Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Frank A. Orlando, was employed as a teacher in Dade County, and enrolled as a member of the Teachers' Retirement System (TRS), Chapter 238, Florida Statutes, in 1957. In September, 1960, Petitioner was granted a leave of absence from his employment to attend law school at the University of Florida. To maintain his tenured status with the Dade County School Board, it was incumbent that Petitioner remain current in his profession by working in the field of education within one year from the grant of his leave of absence. Consequently, in February, 1961, while enrolled as a full-time law student at the university, Petitioner applied for, and was employed as, a resident assistant at Hume Hall, a university residence facility. Petitioner's employment apparently satisfied the requirements of the Dade County School Board, since he retained his tenured status until his resignation in late 1962 or early 1963. 1/ In June, 1963, Petitioner graduated from law school, and left his employment with the university. Petitioner's Retirement Account In November, 1981, Petitioner requested that the Division of Retirement (Division) audit his retirement account and advise him whether he had been accorded credit for the period he had been employed at the university. By memorandum dated November 12, 1981, the Division advised Petitioner that for $179.82 he could purchase: . . . service not contributed on during the following periods of employment with the ... (univer- sity) ...; May 1961; March 1962 to June 1962; and September 1962 to June 1963. By claiming this service, you would be increasing your service credit by 1.33 years. This service has not been included in previous audits. By check dated March 9, 1982, Petitioner paid the designated monies, and the service was credited to his account. In August 1983, Petitioner requested that the Division provide an updated audit of his retirement account. By memorandum of August 30, 1983, the Division advised Petitioner that, as of June 30, 1983, he had 25.59 years of service credited to his account. In December, 1985, Petitioner telephoned the Division and requested that it calculate a retirement date for his at 30-years service, as well as provide an estimate of his retirement benefits. By memorandum of December 19, 1985, the Division provided Petitioner an estimate of his retirement benefits, and advised him that he could retire on December 1, 1987, with 30.01 years of service. On March 31, 1986, Petitioner again called the Division regarding credit for the period he had been employed by the university. Petitioner apparently felt he was entitled to more credit than previously accorded, and requested that the Department review its records to be sure he had retirement credit for the periods from February 1961 to June 1961, September 1961 to June 1962, and September 1962 to June 1963. The Division's review of its records, with respect to Petitioner's specific request, resulted in its determination that the memorandum of December 19, 1985, which had established an estimate of benefits for an effective retirement date of December 1, 1987, was in error, and that Petitioner was not entitled to credit for the periods he was employed in 1962 and 1963 by the university. Succinctly, the Division wrote that: On March 31, 1986, you called our office and spoke with Mrs. Stanley Colvin. You asked that she check your file to make sure you had retirement credit for the periods from February 1961 to June 1961, September 1961 to June 1962, and September 1962 to June 1963. To check this service for you, she looked at the Comptroller's Quarterly Social Security Records (referred to as Quarter Check Tapes). When these records were reviewed, she noted that the salaries listed for this service were paid from an Other Personal Services (OPS) account. Thus it is not creditable for retirement purposes under the FRS. * * * When your estimate of benefits dated December 19, 1985 (with an effective retirement date of December 1, 1987) was calculated, this OPS service was used in error. A record of the earnings had been furnished to this office by the University of Florida and the service was erroneously used since there was no mention that the payment was from an OPS account. Enclosed is a corrected estimate of retirement benefits effective March 1, 1989, at which time you will complete 30 years creditable service required for normal retirement under the FRS. By copy of this letter, I am advising Mr. Robert Buttons, Personnel Director, University of Florida, of our findings and requesting that he research the payroll records at the University and advise this office if his findings agree with ours. I am also enclosing state warrant #1982675 for $177.07 which represents the amount you paid to claim this service. 2/ A subsequent review of the records available at the University revealed that its records agreed with the Division's findings. Petitioner's Employment Status With The University Petitioner avers that he was employed by the university from February 1961 through June 1963, as a resident assistant for Hume Hall. The proof establishes that the resident assistants employed by the university were full- time graduate students or candidates for professional degrees and that they supervised 6-8 undergraduate resident assistants, assisted their superior in the administration of Hume Hall, and were available for student counseling on an as needed basis. 3/ While Petitioner avers that it was his understanding that he held a regular full-time position, he offered no proof that he received annual leave, sick leave, insurance or other employee benefits during the term of his employment, or that he had withheld from his salaries any social security deductions. In sum, petitioner offered no persuasive proof to establish that he was employed by the university as a regular employee filling an authorized position, as opposed to being an OPS employee, at any time subsequent to July 1961. The quarterly check tapes from the Office of the Comptroller, which the Division uses in carrying out its functions, show that Petitioner received two salary checks in May 1961, one on May 10, 1961 for $18.90 and one on May 24, 1961 for $12.60 for having worked 2 days and one day, respectively. 4/ No other payments to Petitioner for the year 1961 are reflected by the quarterly check tapes. The records of the university, to the extent they exist, corroborate the payments reflected by the Comptroller's records but reveal that the May 10, 1961, payment was for services rendered in April, 1961. Consequently, the Division agreed at hearing to give Petitioner retirement credit for April, as well as May, 1961. The university was unable to locate its remaining records for 1961, and Petitioner did not produce any documentary evidence to substantiate his employment for the remaining months of 1961 or any evidence to establish his salary for any other month in 1961. For the years 1962 and 1963, the Comptrollers' quarterly check tapes reflect that Petitioner was paid as a "other personal services (OPS) employee for 15 months. According to those records, Petitioner was paid $83.33 a month for February 1962 through May 1962; $41.66 in June 1962 for one-half months salary; and $80.00 a month for September 1962 through June 1962. 5/ The records of the university corroborate the payments reflected by the Comptroller's records, and Petitioner did not produce any documentary evidence to demonstrate that he was employed in any capacity other than as an OPS employee or any evidence to demonstrate be received any salaries other than as reflected by the Comptroller's tapes. 