Judges: STEPHEN F. DEAN
Agency: Department of Management Services
Latest Update: Mar. 08, 1978
Summary: Matters of contract law do not mean that the application for retirement disability benefits cannot be amended.
77-0982.PDFSTATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
HERMAN H. WILLIAMS, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 77-982
)
DIVISION OF RETIREMENT, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
This case was heard on September 15, 1977, in the Conference Room of the law offices of Eric Wagner located at 307 N.W. Third Street, Ocala, Florida, by Stephen F. Dean, assigned Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings. This case was presented on the petition filed by Herman Williams seeking a hearing on his application for disability in-line-of-duty retirement and for the award of in-line-of-duty disability benefits. It was admitted for the purposes of this hearing that Williams is totally and permanently disabled.
Evidence was presented by Herman Williams concerning his injury on the job, the nature of that injury, and the resultant disability. Evidence was presented by the Division of Retirement concerning the nature of William's injury on the job. The issues arriving out of the hearing were: Whether Herman Williams may file an amended or second application for disability in-line-of- duty retirement, and whether Herman Williams suffered an injury arising out of and in the actual performance of duty required by his employment?
APPEARANCES
For Respondent: E. Douglas Spangler, Jr., Esquire For Petitioner: Herman Williams
Eric E. Wagner, Esquire
John W. Chalkley, III, Esquire FINDINGS OF FACT
Herman Williams was an employee of the Department of Transportation and a member of the Florida Retirement System. The Division of Retirement approved payment of regular disability benefits to Herman Williams. Herman Williams is currently receiving and accepting these benefits.
Herman Williams is an illiterate Seminole Indian, 62 years of age. Williams' duties with the Department of Transportation were driving a mowing tractor and cleaning out roadside ditches. Williams worked for the Department of Transportation approximately 21 years 11 months prior to being, placed on the retired roles.
On May 1, 1975, Williams was driving his tractor in the course of his regular employment the Department of Transportation when the power steering of the tractor malfunctioned causing the front wheels to swerve violently, wrenching the steering wheel in Williams' hands and nearly throwing him from the tractor. Repairs had to be made to Williams' tractor by a Department of Transportation mechanic because the tractor was inoperative. The mechanic discovered a loose nut in the power steering assembly when he exchanged the power steering unit in Williams' tractor with another from the maintenance yard. When the new unit was installed in Williams' tractor it functioned normally. When the power steering from Williams' tractor was installed in the other tractor, it also functioned normally. The mechanic stated that the loose nut which he had discovered could cause the tractor to swerve violently in the manner Williams' had described.
On the afternoon of May 1, 1975, Williams reported this instant to his supervisor, David McQuaig. Mr. McQuaig inquired as to any injuries to Williams and the tractor. Williams reported to McQuaig that the tractor had not been harmed and that he was only sore and stiff. No report of injury was prepared by McQuaig whose duty it was to file such reports.
Williams experienced increasingly severe pain but continued to work until May 15, 1975, when he sought medical treatment from Dr. David Albritton.
Dr. Albritton's initial examination and diagnosis of Williams indicated that he was suffering from hypertension and bursitis of the left shoulder. He prescribed Serapes tablets for Williams' hypertension and injected Williams' shoulder with Aristocort and Corbocain, in addition to prescribing sterazolidin. On Williams' third visit to Dr. Albritton Williams told Dr. Albritton about the tractor incident. Dr. Albritton's final diagnosis of Williams' complaints were bursitis of the left shoulder, intercostal neuritis, hypertension and labyrinthitis. The hypertension was controlled by the prescribed medication and Dr. Albritton did not feel that it was the result of the job related injury.
The labyrinthitis resulted in Williams being dizzy and experiencing blackouts. Dr. Albritton did not feel this condition was related to Williams' injury.
However, Dr. Albritton did feel that the bursitis and intercostal neuritis were the result of the tractor incident and the injuries sustained by Williams in that incident. Dr. Albritton stated that Williams could not work because of the intercostal neuritis, bursitis, and the results of the labyrinthitis, any of which would have prevented Williams from performing his job related duties. Dr. Albritton had not completed as complete a diagnostic study as he would have desired because Williams lacked hospitalization insurance and the money to pay for extensive diagnostic testing.
