STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

MAMIE WILSON, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 86-2545

) DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, ) DIVISION OF RETIREMENT, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

This matter was heard by William R. Dorsey, Jr., the hearing officer designated by the Division of Administrative Hearings, in West Palm Beach, on July 15, 1987. No transcript of the proceedings was filed, and the parties waived their statutory right to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.

For Petitioner: Alexander Myers, Esquire

Brett Findler, Esquire West Palm Beach, Florida

For Respondent: Burton M. Michaels, Esquire

Tallahassee, Florida ISSUE

The issue in this case is whether Mamie Wilson is entitled to retirement credit for the period January, 1952 to September, 1958 when she was employed at the Lantana Tuberculosis Hospital. The Department takes the position that Ms. Wilson received a refund of her state employee retirement contribution of

$449.09 on February 15, 1961 and is therefore not entitled to retirement credit for that period of service. Ms. Wilson takes the position that she never applied for nor received any refund of retirement contributions and thus her retirement should include credit for her employment at the tuberculosis hospital.

PROCEDURAL MATTERS

At the beginning of the hearing, the Department of Administration, Division of Retirement moved for a recommended order in its favor based upon the failure of Ms. Wilson to respond to the Department's request for admissions filed December 2, 1986. That request asked that Ms. Wilson admit several matters, the most significant of which is:

"That on or about February 21, 1961, the Petitioner, Mamie Wilson, received from the Southeast Florida Tuberculosis Hospital, Lantana, Florida, State of Florida Warrant

#063522, dated February 15, 1961, in the amount of $449.09 as a refund of her retirement contributions covering her period of service at said hospital from on or about January, 1952 to September, 1958."

If this matter were treated as admitted the Department of Administration would prevail as a matter of law.

Respondent's counsel admitted that the Request for Admissions had been received in December of 1986, and had not been answered. The certificate of service on them shows that they were served both on Mr. Myers and Mr. Findler. No reason was offered for the failure to respond to the Request for Admissions although an argument was at least implied that there may have been some confusion as to which attorney should have responded. A ruling was made that the matters were deemed admitted pursuant to Rule 22I-6.019, Florida Administrative Code which incorporates by reference Rule 1.370 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure on admissions. Ms. Wilson moved for relief from that admission on the grounds that the central factual issue which would be determined by the admission was raised by Mr. Myers in his letter of July 1, 1986 requesting the administrative hearing where he specifically stated that Ms. Wilson had never received the $449.09 allegedly sent to her, and deposition testimony of Ms. Wilson made clear that she never received the check. Thus, the Department knew the issue, and there would be no prejudice to the Department by requiring it to make its case on the merits. Although the basis for granting relief for the admissions is rather weak, see Wood v. Fortune Insurance Company,

453 So.2d 451 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), there was no proof of prejudice to the Department in the presentation of its case, the motion for relief from the admission with respect to the statement set out above is granted. DeAtley v. McKinley, 497 So.2d 962 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Durrance v. Thompson, 486 So.2d 711 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986).

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Ms. Mamie Wilson worked at the Southeast Florida Tuberculosis Hospital in Lantana, Florida from January, 1952 to September, 1958. At that time she resided at 1109 Sapodilla Avenue. She left the job in 1958 after she became pregnant.

   
   

2. Ms. Wilson thereafter moved to 1103 Division Street in West Palm Beach.

   
   

3. Ms. Wilson was thereafter employed at the county nursing home by Palm Beach County from March, 1964 through August, 1974. She resigned due to injuries that she received in an automobile accident.

   
   

4. In 1983, Ms. Wilson wrote to the Administrator of the Division of Retirement and requested that her retirement beneficiary be changed from her mother, Anna Williams, who had died, to her son, Alonzo Peterson. In response, she received a letter dated November 21, 1983 from the Division of Retirement stating that if she retired as of November 1, 1983 she would be retired to a retirement benefit of $65.96 per month based upon 10.75 total years of service with average final compensation of $4,788. The letter also told her that her service at the Lantana Tuberculosis Hospital may be creditable and if she wished to claim that service she should have her salaries and earnings certified to determine if this service was includable for retirement purposes.