6/ Based on the proof, I conclude that Petitioner was employed by the university in an OPS position for all months which he received compensation, except for April and May, 1961. Petitioner's employment in April and May, 1961, which predated the establishment of the "other personal services" category of employment by the legislature, is, however, creditable under the Florida Retirement System. Petitioner's Claim Of Estoppel Petitioner is currently a circuit court judge in Broward County, Florida. He was re-elected in 1985, and his term of office expires in 1992. Petitioner desires, however, to retire from the bench, and enter the private practice of mediation, but to date he has not resigned or taken any action which would jeopardize his current employment. In response to the Division's memorandum of December 19, 1985, which established a retirement date of December 1, 1987, Petitioner began to attend workshops and seminars to train himself as a mediator to conciliate cases involving divorce and complex civil litigation. This training, which encompasses 200-300 hours, was undertaken in reliance upon the retirement date projected by the Division. Additionally, Petitioner has a moral commitment, although not contractual, to teach a course in mediation at the university of Minnesota during the summer of 1988. Mediation is a relatively new field within the practice of law, which is designed to reduce the courts' case load by resolving disputes without the necessity of trial. Petitioner is highly regarded by his peers, and possesses those attributes which would accord him a recognized expertise in the field. Petitioner offered proof that if he is to be successful as a mediator, it is essential that he enter the practice immediately after December 1, 1987. According to Petitioner, persons who enter this new field early will effectively preempt later entrants by earning a reputation as recognized leaders in the field. Petitioner's offer of proof is rejected as speculative and unpersuasive. While Petitioner's entry into the field may be 15 months later than expected, or desired, there is no reason to believe that the regard with which he is held by his peers will not enable him to succeed at his new profession.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Administration, Division of Retirement, enter a Final Order granting the petition of Frank A. Orlando for creditable service under the Florida Retirement System for the months of April and May 1961, but denying any credit for any other months during the period of February 1961 through June 1983. DONE AND ORDERED this 15th day of April, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of April, 1987.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner's rights and benefits under the Florida Retirement System should be terminated, per Respondent's Notice of Termination dated November 19, 2004.
Findings Of Fact No dispute exists that Ms. Page was employed with DLES. Furthermore, no dispute exists that, because of her employment with DLES, Ms. Page is a member of FRS. No evidence was presented as to Ms. Page's duties at DLES. In September 1999, Ms. Page was charged by an information in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, In and For Dade County, in The State of Florida v. Ismael Page aka May Washington aka Ismay Washington, Case No. 99-27532, with one count of filing a false and fraudulent insurance claim in violation of Section 817.234(1), Florida Statutes, a third degree felony; and one count of grand theft in violation of Section 812.014(2)(c)1, Florida Statutes, a the third degree felony. Additionally, in September 1999, Ms. Page was charged by an information in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, In and For Dade County, in The State of Florida v. Ismael Page aka May Washington aka Ismay Washington, Case No. 99-27533, with one count of filing a false and fraudulent insurance claim in violation of Section 817.234(1), Florida Statutes, a third degree felony; one count of uttering a forged instrument in violation of Section 831.02, Florida Statutes, a third degree felony; and one count of grand theft in violation of Section 812.014(2)(c)1, Florida Statutes, a the third degree felony. The count of uttering a forged instrument involved a forged letter by Ms. Page from a person, who was employed at DLES and who was alleged in the letter to be her supervisor at DLES, showing that Ms. Page had incurred lost wages as the result of an injury in an accident. The forged letter was submitted by Ms. Page to an insurance company in support of her claim for disability benefits. The person who was alleged to have written the letter and to be Ms. Page's supervisor at DLES did not write the letter. Ms. Page received disability payments from the insurance company. On or about September 13, 1999, Ms. Page pled guilty to and was adjudicated guilty of the one count of filing a false and fraudulent insurance claim and the one count of grand theft in Case No. 99-27532. On or about September 13, 1999, Ms. Page pled guilty to and was adjudicated guilty of the one count of filing a false and fraudulent insurance claim, the one count of uttering a forged instrument, and the one count of grand theft in Case No. 99-27533. By Notice of Termination of All Rights and Benefits Under the Florida Retirement System (Notice), dated November 19, 2004, Retirement notified Ms. Page that all of her rights and benefits under FRS were terminated. Retirement claimed in the Notice that Ms. Page, while employed at DLES, had pled guilty to one count of fraudulent insurance claims in violation of Section 817.234(1), Florida Statutes; one count of uttering a forged instrument in violation of Section 831.02, Florida Statutes; and one count of grand theft in the third degree in violation of Section 812.014(2)(c), Florida Statutes. Further, Retirement asserted in the Notice that, based on the criminal violations and pursuant to Article II, Section 8(d) of the Florida Constitution, Section 121.091(5)(f), Florida Statutes (2000), and Section 112.3173, Florida Statutes, she had no further rights under FRS, that she would not be permitted to repurchase, as prior service, the years of creditable service she earned prior to the convictions, and that her accumulated contributions on deposit in the FRS Trust Fund, if any, would not be affected. Ms. Page challenged Retirement's action and requested a hearing. In her challenge to Retirement's action, Ms. Page made an allegation of dismissal of charges and of being presently disabled. Ms. Page failed to appear at the hearing. Because of her failure to appear, her allegation remains nothing more than an allegation without support for which no finding of fact can be made.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement enter a final order reinstating the rights and benefits of Ismael Page under the Florida Retirement System. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of September 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of September, 2005.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's request for retirement credit should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner previously worked for the Sheriff's Office for DeSoto County, Florida. It is undisputed that the Sheriff's Office is a qualified Florida Retirement System ("FRS") employer and that Petitioner was, during all times relevant hereto, an FRS eligible employee. In the instant case, it is undisputed that in October 2006, Petitioner sustained a work-related injury while in the course and scope of her employment with the Sheriff's Office. Petitioner, from the time of her injury through approximately September 11, 2007, received temporary total disability workers' compensation benefits for her employment- related injuries. The precise dates when these benefits were received by Petitioner are not at issue in the instant dispute. On September 12, 2007, Petitioner returned to work at the Sheriff's Office with light-duty work limitations. Also on this date, Petitioner resumed receiving payroll wages from the Sheriff's Office. Petitioner continued to receive temporary partial disability wage payments through December 2008 and received workers' compensation medical benefits through October 2010. When Petitioner returned to work on September 12, 2007, she was still receiving medical treatment from the workers' compensation physician and attended regular sessions with the physician throughout the duration of her employment with the Sheriff's Office. The visits to the workers' compensation physician often occurred during times when the Sheriff's Office scheduled Petitioner to work, thus, resulting in her absence from work on these days. The Sheriff's Office terminated Petitioner's employment on December 12, 2007. Between the dates of September 12, 2007, and December 12, 2007, Petitioner was on the Sheriff's Office payroll and received wages as follows: For the period September 23, 2007, through October 6, 2007, she received payroll wages for 14 days; For the period October 7, 2007, through October 20, 2007, she received payroll wages for five days; and For