inclusion when the member was vested at the time in a local retirement system.Petitioner cannot obtain waiver from statutory requirement; Respondent`s action did not constitute invalid rule and acted correctly in denying Petitioner`s request where Petitioner would be using same service in two retirement systems.
The issue is whether Respondent's policy with regard to Section 112.65(2), Florida Statutes, constitutes an administrative rule, and, if so, whether the rule is valid.Petitioner cannot obtain waiver from statutory requirement; Respondent`s action did not constitute invalid rule and acted correctly in denying Petitioner`s request where Petitioner would be using same service in two retirement systems.
The issue in the case is whether supplemental payments made to the Petitioner by Brevard Community College constitute creditable compensation for purposes of determining retirement benefits under the Florida Retirement System.Supplemental pay to college executive is a bonus and excluded from creditable compensation for Florida Retirement System benefit calculation.
The issue is whether to grant Petitioner's request that her deceased husband's selection under the Florida Retirement System be changed from Option 1 to Option 3.Evidence did not establish that stroke victim was unable to understand the consequence of signing his retirement papers.
Whether Petitioner, the surviving spouse of Ralph Timmerman, is entitled to receive "in line of duty" death benefits?Member`s surviving spouse established, within a reasonable degree of medical probability, causal connection between late husband`s working conditions and his death; award of "in line of duty" death benefits thus recommended.
The issue in this proceeding is whether Petitioner, as a surviving spouse, is entitled to the monthly benefits of his deceased wife pursuant to Chapter 121, Florida Statutes (1995). (All chapter and section references are to Florida Statutes (1995) unless otherwise stated.)Ineffective attempt to designate adult daughters as beneficiaries of deceased member`s monthly benefits entitles surviving spouse to monthly benefits.
Whether Petitioner is entitled to disability retirement benefits calculated as if she had reached the age of 65, irrespective of her true age.Evidence did not establish estoppel on pension calculation where representation by State was only mistatement of law.