5. Ms. Wilson never responded to this letter because she did not intend to retire at that time, she only wanted to change her beneficiary.

   
   

6. In January, 1986, Ms. Wilson was preparing to retire and went to the county courthouse where she was assisted in preparing a Request for Audit form for retirement effective as of March 16, 1986. On the form the only employment she had listed was that at the Palm Beach County Nursing Home from 1964 to 1974. She then received a letter dated February 25, 1986 estimating her service as

   16.33 years on the assumption that Ms. Wilson would pay $1,413.82 to repurchase the time she worked at the tuberculosis hospital for which the Division of Retirement contended her contributions had been refunded in 1961. If she did so, her retirement benefit would be $106.41 per month. If her retirement was based solely on the time she worked at the county nursing home, her monthly benefit would be $66.19 per month.

   
   

7. The evidence is not persuasive that Ms. Wilson received, in 1961, $449 as a refund of her retirement contributions for the time she was employed at the tuberculosis hospital. The Department of Administration, Division of Retirement has been unable to show any application by Ms. Wilson for these funds, and had been unable to produce the state warrant by which these funds were paid to show that it was cashed by her [the warrant has since been destroyed]. The Department has produced a receipt prepared for use in connection with the delivery of that warrant. It shows Ms. Wilson's address as 1103 Division Street, an address where she did not live at the time she actually worked for the hospital, though she did move to that address later. That receipt is not signed, however. The appearance of an address on that receipt of a place where Ms. Wilson did not live at the time she was employed at the hospital gives rise to the inference that someone must have been in contact with the hospital to provide a current address for Ms. Wilson as of 1961. That fact, standing alone, is not sufficient to carry the burden of persuasion that Ms. Wilson received the money in the absence of a signature on that receipt, any signature on an application from Ms. Wilson seeking the refund of her retirement contributions or a signature on the refund warrant. That a warrant was prepared at the request of someone, delivered to someone and cashed by someone, with no proof that that someone was Ms. Wilson, is insufficient to deprive her of her retirement benefits.

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

8. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over this dispute. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (1985).

   
   

9. Ms. Wilson sought this hearing after being informed by the Division of Retirement that her service at the tuberculosis hospital was not creditable for retirement because she had received a refund of her retirement contributions. Although Ms. Wilson is the Petitioner in the style of this proceeding because she initiated it as a party aggrieved by the free form action of the Division, it is the Division which bears the burden of proof on the contested issue: whether Ms. Wilson received a refund of her retirement contributions in 1961. Amica v. Division of Retirement, Department of Administration 352 So.2d 556 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Balino v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services,

   348 So.2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Career Service Commission, 289 So.2d 412, 415 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974).

   
   

10. The Division of Retirement has not sustained its burden of proof.

RECOMMENDATION

It is RECOMMENDED that the retirement benefit paid to Ms. Wilson be in the amount of $106 per month for 16.33 years of creditable service.

DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of July, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida.

WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR.

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway

The Oakland Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of July, 1987.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Alexander Myers, Esquire Forum III, Suite 106

1655 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33401

Brett Findler, Esquire

Florida National Bank, Suite 350 1645 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33401

Burton M. Michaels, Esquire Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center 2639 North Monroe Street Building C, Suite 207 Tallahassee, Florida 32399

Adis Vila, Secretary Department of Administration

435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

=================================================================

AGENCY FINAL ORDER

=================================================================

STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION

DIVISION OF RETIREMENT

MAMIE WILSON

Petitioner,

vs. Division of Retirement

Case No. DR86-17 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, DOAH Case No. 86-2545 DIVISION OF RETIREMENT.

Respondent.