the period October 21, 2007, through December 12, 2007, she received payroll wages for 14 days. No evidence was presented at the hearing explaining Petitioner's work schedule for the period September 13, 2007, through October 5, 2007. Between the dates of September 12, 2007, and December 12, 2007, Petitioner worked and received payroll wages from the Sheriff's Office for a total of 34 days. Although the 34 days that Petitioner worked were dispersed throughout the months of September, October, November, and December, Petitioner, nevertheless, received a paycheck from the Sheriff's Office for wages for each pay period following her return to work. There was no testimony offered at the hearing as to the total number of days that Petitioner was scheduled to work between September 12, 2007, and December 12, 2007. However, Petitioner testified that any scheduled work days that she missed during this period occurred as a result of her having to attend medical appointments with the workers' compensation physician. Respondent offered no evidence to the contrary as to this point. Given the severity of Petitioner's work-related injury, which apparently resulted in her being away from work for nearly a year, coupled with the fact that she continued to receive workers' compensation medical benefits through October 2010 (some four years after the date of her injury), the undersigned accepts as credible Petitioner's testimony that any scheduled work days that she missed between September 12, 2007, and December 12, 2007, resulted from her having to attend medical appointments with the workers' compensation physician. On April 4, 2008, Petitioner submitted correspondence to the Division and stated therein the following: Sir, I am writing this email in regards to my retirement. Under the florida [sic] retirement system, a member is entitled to retirement credit for periods of eligible workman [sic] comp[ensation]. The member must return to FRS covered employment for one month. Creditable workman [sic] comp[ensation] includes all periods that workman [sic] comp[ensation] are made. FRS employers are required by Section 121.125, Florida Statutes, and Section 60S-2012, Florida Administrative Code, to report the period covered by workman [sic] comp[ensation] on the monthly retirement report. D.C.S.O. stated I worked intermittently but where is it written in the Florida State Statutes or Administrative Code, how many days during the month you are allowed to miss and it would not be credible service or considered a break in service. [sic] Sir, I was still active [sic] employed with D.C.S.O. upon returning to work on Sept[ember] 12, 2007. The days I missed was [sic] due to medical appointmentts [sic] for my workman's [sic] comp[ensation] injury I sustained at D.C.S.O. I always provided documentation from the physician. I was not terminated until December 13, 2007 when Capt. McClure of D.C.S.O. called me at 8:21 A.M. [sic] on my scheduled day off. The three months I was allowed to work and the period on workman [sic] comp[ensation] should be credible service towards retirement. Sir, my question is when the other employees at D.C.S.O. take off more than a couple of days, during the month, for various reasons, without medical documentation[,] do[es] it count for credible service towards retirement or is it a break in service. [sic] On April 7, 2008, Doug Cherry, on behalf of the Division, responded to Petitioner's inquiry of April 4, 2008, and stated the following: Ms. Leonard, as I explained in our phone conversation, for periods of workers' compensation (temporary partial or temporary total) to be eligible for retirement credit there must be a return to active employment for one complete calendar month. The attached letter from the Sheriff of DeSoto County shows that from your scheduled date of return in September 2007, your employment was not active for the required month. This letter states you worked intermittently until your termination of employment in December 2007. To satisfy the one calendar month of active work, you needed to be consistently working through October 31, 2007. You indicated in our conversation that the information from the Sheriff was incorrect. If so, you would need to contact that office to resolve any discrepancy. I [have] also attached the appropriate Florida Statute (121.125) and the Florida Administrative Code (60S-2.012) which states [sic] this requirement. The law does not provide for exceptions or a combination of active and non-active employment during the one calendar month. Regarding your question about active members taking off days during the month, the requirements for earning service credit are different than the eligibility requirement for periods of workers' [sic] compensation. In your own account, you did earn credit for the months of September, October, November and December 2007 for the time you did work and earn salary. However, as stated above, for the period of workers' compensation to be creditable for retirement, the requirement is active employment for the full calendar month, not to earn service credit after such period. You also indicated that you were going to provide your attorney with this information. If your attorney would like to give me a call (850-488-9623), I will be glad to discuss this issue with him or her. I hope this information will help clarify this issue for you. On January 7, 2011, Respondent wrote Petitioner and informed her of the following: Dear Ms. Leonard: This will respond to your request for retirement credit for the period of time you received Workers' Compensation (WC), that was submitted to the State Board of Administration (SBA). Because this is an issue of creditable service, the SBA forwarded the request to the Division of Retirement since the Division is the proper agency to address such an issue. Information you and your agency provided indicates that you were out on WC October 2006 through September 2007 at which time your employer, the DeSoto County Sheriff's Office, sent you a letter dated September 6, 2007 requiring you to return to work within two weeks or be terminated from employment. The Division has not received any documentation from the Workers' Compensation carrier to substantiate the actual periods of WC or the date maximum medical improvement was reached. Therefore, this letter cannot address periods of possible eligibility for retirement credit but will address whether your employment from September 2007 met the return to work requirement for such eligibility. The Sherriff's [sic] office provided us with documentation of your time worked in September, October, November, and December 2007. During these months, you worked intermittently and did not have a full calendar month of active employment before your employment was terminated by your employer on December 12, 2007. * * * You did not consistently work during any of those calendar months until your employment was terminated by your employer on December 12, 2007. Therefore, starting in September 2007, you did not meet the return to actively performing service requirement of the above provision to establish eligibility for possible retirement credit. Petitioner's failure to return to active employment status was the only reason given by the agency when denying Petitioner's claim. Andy Snuggs has worked as a benefits administrator for the Division for approximately the last 20 years. The Division offered, and the undersigned accepted, Mr. Snuggs as an expert in matters related to the Act. Mr. Snuggs testified that in the exercise of the agency's discretion, the agency defines the phrase "active employment," as it relates to section 121.125, to mean that an employee must work each scheduled work day in a regularly established position for at least one calendar month following the employee's return to work and that no allowances are made for any absences, excused or otherwise. Mr. Snuggs did not offer any testimony explaining why the Division selected the particular definition that it did for the term "active."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, enter a final order determining that Petitioner, Irene Leonard, met the return-to-work requirements necessary to receive retirement credit for workers' compensation payment periods. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of September, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of September, 2011.