In February of 1976, Williams sought treatment of his neck and shoulder from Dr. George Ferre. Dr. Ferre was an associate of Dr. Martin Freed, who continued to treat Williams after Dr. Ferre entered military service. Based upon the records of Dr. Ferre's treatment and his personal examination and treatment of Williams, Dr. Freed diagnosed Williams condition as degenerative pathology of the inter-vertebral spaces in the cervical spine. Dr. Freed concluded that this pathology pre-existed any injury in May of 1975, but that the injury described by Williams had aggravated this condition causing Williams' problems. Dr. Freed stated that the immediate pain experienced by Williams was consistent with trauma to the nerve roots in the area between vertebrae C-6 and C-7. It was Dr. Freed's medical opinion that Williams' condition was the result of the injury received in the tractor incident. Dr. Freed did not find the onset of severe pain unusual because the onset of severe pain is variable. Dr. Freed stated that Williams' condition prevented him from working.
Dr. Frank Wilkerson, Jr., examined Williams in conjunction with a physical examination submitted with Williams' application for disability retirement. Dr. Wilkerson's report and its findings are almost identical to that of his partner, Dr. Albritton. However, Dr. Wilkerson's report would appear to indicate that the tractor incident occurred at Williams' home. Considering the fact that Dr. Wilkerson was not Williams' primary physician, the consistency of Dr. Albritton's and Dr. Freed's reports and the mechanics' recollection of the incident the statement that the incident occurred at Williams' home must be disregarded.
Williams' condition did not materially improve after seeking medical treatment by Dr. Albritton. Williams remained on sick leave until August 11, 1975, when it was exhausted. Williams then took annual leave from August 12, 1975 until September 23, 1975, when his retirement became effective. When the Petitioner's sick leave was exhausted, he was contacted by his supervisor in the Department of Transportation. He suggested that Williams could retire on This letter was read to Williams by his son, Eddie, because Williams is illiterate. Retirement application forms were provided Williams by the Department of Transportation. The physician report forms were completed by Dr. Albritton and Dr. Wilkerson. The statement of disability by employer form was completed by Williams' supervisor, David A. Young, Maintenance Engineer, for the Department of Transportation.
Young stated that he completed the Statement of Disability by employer, indicating that the application was for regular disability benefits because he had determined that no workman's compensation claim had been made by Williams and because Dr. Wilkerson's medical report had stated that the injuries occurred at Williams' home. The determination that the application was for regular disability benefits was solely Young' s.
The Application for Disability Retirement signed by Williams was prepared by personnel at the Department of Transportation District Office. This form was signed by Herman Williams; however, this form does not make provision for the member to state the nature of the disability benefits sought.
Eddie Williams, son of Herman Williams, took his father to sign the forms at the Department of Transportation office. These forms were not explained to Williams, nor did Eddie Williams read them. Herman Williams stated that he was unaware that an employee could retire for a disability unrelated to his employment. Eddie Williams was also unaware that such a benefit existed. Herman Williams stated he sought disability benefits based upon his injury on the job. Disability retirement was not discussed between Herman Williams and David Young.
Based upon the application submitted in his behalf, the Division of Retirement made a determination that Williams was entitled to regular disability benefits.
Williams was unaware that he was not receiving the in-line-of-duty benefits until his son inquired as to how much money he was receiving. When he was advised, he told his father that it appeared to be too little money. At this point Eddie Williams discovered that the application had been for regular disability.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A member of the Florida Retirement System may receive disability retirement benefits if it is determined by the administrator that the member is totally and permanently disabled from rendering useful and efficient service as an officer or employee. See Section 121.091(4)(b) , Florida Statutes. This determination has been made.
To be entitled to disability in-line-of-duty retire-ment benefits a member must be totally and permanently disabled by virtue of an injury or illness arising out of and in the actual performance of duties required by a member's employment during his regularly scheduled working hours or irregular working hours as required by the employer. The foregoing facts demonstrate that an injury did occur to Williams while in the actual performance of his duties as required by his employment during his regularly scheduled working' hours. In the opinion of his treating physicians, this injury aggravated a preexisting condition to such a degree that Williams is unable to perform the duties of his employment. Therefore, Williams' injury and resulting disability arose out of and in the course of the actual performance of his duties as required by his employment during his regularly scheduled working hours.