/

FINAL ORDER

On July 23, 1987, the duly appointed Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings in the above-styled and numbered Cause, completed and submitted to the Division of Retirement of the Department of Administration and to all parties in this Cause, a Recommended Order. A Copy of that Recommended Order is attached hereto, incorporated by reference herein, and made a part hereof as Exhibit "A".

Pursuant to Rule 28-5.404, Florida Administrative Code, and Section 120.57(1)(b)H, Florida Statutes, the parties were allowed twenty (20) days within which to submit written exceptions to that Recommended Order. Neither the Petitioner nor the Respondent submitted any written exceptions. Pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b), Florida Statutes, that Recommended Order came before the undersigned Director of the Division of Retirement, as agency head, for final agency action and for a final agency order in this cause. On pages 2 and 3 of the Recommended Order, under the heading of "PROCEDURAL MATTERS", are recommended rulings by the Hearing Officer that will be reviewed and ruled upon in the Conclusions of Law herein below.

The Record in this cause consists of all documents filed in thin cause either with the Hearing Officer or with the Division of Retirement, including all documents received in evidence at the hearing as exhibits (referred to herein as "Exhibit ") and a written TRANSCRIPT OF TESTIMONY AND PROCEEDINGS TAKEN ON WEDNESDAY, JULY 15, 1987, which transcript was certified by the Court reporter on September 3, 1987.

FINDINGS OF FACT

After having Considered the recommended Findings of Fact in the attached Recommended Order together with a review of the entire record in this cause, including said Transcript Of Testimony, the Division of Retirement hereby enters its Findings of Fact and hereby rules upon each of the Findings of Fact set forth in the attached Recommended Order.

1. Recommended Finding of Fact No. 1 is hereby accepted and adopted in that it is supported by competent, substantial evidence.

   
   

2. Recommended Finding of Fact No. 2 is hereby accepted and adopted in that it is supported by competent, substantial evidence.

   
   

3. Recommended Finding of Fact No. 3 is hereby accepted and adopted in that it is supported by competent, substantial evidence.

4. Recommended Finding of Fact No. 4 is hereby accepted and adopted in that it is supported by competent, substantial evidence.

   
   

5. Recommended Finding of Fact No. 5 is hereby rejected in that it is not based upon competent, substantial evidence and is speculative in nature. It is hereby found, in lieu thereof, that Ms. Wilson was placed on written notice by the Division of Retirement on November 21, 1983, that if she wanted to claim her service with the Lantana Tuberculosis Hospital from January, 1952, to September, 1958, that she had to have all salaries and earnings certified, and a determination would then be made if that service would be creditable (Exhibit 5 to Deposition of Ruth Sansom, Respondent's Exhibit 2), and that she, therefore, was being credited for such service.

   
   

6. Recommended Finding of Fact No. 6 is hereby accepted and adopted in that it is supported by competent, substantial evidence.

   
   

7. Recommended Finding of Fact No. 7 is hereby rejected in that it is not supported by competent, substantial evidence and in that it is based upon a misconception of the law. The Petitioner had the burden of proof that she had not received the $449.00 refund that both the Division of Retirement files and records (Page 6 of Exhibit 3, and Exhibit 6, to Deposition of Ruth Sansom, Respondent's Exhibit 2) and the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Service files and records (Exhibit 7 to Deposition of Ruth Sansom, Respondent's Exhibit

   2) reflected that she had in fact received in February, 1961. In December, 1983, she did not dispute or protest the Division of Retirement written statement of account to her (Exhibit 5 to Deposition of Ruth Sansom, Respondent's Exhibit 2) and it is hereby found that an account stated occurred as of December, 1983, when she had been rendered that statement of account and she did not protest or dispute same within a reasonable period of time. It is hereby found that the Petitioner has failed to carry her burden of proof to prove that she did not receive the $449.00 refund in 1961, which refund was reflected in the files and records of both the Division of Retirement and the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services.