The Issue Whether the Division properly denied Petitioner's request to change Petitioner's retirement in the Florida Retirement System from an early retirement service benefit to disability retirement.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is charged with managing, governing, and administering the Florida Retirement System ("FRS"). Petitioner worked for Miami Dade Transit from August 1990 to March 2004, and was a member of FRS while employed there. Afterwards, Petitioner went to work as an auditor with a private employer, Robert Half, in New York. In 2007, Petitioner sustained an injury while working for Robert Half. In 2008, the Division generated an Estimate of Retirement Benefits for Petitioner detailing what her benefit amounts would be if she decided to retire. In February or March 2009, Petitioner informed the Division by telephone that she could no longer work and wanted to retire. Subsequently, the Division mailed Petitioner a retirement application. On April 13, 2009, the Division received Petitioner's filled-out application for service retirement. Directly above Petitioner's signature, the application stated: I understand I must terminate all employment with FRS employers to receive a retirement benefit under Chapter 121, Florida Statutes. I also understand that I cannot add additional service, change options, or change my type of retirement (Regular, Disability, and Early) once my retirement becomes final. My retirement becomes final when any benefit payment is cashed or deposited. Petitioner's application was incomplete and could not be processed upon receipt. On or about April 17, 2009, the Division sent Petitioner an Acknowledgment of Service Retirement Application requesting that Petitioner send "birth date verification of your joint annuitant" if she chose Option 3 or 4 and "The Option Selection for FRS Members, Form FRS-11o" to finalize the application. The acknowledgment stated at the bottom: ONCE YOU RETIRE, YOU CANNOT ADD SERVICE CHANGE OPTIONS, CHANGE YOUR RETIREMENT DATE, CHANGE YOUR TYPE OF RETIREMENT OR ELECT THE INVESTMENT PLAN. RETIRMENT BECOMES FINAL WHEN ANY BENEFIT PAYMENT IS CASHED OR DEPOSITED. In April 2009, the Division generated a second Estimate of Benefits for Petitioner, which she received. On or about May 8, 2009, Petitioner completed her retirement application by providing the Division the option selection form, which notified the Division that she selected Option 2. Directly above Petitioner's signature, the selection form FRS-11o stated: I understand I must terminate all employment with FRS employers to receive a retirement benefit under Chapter 121, Florida Statutes. I also understand that I cannot add additional service, change options, or change my type of retirement (Regular, Disability, and Early) once my retirement becomes final. My retirement becomes final when any benefit payment is cashed or deposited. When Petitioner received the estimate and saw the early retirement benefit amount, she called the Division to question what she considered a small amount. It was explained to Petitioner that she lost a certain percentage because she was retiring early and that her retirement was either "being processed, or it was processed." Petitioner's application for retirement was approved by the Division and Petitioner was awarded the Option 2 retirement benefit she requested with the effective date of May 1, 2009. Petitioner's first retirement check was dated April 23, 2010, and was cashed by Petitioner on July 28, 2010. Petitioner's retirement status was final when she cashed her benefit payment. On June 6, 2011, Petitioner contacted the Secretary of Division of Management Services by email and requested that she receive disability retirement for the first time.1 On, June 23, 2011, the Division informed Petitioner by letter that her retirement status was final when she cashed or deposited a benefit payment and that the request to change her retirement from regular service retirement to disability retirement could not be honored. On or about July 19, 2011, Petitioner requested a hearing regarding the issue.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's request to change her early service retirement benefit to disability retirement. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of February, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. MCKINNEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of February, 2012.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Auburn D. Hood (hereafter Hood), began teaching in the Florida school system in 1930. From 1937 to 1938, he took a leave of absence to attend the University of Florida. In 1940, he joined the Teachers' Retirement System (hereafter TRS) with coverage under Plan A of that system. He continued to teach in the Florida school system, taking a two year military leave from 1940 to 1942, until 1945, when he became disabled. Hood secured annual health leaves of absence and continued to make retirement contributions until 1951, when the Board of Trustees decided that no further leaves of absence would be approved. At this time, Hood's retirement contributions for 1951-52 were returned. In 1947, acting on the advice of K. D. Farris, the auditor of TRS, Hood changed from Plan A to Plan B. Plan B provided for a 9.66 percent contribution rate as opposed to the 4.51 percent rate under Plan A. In May 1951, Hood applied for disability retirement on the basis of his physician's certification that his