The Division of Retirement has argued that it lacks the authority to consider a second or amended application for retirement after an initial application has been approved. The Division of Retirement bases this argument on two theories, first, that it lacks statutory authority to consider a second or amended application; and, two, that matters affecting a member's benefits are fixed as of the time the application is accepted and a contract completed at the time the retiree accepts and cashes his first retirement warrant.
The administrator of the Florida Retirement System is granted statutory authority to administer the Florida retirement System, and Chapter 121 makes provision for the application for an approval of disability retirement. That statutory grant of authority is sufficient for the administrator, in appropriate circumstances, to receive and consider amended or subsequent applications for disability retirement. Whether the administrator accepts or rejects such applications is dependent upon the factual situation surrounding the submission of such applications. As such, they are an appropriate subject for consideration under the provisions of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, since they affect the substantial interests of an individual.
The Division of Retirement argues that in matters respecting Williams' benefits, an application is accepted and a contract completed at the time the retiree accepts and cashes his first retirement warrant. The cases of Jacksonville Beach v. State, 151 So.2d 430 (Fla. 1963) and Arnow v. Williams,
343 So.2d, 1309 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) are cited for this principle. The case of City of Jacksonville Beach v. State, supra, has no application to the instant case. The finding in this case is that the right of a retired public employee or his contingent beneficiary to a specific percentage of his salary earned while on active service vest at the time of his retirement and that subsequent legislation may not affect a right which has already vested in the member of a retirement plan. The issue presented in this cause is not whether Williams' has a vested right in the retirement plan.
Similarly, the case of Arnow v. Williams, supra, is not applicable to the instant case. Arnow specifically addresses an employee's right to alter his election of the options provided for receipt of his retirement benefit. Specifically, in Arnow, supra, a retiree requested the administrator of the
retirement system that in the event of his prior death, his former wife who had been his wife at the time of his retirement, be paid the monthly benefits under the option which he had originally selected when he retired. This request was denied because the benefits could not be paid to a former spouse. The administrators of the retirement system had also held on prior occasions that retirement benefits could not be paid to a surviving spouse to whom a retiree was not married at the time of his retirement and election of the option. After discussing at length the fact that benefits to surviving spouse are computed based upon the retiree and his spouse's life expectancy at the time of his retirement, the court concluded that benefits could not be payable to a surviving former spouse since the statute specifically designates surviving spouse. However, recognizing the fact that the retiree is deprived of a benefit which is vested if the surviving spouse's option is not paid to the former surviving spouse or the spouse to whom the individual was married at the time of his retirement, the court concluded that benefits under the option would be paid to the surviving spouse, to whom the individual was not married at the time of his retirement, based upon the original actuarial analysis of the retiree's and his former spouse's life expectancy. In the instant case, Williams does not see, to alter any option which he may have been entitled to make at the time of his retirement.
It is, however, clearly the law of the State of Florida that the relationships existing within a retirement system are contractual. The issue presented in this case Is whether an individual who Is illiterate should be bound to a contract which was not read to him, nor its contents fully stated to him, when there is evidence that he did not intend to consent to its tenor and effect and when he took no benefit from it nor ratified it.
The 1977 Supplement to 7 Fla. Jur. 17 indicates that the present rule regarding the execution of contracts by illiterates is that such a person, in failing to have the contract read to them by some reliable person is guilty of such gross negligence as to estop the individual from avoiding the contract on the grounds that he was ignorant of its contents. See Sutton v. Crane, 101 So.2d 323 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1958). In Sutton, supra, the court cites 12 Am. Jur.
, Contracts, Section 137. This subject matter is addressed in 17 Am. Jur. 2d Section 149 et seq. The rule stated in Sutton, supra, is qualified in 17 Am.
Jur. 2nd Section 149 as follows:
"Where, however, the circumstances are such that the failure to read is excusable, the signer whether literate or illiterate, is not precluded from attacking the validity of the agreement.