   
   

8. On December 2, 1986, Burton M. Michaels, Assistant Division Attorney and the attorney for the Respondent in the above cause, served by U.S. First Class Mail true and correct copies of the RESPONDENT'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS (Respondent's Exhibit 1) on the attorneys of record for the Petitioner in the above cause, Alexander Myers, Esquire, Suite 105, Forum III, 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401, and Brett M. Findler, Esquire, Rosenthal and Findler, Suite 305, 1645 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401. At no time thereafter did either of said attorneys file or serve any answer or response to those RESPONDENT'S REQUEST FUR ADMISSIONS, which said counsel for the Petitioner admitted receiving by mail (TRANSCRIPT OF TESTIMONY AND PRECAUTIONS TAKEN ON WEDNESDAY, JULY 15, 1987, including pages 7 and 8).

   
   

9. Neither counsel for the Petitioner offered any valid excuse or reason for failing to answer or otherwise respond to the RESPONDENT'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS and it is hereby found that all of the requests for admissions contained in the said RESPONDENT'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS were admitted by the Petitioner's failure to respond to same, including Request for Admission No. 1(d) that reads:

   
   

   "(d) That on or about February 21, 1961, the Petitioner, Mamie Wilson, received from the

   Southeast Florida Tuberculosis Hospital, Lantana, Florida, State of Florida Warrant No. 063522, dated February 15, 1961, in the amount of $449.09 as a refund of her retirement contributions covering her period of service at said hospital from on or about January, 1952, to September, 1958."

   
   

10. It is hereby found, based upon the Petitioner's said admissions and the other evidence in the record, that on or about February 21, 1961, the Petitioner, Mamie Wilson, received from the Southeast Florida Tuberculosis Hospital, Lantana, Florida, State of Florida Warrant No. 063522, dated February 15, 1961, in the amount of $449.09 as a refund of her retirement contributions covering her period of service at said hospital from on or about January, 1952, to September, 1958. And it is, therefore, found that the Petitioner has no creditable service under the Florida Retirement System for any service between on or about January, 152, and September, 1958.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

After having considered the recommended Conclusions of Law in the attached Recommended Order together with a review of the entire record in this cause, including said Transcript Of Testimony, the Division of Retirement hereby enters its Conclusions of Law and hereby rules upon each of the Conclusions of Law set forth in attached Recommended Order and also rules upon the recommended rulings on pages 2 and 3 thereof under the heading entitled "PROCEDURAL MATTERS".

1. Recommended Conclusion of Law No. 1 is hereby accepted and adopted in that it is a correct statement of the law applicable to the facts in this case.

   
   

2. Recommended Conclusion of Law No. 2 is hereby rejected in that it does not state a correct statement of the law applicable to the facts in this case. In Florida Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. Career Service Commission, 289 So.2d 412, 414 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974), the Court held that the burden of proof is upon the party asserting the affirmative of an issue before an administrative tribunal. In the case at bar the Petitioner was attempting to assert her right to creditable service for her employment with the Lantana Tuberculosis Hospital for the period from January, 1952, to September, 1958. In order to establish such creditable service it was necessary that she prove that she was in a regularly established position at that time and that contributions had been made on her behalf. The Florida Retirement System, Chapter 121, Florida Statutes, was established in 1970. It is hereby held that the Petitioner has failed to carry her burden of proof that she was entitled to any credit under the Florida Retirement System for any period of service prior to its establishment effective December 1, 1970.

   
   

3. Recommended Conclusion of Law No. 3. is hereby rejected in that it does not state a correct holding in this cause inasmuch as the Division of Retirement did not have the burden of proof.