condition consisted of (1) Hypotension, (2) psycotic [sic], (3) dizziness, (4) generalized weakness, (5) occasional blackout and (6) insomnia. Hood's disability retirement was approved by the TRS medical board on September 7, 1951, and became effective August 31, 1951. In the fall of 1967, Hood obtained certification from his physician that he was capable of returning to teaching. He was subsequently removed from disability retirement by the TRS Medical Board and reenrolled in TRS under Plan A. On or about December 1, 1970, Hood signed an application to transfer from TRS to the new Florida Retirement System (hereafter FRS). Hood began receiving FRS service credit and participating in Social Security at that time. Social Security coverage is not extended to members of TRS and must be provided in conjunction with FRS membership. TRS Plan A is not a fixed benefit plan. Benefits under this plan consist of an annuity equivalent to the members' actuarial contributions plus a pension equivalent to 1/140 of the member's average final compensation multiplied by each year of membership service. On the other hand, FRS is a fixed benefit of service. Therefore, the Division of Retirement makes TRS TRS service credit compatible with FRS credit for those transferring into the new system by bringing them into FRS through TRS Plan E, which is the only fixed benefit plan in TRS. This resulted in the need to upgrade Hood's TRS Plan A credit to the more costly TRS Plan E. Hood was given until the date he chose to retire to balance his account in this respect. On June 27, 1971, Chapter 71-347, Laws of Florida, became effective and amended Section 238.07, Florida Statutes, entitled "Retirement System for School Teachers" as follows: Any person who was a member of the Teachers' Retirement System prior to December 1, 1970, and who has collected a disability retirement allowance from the Teachers' Retirement System and has returned to active teaching service, shall be deemed to have been on health leave of absence each year between the date of his disability retirement and his return to service and may elect to receive service credit for each year upon payment of the required contributions plus regular interest. Commencing July 27, 1971, Hood received communications from K. D. Farris, at that time Administrator of TRS, informing Hood of the amount he would have to contribute to TRS to take advantage of the quoted portion of Chapter 238, Florida Statutes. Hood's first payment was returned by the current Director of the Division of Retirement, Robert Kennedy, who informed Hood that the new law was inapplicable to him because he was now a member of FRS. During the 1977 session of the Florida Legislature, a claims bill was passed in favor of Hood appropriating the sum of $4,350.93 as compensation for damages incurred by him. The preamble to the bill recites among other things, that Hood had transferred from the TRS to the FRS prior to the enactment of Chapter 71-347, Laws of Florida, cited previously in this order. Hood subsequently accepted the benefits of the claims bill passed in his favor and endorsed the proceeds over to the FRS. As a condition precedent to passage of the claims bill, flood declared in a notarized statement that he would retire from the teaching profession as of June 30, 1977, and endorse the funds over to FRS to insure to his personal retirement account. The funds were subsequently endorsed over to FRS. The funds received by Hood from the claims bill equal the amount necessary to balance his account by upgrading his former TRS Plan A service to the fixed benefit Plan E service of TRS. In September, 1977, Hood attempted to purchase service credit for the sixteen (16) years he was on disability retirement pursuant to Chapter 71-347, Laws of Florida. On or about September 13, 1977, the Division of Retirement declared that Hood could not purchase such service credit at which time Hood instituted the instant proceeding.
Conclusions Petitioner became a member of FRS and began participating in social security (which is not available to members of TRS) in December, 1970. Petitioner withdrew from TRS prior to the enactment of Section 238.07(1513) making the section inapplicable to him; Section 238.07(15B) of the Teacher's Retirement System Act applies only to members of TRS and does not extend benefits to members of other retirement systems; The $4,350.93 appropriated by HB-40 equaled the amount necessary to balance Petitioner's retirement account (without regard to Petitioner's claim for sixteen years of service credit representing the period he was drawing TRS disability retirement benefits); and HB-40 appropriated the aunt necessary to balance Petitioner's retirement account in recognition of the fact that a dispute existed over the amount necessary to accomplish the same, and the fact the Petitioner could not take advantage of Section 238.07(15B). Petitioner urged passage of the claims bill and executed a notarized statement that, if the bill passed, he would endorse the funds over to his retirement account and retire. Therefore, Petitioner is estopped from accepting the benefits of HB-40 and then renewing his claim that he owes less than $4,350.93 to balance his retirement account and that he remains eligible to take advantage of Section 238.07(15B).
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner, Evelyn S. Day, is entitled to modify her type of retirement benefits from "early service retirement" to "disability retirement."