An agreement signed without negligence, under
the belief that it is an instrument of a different character, may be avoided, especially if the signing is induced by the graud or imposition
of the other party. The nature of the trans- action may be such that the person accepting
the document may suppose, not unreasonably, that the document contains no terms at all, but is a mere acknowledgement of an agreement not intended to be varied by special terms. If the conditions were fraudulently printed in such a manner as to mislead the person accepting the document, they are not binding. Moreover, if, without being fraudulent, the document is misleading and does actually mislead the person who is taken it, it
is not binding. It has been suggested that conditions unreasonable in themselves or irrelevant to the
main purpose of the contract have the same effect. It has been held that a party should not be bound by clauses printed on the reverse side of a contract unless it is established that they were properly called to his attention and that he assented to them."
While the relationship of the parties in a retirement system and their rights are governed under the laws applicable to contracts, it is difficult to state that the multipage application for retirement and the circumstances of submission of such application are such that an individual, particularly an illiterate, would consider it a contract and take care to protect his interests. Factually, the circumstances of this case are that Williams did not understand there were two forms of disability benefit. Further, the nature of the disability benefits were not explained to him by his supervisor, who did have knowledge of the difference and who had made the election for regular disability benefits. Finally, the nature of retirement forms themselves are such that the form completed by the applicant does not contain a designation of the type of benefit sought. As stated above, Section 148, 17 Am. Jur. 2d, indicates that conditions printed on the reverse side of the contract should not be binding on a party unless it is established that they were properly called to the party's attention and that he consented to them. Referencing Exhibit 1, the Application For Disability Retirement prepared by personnel of the Department of Transportation and signed by Herman Williams does not contain any designation of the type of benefit sought. The Statement of Disability by Employer completed and signed by D. A. Young does indicate that the individual is applying for regular disability benefits. This form does not bear the signature of Herman Williams nor is any provision made in the form for the signature of the applicant. Young stated he made the election but did not discuss it with Williams. The signature of Herman Williams is affixed to the two physician reports accompanying the application; however, it merely authorized the position to release information concerning his health to the Florida Retirement System.
While Williams did accept the regular disability checks he did not know that it' was less than the amount to which he was entitled until his son advised him after looking into the matter. Thereafter, his continued acceptance is understandable as this is a major source of his income.
Therefore, based upon the circumstances of the transaction, the facts surrounding Williams' execution of the application, the testimony of Young that he made the election of benefit sought, and the format of the forms themselves it is clear that this constitutes an exception to the rule stated in Sutton, supra. Furthermore, the foregoing presents a factual situation in which consideration of a second or amended application for retirement would be appropriate by the administrator of the Florida Retirement System.
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer
RECOMMENDS:
That the administrator permit the applicant to file an amended application for disability in-line-of-duty retirement, and, further, that said application be approved.
DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of December, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida.
STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
(904) 488-9675
COPIES FURNISHED:
J. W. Chalkley, III, Esquire Post Office Box 1793
Ocala, Florida 32670
Douglas Spangler, Jr., Esquire Asst. Division Attorney Division of Retirement
530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER
=================================================================
STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF RETIREMENT
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
HERMAN H. WILLIAMS,
Petitioner,
vs. CASE NO. 77-982
STATE OF FLORIDA, DIVISION OF RETIREMENT,
Respondent.
/
FINAL AGENCY ORDER
A petition for formal proceedings having been duly filed, and a request for hearing officer having been duly made, a hearing was held in the above-styled cause pursuant to the provisions of Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, before the Honorable Stephen F. Dean, Hearing Officer, in Ocala, Florida, on September 15, 1977.
The Petitioner requested relief from the Division's determination that Petitioner was not entitled to resubmit an application for disability retirement requesting in-line-of-duty disability retirement benefits because he had previously applied for and accepted regular disability retirement. The purpose of the hearing was to determine the factual basis for Petitioner's claim that he should be allowed to apply for in-line-of-duty disability retirement benefits.
APPEARANCES AT THE HEARING:
Eric E. Wagner, Esquire
J. W. Chalkey, III, Esquire
Law Offices of Eric E. Wagner, P.A. Post Office Box 1763
Ocala, Florida 32670 For the Petitioner
E. Douglas Spangler, Jr., Esquire Assistant Division Attorney Division of Retirement
Cedars Executive Center 2639 North Monroe Street Suite 207C-Box 81
Tallahassee, Florida 32303 For the Respondent
The Hearing Officer entered his Recommended Order on December 8, 1977, in which he sustained Petitioner's assertion and concluded, on the basis of the findings made as a result of the hearing, that Petitioner should be entitled to resubmit his application and request in-line-of-duty disability benefits. In addition to this determination, the Hearing Officer found that Petitioner was in fact entitled to in-line-of-duty disability retirement benefits.