   
   

4. On pages 2 and 3 of the Recommended Order under the heading of "PROCEDURAL MATTERS" are recommended rulings by the Hearing Officer. The essence of the Hearing Officer's rulings is that notwithstanding the fact that the Petitioner's attorneys did not respond to the Respondent's Request for Admissions, that an alleged motion for relief from the admission (with respect to the Petitioner's receipt of a refund of contributions in 1961) was granted. An examination of the record below, including the TRANSCRIPT OF TESTIMONY AND

   PROCEEDINGS TAKEN ON WEDNESDAY, JULY 15, 1987, does not disclose that any written motion, or grounds therefore, were advanced for the failure of the Petitioner's attorneys to respond. On page 2 of the Recommended Order the Hearing Officer candidly admits:

   
   

   No reason was offered for the failure to respond to the Request for Admissions although an argument was at least implied that there may have been some confusion as to which attorney should have responded.

   
   

   It is hereby held that Respondent's Request for Admission No. 1(d) quoted in Finding of Fact No. 9, above, has been conclusively admitted upon the authority of Rest v. Rest, 436 So.2d 1010 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) and Rurgan v.

   Thomson, 427 So.2d 1134 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). It is held that in fact and in truth there was no written motion below and any oral motion made at the time of the hearing before the Hearing Officer did not contain any grounds for Inexcusable neglect on the part of the Petitioner's attorneys for failure to answer or otherwise respond to the Respondent's Request for Admissions. The Hearing Officer has cited three case decisions that are not in point. In Durrance v. Thompson, 486 So.2d 711 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), excusable neglect for failure to respond to a request for admissions appeared inasmuch as the party who had been served was in the process of changing attorneys and was unrepresented for a good portion of the thirty-day period involved. In Wood v. Fortune Ins. Co., 453 So.2d 451 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), excusable neglect for failure to respond to a request for admissions was shown in that the tickler system in an attorney's office had broken down. And in DeAtley v. McKinley, 497 So.2d 962 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), the party below, who had been served with a request for admissions, had been unrepresented by counsel until the day before a hearing (on a motion for summary judgment) on which day the newly-hired attorney immediately filed a belated response to the request for admissions and other documents, as well as a written motion for relief from admissions, etc. The DeAtley case is totally inapplicable to the proceeding herein inasmuch as the Petitioner has been ably represented by two competent, capable attorneys throughout this proceeding. It is further held that the Hearing Officer's circuitous reasoning that the July 1, 1986, letter, which precipitated these proceedings, constituted an excuse for the Petitioner's attorneys not responding to the Respondent's Request for Admissions served five months later in December, 1986, has no foundation either in fact or in law. It is, therefore, ruled that the Hearing Officer's recommended ruling to grant relief from said admission is hereby OVERRULED and REJECTED for the above reasons and upon the above grounds, and the said oral motion be and the same is hereby DENIED.

   
   

5. It is hereby held that neither counsel for the Petitioner offered any valid excuse or reason for failing to answer or otherwise respond to the RESPONDENT'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS and it is hereby held that all of the requests for admissions contained in the said RESPONDENT'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS were admitted by the Petitioner's failure to respond to same, including Request fur Admission No. 1(d) that reads:

   
   

   "(d)That on or about February 21, 1961, the Petitioner, Mamie Wilson, received from the Southeast Florida Tuberculosis Hospital, Lantana, Florida State of Florida Warrant No. 063522, dated February 21, 1961, in the amount of $449.09 as a refund of her retirement contributions covering her period

   of service at said hospital from on or about January, 1952, to September, 1958."

   
   

6. It is hereby held, based upon the Petitioner's said admissions and the other evidence in the record, that on or about February 21, 1961, the Petitioner, Mamie Wilson, received from the Southeast Florida Tuberculosis Hospital, Lantana, Florida, State of Florida Warrant No. 063522, dated February 15, 1971, in the amount of $449.09 as a refund of her retirement contributions covering her period of service at said hospital from on or about January, 1952, to September, 1958. And it is, therefore, held that the Petitioner has nu creditable service under the Florida Retirement System for any service between on or about January, 1952, and September, 1958.