Findings Of Fact The Findings of Fact set forth in paragraph 1 are accepted. The Findings of Fact set forth in paragraph 2 are accepted. The Findings of Fact set forth in paragraph 3 are accepted. The Findings of Fact set forth in paragraph 4 are accepted. The Findings of Fact set forth in paragraph 5 are accepted in part. In that paragraph, the Hearing Officer found as follows: Her memory and thought processes had evidentially [sic] already begun deteriorating because Mrs. Day was unable to ask guestions concerning her retirement rights, responsibilities, and entitlements very well. Because of this condition, Ms. Hobby agreed to accompany her to the offices of the Division of Retirement in order to ascertain what her retirement rights, entitlements, and responsibilities might be preparatory to Mrs. Day electing to retire. The above-quoted findings are rejected as conclusory and not supported by competent, substantial evidence. The Findings of Fact as set forth in paragraph 6 are rejected as not supported by competent, substantial evidence, except the finding that Mrs. Day retired and Ms. Hobby filled out her application for retirement. Additionally, the Hearing Officer's findings that petitioner was incompetent and suffering from Alzheimer's disease are rejected as being legal conclusions not supported by any judicial order or by any competent, substantial evidence in the record. The Findings of Fact as set forth in paragraph 7 are accepted. The Findings of Fact as set forth in paragraph 8 are accepted. The Findings of Fact as set forth in paragraph 9 are accepted. That portion of the Findings of Fact in paragraph 10 which concluded the petitioner was incompetent is rejected as not supported by competent, substantial evidence. The petitioner has never been declared incompetent or determined to be incompetent by a medical doctor. Findings of Fact as set forth in paragraph 11 are accepted in part and rejected in part. That portion of the Findings which states that the application for retirement was not filed by Ms. Day is not supported by competent, substantial evidence. In point of fact, the Division has a filed application signed by the petitioner. The portion of the paragraph finding the petitioner incompetent is rejected as not supported by competent, substantial evidence. There has been no legal or medical determination that the Petitioner is incompetent. Additionally, there is no competent, substantial evidence that petitioner is suffering from Alzheimer's disease. The Hearing officer's finding that the petitioner's application was filed in error is not supported by competent, substantial evidence.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Department of Administration, Division of Retirement, according the Petitioner, Evelyn Day, the opportunity to change the status of her retirement benefits from early retirement to disability retirement, effective as of the date her earlier retirement application was accepted by the agency. DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of January, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 48B-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of January, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-2085 PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT 1-8. Accepted. RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT Accepted. Accepted to the extent that the record establishes that the Petitioner signed the application. Accepted to the extent that it was established that Petitioner has received the retirement checks. It is not established that the Petitioner cashed or deposited those retirement checks by preponderant evidence of record. Accepted insofar as it recites the Respondent's position in this matter. Accepted. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Aletta Shutes, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Esq. General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Mr. Joseph G. Stokes 911 "B" Street Crestview, Florida 32536 Larry D. Scott, Esq. Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center Building C 1639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560
Findings Of Fact In April, 1963, Petitioner, Carl E. R. Nelson, soon to graduate from Florida Southern College with a degree in citrus, wrote to representatives of the State of Florida, Department of Agriculture, with questions regarding his possible employment by the agency upon his graduation. In his reply letter to Petitioner, dated April 24, 1963, H. L. Jones, Assistant Director, Division of Plant Industry, inter alia, outlined the benefits package offered to state employees which convinced Petitioner to apply for a position with the state rather than work for the federal government, which reportedly paid 40% more than the state for similar positions. After an interview with Mr. Jones and the Division Director, Mr. Nelson was offered a regularly established position with the Division of Plant Industry in its Miami office at a salary of $405.00 per month. The letter of notification to him indicated his first six months employment would be on a "probationary" basis. Petitioner was sent an "info" copy of a June 26, 1963 memo from the Department of Agriculture's Personnel Director to the Director of Petitioner's Division, reflecting he was to be paid out of "OPS" funds. However, neither the Division Director's letter nor that of the Secretary of Agriculture, advising him of his hiring, made any mention of the source of his pay or indicated he would be other than a regular probationary employee. Petitioner believed that from the day he began work, on July 1, 1963, he was earning credit toward retirement. In February, 1968, unsolicited by Petitioner, the Department of Agriculture sent him a notice of Continuous and Creditable Service calculation which reflected his beginning employment date as July 1, 1963, and that as of December 31, 1967, he had accumulated four years, 6 months of total continuous and creditable service. Computing back reveals service began on July 1, 1963. On October 31, 1973, a memo from one Department of Agriculture office to another, with an information copy to Petitioner, reflected he had completed ten years service in July, 1973, and an August 10, 1972 memo to Mr. Nelson, in relation to his military service, reflected the Department's calculation that he would complete ten years service in July, 1973. Twenty-two Personnel Action Request Forms of the Department of Agriculture, relating to the Petitioner, and dated from September 23, 1970 to August 14, 1985, all reflect Petitioner's initial service date as July 1, 1963. Ten employee leave statements pertaining to Petitioner, covering the period November 13, 1987 through March 31, 1988 also reflect his continuous creditable service date as July 1, 1963. In early 1975, Petitioner requested of the Department of Agriculture an audit of his service time. This request was forwarded to the Division of Retirement. Mrs. Ruth Sansom, Bureau Chief of Retirement Calculations did the check and determined that as of the end of March, 1975, Petitioner had 11.67 years creditable service. This equates to 11 2/3 years or 11 years, 8 months. Mrs. Sansom's computation was based in part on a November 9, 1973 record check of Department of Agriculture payroll tapes which showed that for July, 1963, Petitioner was paid out of OPS funds. Computing back, 11 years and 8 months prior to March 31, 1975, is August 1, 1963. Consequently, as early as May 1, 1975, Petitioner was advised he was not given credit for the month of July, 1963, but it is obvious he did not recognize the situation as it existed. In October, 1987, Petitioner was again advised by the Division of Retirement, as a response to his inquiry regarding credit for his military service, that as of the end of July, 1987, he had accumulated 24 years service indicating his creditable service started on August 1, 1963, not July 1, 1963. If the latter had been the case, his record would show 24 years, 1 month. It was this last credit report which prompted Petitioner's request for hearing. The evidence of record shows clearly that Petitioner began work with the State of Florida on July 1, 1963 as a probationary but not temporary employee and served continuously since that time. He was paid for the month of July, 1963, out of OPS funds. The June 26, 1963 memo from the Personnel Director to Petitioner's employer indicates he was to be on probationary status for six months and paid out of OPS funds. By implication that could mean he would not be a regular employee during the six months probationary status, but the fact that the source of payroll funds for Petitioner was changed to regular funds after one month would also imply he was supposed to be a regular employee from the inception of his employment, and this is supported by the recruiting correspondence which referred to the many benefits which inure only to regular employees. Consequently, it is found that Petitioner was intended to be a regular employee from the inception of his employment, but he was paid out of OPS funds for the month of July, 1963.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: Recommended that Petitioner, Carl E. R. Nelson be granted credit toward state retirement for the month of July, 1963. Recommended in Tallahassee, Florida, this 7th day of May, 1988. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of May, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-5541 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. For the Petitioner 1. Accepted and incorporated herein. 2 - 3. Accepted as to the fact that Respondent was offered employment. Rejected as to the fact that the "offer" of retirement was the motivating factor in Petitioner's choice to accept state rather than federal employment. 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. 5 - 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein except for the finding that Petitioner was never notified he had been paid one month out of OPS funds. However, the method of notification was erroneous in content and did not serve to bring this change to his attention. Accepted and incorporated herein. For the Respondent 1 - 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted but irrelevant. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected. COPIES FURNISHED: E. G. Couse, Esquire Grace and Couse, P.A. Post Office Drawer 1647 Ft. Myers, Florida 33902 William A. Frieder, Esquire Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Department of Administration 440 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Adis Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 =================================================================
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner’s husband’s selection of Option 1 for his pension plan benefits could be changed.