In making this latter conclusion, both as a matter of fact and of law, the Hearing Officer went beyond his scope of authority. As will be developed more fully herein, the Hearing Officer was without jurisdiction to consider the issue of whether Petitioner was in fact entitled to the in-line-of-duty benefits.
Therefore, so much of the recommended order as purports to address this issue is of no effect, being the result of a hearing that did not comply with the essential requirements of law.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Division of Retirement will make no Findings of Fact relating to whether Petitioner's disability was in-line-of-duty. Accordingly, for the reasons mentioned previously, all findings contained in paragraphs 5, 6, 7, and 8, of the recommended order are rejected.
However, the Division accepts the remaining Findings of Fact contained in the recommended order. As taken from the order these findings are:
Herman Williams was an employee of the Department of Transportation and a member of the Florida Retirement System. The Division of Retirement approved payment of regular disability benefits to Herman Williams. Herman Williams is currently receiving and accepting these benefits.
Herman Williams is an illiterate Seminole Indian, 62 years of age. Williams' duties with the Department of Transportation were driving a mowing tractor and cleaning out roadside ditches. Williams worked for the Department of Transportation approximately 21 years 11 months prior to being placed on the retired roles [sic].
On May 1, 1975, Williams was driving his tractor in the course of his regular employment at the Department of Transportation when the power steering of the tractor malfunctioned causing the front wheels to swerve violently, wrenching the steering wheel in Williams' hands and nearly throwing him from the tractor. Repairs had to be made to Williams' tractor by a Department of Transportation mechanic because the tractor was inoperative. The mechanic discovered a loose nut in the power steering assembly when he exchanged the power steering unit in Williams' tractor with another from the maintenance yard. When the new unit was installed in Williams's tractor it functioned normally. When the power steering from Williams' tractor was installed in the other tractor, it also functioned normally. The mechanic stated that the loose nut which he had discovered could cause the tractor to swerve violently in the manner Williams' had described.
On the afternoon of May 1, 1975, Williams reported this instant [sic] to his supervisor, David McQuaig. Mr. McQuaig inquired as to any injuries to Williams and the tractor. Williams reported to McQuaig that the tractor had not been harmed and that he was only sore and stiff. No report of injury was prepared by McQuaig whose duty it was to file such reports.
Williams' condition did not materially improve after seeking medical treatment by Dr. Albritton. Williams remained on sick leave until August 11, 1975, when it was exhausted. Williams then took annual leave from August 12, 1975 until September 23, 19975, when his retirement became effective. When the Petitioner's sick leave was exhausted, he was contacted by his supervisor in the Department of Transportation. He suggested that Williams could retire on disability if two physicians would state that he was disabled. This letter was read to Williams by his son, Eddie, because Williams is illiterate. Retirement application forms were provided Williams by the Department of Transportation. The physician report forms were completed by Dr. Albritton and Dr. Wilkerson. The statement of disability by employer form was completed by Williams' supervisor, David A. Young, Maintenance Engineer, for the Department of Transportation.
Young stated that he completed the Statement of Disability by Employer, indicating that the application was for regular disability benefits because he had determined that no workman's compensation claim had been made by Williams and because Dr. Wilkerson's medical report had stated that the injuries occurred at Williams's home. The determination that the application was for regular disability benefits was solely Young's.
The Application for Disability Retirement signed by Williams was prepared by personnel at the Department of Transportation District Office. This form was signed by Herman Williams; however, this form does not make provision for the member to state the nature of the disability benefits sought.
Eddie Williams, son of Herman Williams, took his father to sign the forms at the Department of Transportation office. These forms were not explained to Williams, nor did Eddie Williams read them. Herman Williams was also unaware that such a benefit existed. Herman Williams stated he sought disability benefits based upon his injury on the job. Disability retirement was not discussed between Herman Williams and David Young.
Based upon the application submitted in his behalf, the Division of Retirement made a determination that Williams was entitled to regular disability benefits.