   
   

7. It is hereby further held that an account stated occurred in December, 1983, when the Division of Retirement rendered a statement to the Petitioner of credited service in her retirement account, which statement did not include any service at the Lantana Tuberculosis Hospital between January, 1952, and September, 1958. (Exhibit 5 to Deposition of Ruth Sansom, Respondent's Exhibit 2), and which statement of account the Petitioner never disputed or protested within a reasonable period of time. In Rauzin v. Kupper, 139 So.2d 432 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1962), the Third District Court of Appeal stated at page 432 of 139 So.2d:

   
   

   The account stated generally arises from the rendition of a statement of transactions between the parties with a failure on the part of the party to whom the account was rendered to object within a reasonable time or an expressed acquiescence in the account rendered.

   
   

   And, in Home Health Services v. McQuay-Garrett, Sullivan & Co., 462 So.2d (Fla. 2nd DCA 1985), the Second District Court of Appeal held at page 605 of 462 So.2d:

   
   

   An account stated is prima facie evidence of

   the correctness of the items it contains and of the liability of a party for those items. One claiming under an account stated is not entitled, however, to the benefit of an absolute estoppel. The presumption of correctness may be overcome by proof of fraud, mistake, or error. The burden of establishing those defenses is on the party asserting them, and unless that party carries the burden, the presumptive correctness of the account stated becomes

   conclusive. Gendzier v. Bielecki, 97 So.2d 604 (Fla. 1957)."

   
   

   It is hereby held that the Petitioner has failed to carry her burden of proof in that she did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence either that she was entitled to creditable service under the Florida Retirement System for the period from January, 1952, to September, 1958, for employment at the Lantana Tuberculosis Hospital or that she had any contributions on deposit in the Florida Retirement System Trust Fund for any such employment.

   
   

8. It is hereby held that the Petitioner, Mamie Wilson, is not entitled to creditable service under the provisions of Chapter 121, Florida Statutes, for the period from January, 1952, to September, 1958, for any employment which she

may have had at the Southeast Florida Tuberculosis Hospital, Lantana, Florida, also known as the Lantana Tuberculosis Hospital.

ORDER

Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is,

ORDERED AND DIRECTED that the Petitioner, Mamie Wilson, is not entitled to creditable service under the provisions of Chapter 121, Florida Statutes, for the period from January, 1952, to September, 1958, for any employment which she may have had at the Southeast Florida Tuberculosis Hospital, Lantana, Florida, also known as the Lantana Tuberculosis Hospital.

DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of October, 1987, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

A.J. MCMULLIAN III Director of the Division of Retirement

Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303

(904) 487-1230

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW A PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO JUDICIAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES. REVIEW PROCEEDINGS ARE GOVERNED BY THE FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE. SUCH PROCEEDINGS ARE CONFERENCED BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE AGENCY CLERK OF THE DIVISION OF RETIREMENT, AND A SECOND COPY, ACCOMPANIED BY FILING FEES PRESCRIBED BY LAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST DISTRICT, OR WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE FILE PARTY RESIDES. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 3O DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED.

CLERK'S CERTIFICATE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that this Final Order was filed with the Clerk of the Division of Retirement on this 16th day of October, 1987, and that on this same date, copies were furnished to the following as noted respectively: Alexander Myers, Esquire, Forum III, Suite 106, 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 (by certified mail with return receipt request); Brett Findler, Esquire, Florida National Bank, Suite 350, 1645 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 (by certified mail with return receipt request); Burton M. Michaels, Esquire, Division of Retirement, 2639 North Monroe Street, Suite 207-Building C, Tallahassee, Florida 32303 (by hand delivery); William R. Dorsey, Jr., Hearing Officer, and the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings, Oakland Building, 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (by hand delivery to each).

KAREN M. ROBERTSON

CLERK

Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center 2639 North Monroe Street Suite 207-Building C Tallahassee, Florida 32303

(904)487-1230

Docket for Case No: 86-002545

Orders for Case No: 86-002545