Findings Of Fact Mrs. Renaud, who is deaf, was married to Mr. Renaud for approximately 40 years. Mr. Renaud was employed by the State of Florida as a correctional officer at all times relevant hereto. He entered the State retirement program (in the pension plan) in November 1994. Mr. Renaud was in the “special risk” category of retirement class based on his position as a correctional officer. On October 24, 2013, Mr. Renaud signed and submitted a “Florida Retirement System Pension Plan Application for Service Retirement” form to the Department, indicating his intent to retire. The application was signed and notarized; it designated Mrs. Renaud as the sole beneficiary of his retirement benefits. On the same day, Mr. Renaud signed an “Option Selection” form, wherein he designated which of four payment options he wanted to utilize for payment of his retirement income. He selected Option 1, which states: A monthly benefit payable for my lifetime. Upon my death the monthly benefit will stop and my beneficiary will receive only a refund of any contributions I have paid which are in excess of the amount I have received in benefits. This option does not provide a continuing benefit to my beneficiary. The form also contains the following statement: “I understand that I must terminate all employment with FRS employers to receive a retirement benefit under Chapter 121, Florida Statutes. I also understand that I cannot add service, change options or change my type of retirement . . . once my retirement becomes final. My retirement becomes final when any benefit payment is cashed, deposited or when my Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP) participation begins.” The option selection form was signed by Mr. Renaud and notarized by a certified notary public. Inasmuch as Mr. Renaud selected Option 1, it was necessary that he and his designated beneficiary (Mrs. Renaud) also fill out form SA-1, the “Spousal Acknowledgement” form. On the acknowledgement form, Mr. Renaud indicated that he was married. Mrs. Renaud then signed the “spousal acknowledgement” portion of the form. The acknowledgement statement included this statement: “I, Vivian Renaud, being the spouse of the above named member [Mr. Renaud], acknowledge that the member has selected either Option 1 or 2.” Option 2 provides for continued benefits during the retiring person’s lifetime. However, benefits to the person’s spouse will continue for only a 10-year period. If the retiring person dies within the first 10 years of retirement, the spouse would only receive benefits for the balance of the 10-year period starting at the retirement date. The benefits under Option 2 are, therefore, limited in nature. The state retirement system requires a person selecting Option 1 or Option 2 to have their spouse acknowledge that selection choice because those benefits have finite ending dates, whereas retirement benefits under the other options continue as long as either the retiree or his/her beneficiary is living. By letter dated October 30, 2013, the Department acknowledged receipt of Mr. Renaud’s retirement application. The letter referenced the date the application was received (October 24, 2013) and the option Mr. Renaud had selected (Option 1). The letter was mailed to Mr. Renaud’s address of record, the same address he listed in his retirement application. The letter was sent to Mr. Renaud some 30 days before the first retirement benefit check was deposited in his account. Mrs. Renaud does not remember seeing the letter, but inasmuch as it was addressed to Mr. Renaud, her recollection of its receipt is not relevant. After Mr. Renaud’s death, his family found numerous un-opened letters in his car; the acknowledgement letter from the Department could well have been in that group. Mr. Renaud retired on November 1, 2013. His first payment of retirement benefits was transferred to his bank by way of electronic fund transfer, commonly referred to as direct deposit, on November 27, 2013. The gross amount of his monthly retirement benefit was $1,987.85; the net amount was $1,937.75 after $30.09 had been deducted for taxes. At that time, Mr. Renaud had not signed form W4P, the form which showed how many dependents the retiree was claiming for tax purposes. After later filling out that form (in which he indicated he would prefer to file as “single” for tax purposes), his monthly net benefit was reduced to about $1,735. Mr. Renaud received a direct deposit of retirement benefits on December 31, 2013; on January 31, 2014; and again on February 28, 2014. Mr. Renaud passed away on March 26, 2014, only five months after commencing his retirement. In accordance with the provisions of Option 1, Mr. Renaud’s retirement benefits ceased at that time. His beneficiary was entitled to payment for the entire month that he expired, but was not to be provided any further retirement benefits. Thus, a final payment was deposited in Mr. Renaud’s account on March 31, 2014. Mrs. Renaud was provided notice of the cessation of retirement benefits due to Mr. Renaud’s death. She timely filed a protest, seeking to have the payment of benefits reinstated. The Department denied her request, resulting in the instant matter. It is clear from the evidence that Mr. Renaud selected Option 1, Mrs. Renaud acknowledged that Mr. Renaud had selected either Option 1 or Option 2, and that retirement benefits were directly deposited to Mr. Renaud’s bank account for several months. Mr. and Mrs. Renaud’s signatures were duly notarized and have a presumption of legitimacy. Mrs. Renaud disagrees as to whether Mr. Renaud’s selection of Option 1 was legitimate, legal, or proper under the circumstances as she views them. First, Mrs. Renaud contends that Mr. Renaud was not mentally well at the time he signed the option selection form. The basis for her contention is that Mr. Renaud had experienced some seizure-related behavior during the year prior to signing the form. He had driven his car north on US Highway 301 one day in July 2012, “heading to work,” but ended up in Georgia without remembering why or how he got there. He later apparently lost his driver’s license because of the seizures (although the testimony on that issue was not clear).1/ Mr. Renaud worked for approximately 15 more months after his inexplicable drive to Georgia. Mrs. Renaud also argued that Mr. Renaud’s signatures on the three different forms he signed on October 24, 2013, were not similar to each other, indicating in her mind that he was having some sort of medical or psychological difficulty at that time. Inasmuch as there could have been any number of reasons the signatures were different (whether he was in a hurry, what base existed under the paperwork, etc.), there is insufficient evidence to determine why the signatures did not match. Mrs. Renaud’s testimony regarding the signatures is not persuasive. Ed Renaud said Mr. Renaud had been forced to retire due to his medical condition, i.e., that he had lost his driver’s license due to having seizures and the Department of Corrections would not let him work if he could not drive. However, Ed Renaud also said Mr. Renaud