Williams was unaware that he was not receiving the in-line-of-duty benefits until his son inquired as to how much money he was receiving. When he was advised, he told his father that it appeared to be too little money. At this point Eddie Williams discovered that the application had been for regular disability.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Hearing Officer committed error when he received evidence on and considered the issue of whether the Petitioner was, in fact and as a matter of law, entitled to in-line-of-duty disability retirement benefits. As such he was not acting in accordance with the essential requirements of law.
Petitioner had not submitted an application for such benefits to the Division. The purpose of the hearing was to determine whether any factual basis existed which would allow the Division the opportunity to consider Petitioner's application form as in-line-of-duty. The Division has not previously considered any evidence relative to the merits of this claim. Despite this, the Hearing Officer accepted evidence, over the Division's strongest objections, purporting
to show Petitioner's disability did in fact arise out of and occur in the actual performance of duty.
It was clearly premature to consider this issue since no determination affecting Petitioner's substantial interest thereon has been made. The issue was not fairly or properly raised by the petition for hearing. Consequently, it was not intended, nor would it have been intended, that the Hearing Officer decide the issue. Jurisdiction to finally consider such issues is clearly vested with the State Retirement Commission. That Commission cannot act until the Division has considered the application. Section 121.23, Florida Statutes.
The scope of the Hearing Officer's authority was to make findings of fact and recommendations concerning Petitioner's right to submit a claim for in- line-of-duty benefits in light of his application for and acceptance of regular disability retirement benefits. The Hearing Officer, being tantamount to a Master in Chancery, was not able to consider the entire case, but was limited to the issues assigned by the Division.
The Division's objections to the scope of authority were timely made. The Hearing Officer acted without authority in considering the merits of the in- line-of-duty claim. By so doing, he completely usurped the Administrator's and Division's statutory duties and responsibilities without proper authority. Additionally, he infringed on the due process rights of the Division to consider Petitioner's evidence, confront his witnesses, and submit rebuttal evidence. Accordingly, the conclusions of law contained in the recommended order are totally rejected.
However, the Hearing Officer correctly concluded that, "the administrator of the Florida Retirement System does have implied authority, in appropriate circumstances, to receive and consider amended or subsequent applications for disability retirement. Whether the administrator accepts or rejects such applications is dependent upon the factual situation surrounding submission of such [original] applications."
Such factual considerations are proper subjects of Section 120.57(1) proceedings and the Hearing Officer's determinations in this proceeding on the above stated issue are proper. Based on the circumstances contained in the Findings of Fact on this issue, it is concluded that Petitioner should be allowed the opportunity to resubmit an application for in-line-of-duty disability retirement benefits.
ORDER
On the basis of the foregoing and on consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, the arguments of counsel and the recommended order, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby
ORDERED that Petitioner will be allowed thirty (30) days following rendition of this order, within which he may submit an application for in-line- of-duty disability retirement benefits and supporting documentation therefore, relative to the incident which occurred on May 1, 1975, and shall be subject to the provisions of Section 121.091, Florida Statutes.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that said application will be submitted in the manner prescribed by Rule 22B-4.07, Florida Administrative Code, and upon its receipt will be accorded all rights and privileges accorded similar applications submitted pursuant to said Statute and Rule.
Done and entered this 7th day of March, 1978.
ROBERT L. KENNEDY, JR.
State Retirement Director Division of Retirement
530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the attached foregoing Final Agency Order was furnished by U.S. Mail to Eric E. Wagner, Esquire and
J.W. Chalkey, III, Esquire, Attorneys for the Petitioner, Law Offices of Eric E. Wagner, P.A., Post Office Box 1763, Ocala, Florida 32670, this 7th day of March, 1978.
E. DOUGLAS SPANGLER, JR., ESQUIRE Assistant Division Attorney Division of Retirement
Cedars Executive Center 2639 North Monroe Street Suite 207-C - Box 81 Tallahassee, Florida 32303
Docket for Case No: 77-000982
Orders for Case No: 77-000982
| Issue Date |
Document |
Summary |
|
Mar. 07, 1978 |
Agency Final Order
|
|
|
Dec. 08, 1977 |
Recommended Order
|
Matters of contract law do not mean that the application for retirement disability benefits cannot be amended.
|