was able to continue working even when he was “forced” to retire. Again, the testimony on these facts was not clear. Mrs. Renaud said she should have been provided an interpreter on the day she signed the acknowledgement form. She did not state whether she requested an interpreter or whether the agency employee who provided her the form was aware of her disability.2/ Again, no one from Mr. Renaud’s employer, the Department of Corrections, testified at final hearing as to what happened on the day the forms were signed. Mrs. Renaud stated that she could read and write English, so she knew what she was signing.3/ She did claim to be confused as to whether her husband had selected Option 1 or Option 2, but candidly admitted that Mr. Renaud never told her one way or the other which option he had chosen. He only told her that he would “continue to provide for her in the future.” She believed the amount which was to be deposited in their account each month under Option 2 would be approximately $1900. The first check was in that approximate amount (due to the fact that Mr. Renaud had not established the amount of taxes to be deducted from his check at that time). The next five checks were in a lesser amount, approximately $1700. There is no evidence that Mrs. Renaud questioned the amount of the later checks. However, once the first check had been deposited in Mr. Renaud’s bank account, he would not have been allowed to change his option anyway. Lastly, Mrs. Renaud said her husband’s medical and mental condition was not conducive to making the option selection in October 2013. However, there was no competent evidence to support her claim. There was no direct testimony as to Mr. Renaud’s condition on the day he signed, nor as to whether he was or was not capable of understanding what he was signing. The only statement about his condition that day was that he wanted to park the car far enough away from the building that his co-workers could not see that Mrs. Renaud had driven the car. Ed Renaud also pointed out the issue of Mr. Renaud’s three signatures that day looking different from each other, but his lay opinion is not evidence upon which a finding of fact can be made as to Mr. Renaud’s mental condition. On October 24, 2013, Mr. Renaud had not been adjudged mentally incapacitated and no guardian had been appointed. Ed Renaud said that Mr. Renaud still believed he could perform his work assignments at that time and did not want to retire. But, other than his wife, no one provided any evidence that Mr. Renaud did not understand what he was signing. Mrs. Renaud, however, could not say which option he had selected because he never told her. Her subsequent presumption that Mr. Renaud did not intend to choose Option 1 is not persuasive. It should be noted that selection of Option 1 by Mr. Renaud set his average pre-tax monthly benefit at around $1,900.00; had he chosen Option 2, the benefit would have been around $1,700. Thus, there was incentive to “roll the dice” and select Option 1, hoping that he would survive long enough to provide for his wife. In this case, sadly, that gamble did not pay off. The facts of this case are sad in that Mr. Renaud had every intention of providing for his wife financially as long as she lived. However, he either made a mistake when he selected his payment option or he attempted to tempt fate and hope for the best. In either case, once he made his selection and began receiving benefits, the die was cast. Based upon the facts as presented, there is no basis for overturning the Department’s denial of Mrs. Renaud’s requested amendment of the payment option.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Management Services denying Petitioner's request for entitlement to her husband’s retirement benefits following his untimely death. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of June, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of June, 2015.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Sharon Fleita, made a valid “second election” to transfer from the Florida Retirement System (“FRS”) Pension Plan to the Investment Plan, pursuant to section 121.4501, Florida Statutes (2016).1/
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Sharon Fleita, was, at all times relevant hereto, an employee of the Jefferson County School Board (“School Board”) and enrolled as a member of the FRS Pension Plan. Respondent, SBA, is the state agency tasked with administering the FRS Investment Plan. § 121.4501(8), Fla. Stat. Petitioner’s Employment History Petitioner was employed by the School Board as a full- time teaching assistant from early 2011 through May 31, 2017. The last day Petitioner performed work for the School Board was on April 19, 2017. As of that date, Petitioner had exhausted her allotted paid sick leave. On April 21, 2017, Petitioner underwent ankle surgery. The recovery period was about three months, during which time Petitioner was required to use a wheelchair. From April 20 through May 31, 2017, Petitioner was on unpaid “Family Medical Leave Without Pay” as designated by the School Board on a form titled “Application for Leave of Absence,” which was signed by Petitioner. Realizing that her medical condition would prevent her from returning to work, Petitioner officially resigned on May 31, 2017.2/ At the time of her resignation, Petitioner had earned 7.27 years of FRS service credits and was a “vested” member of the FRS.3/ See § 121.021(45), Fla. Stat. Petitioner did not return to work after her leave of absence, nor did she retire on disability through FRS. Petitioner was found to be disabled by the Social Security Administration with a date of disability of April 21, 2017, but she never applied for disability with FRS.4/ On May 31, 2017, Petitioner received a paycheck from the School Board in the amount of $82.13, after deductions and taxes, indicating a pay period of May 1, 2017 through May 26, 2017. The paycheck was compensation for work performed prior to May 2017. Petitioner’s Second Election Ms. Fleita’s employer, the School Board, did not have a human resources director to help her through the second election process. Seeking guidance, Petitioner placed a number of calls to the Division of Retirement and the MyFRS hotline over the course of about five months, beginning in March 2017. Before she made her second election, several representatives informed Petitioner during these phone calls that she needed to be actively employed, earning a salary, and earning FRS service credits at the time the second election was made. On March 20, 2017, a representative with the MyFRS hotline informed Petitioner that she could not make a valid second election while on “unpaid leave of absence or summer break or anything like that.” The representative also recommended that Petitioner make her second election a month or so before her last day of work, in order to make sure the election was valid. On May 10, 2017, a representative with the MyFRS hotline explained to Petitioner that a salary and FRS service credits are distinct, and that it is possible to receive a paycheck but no FRS service credit for a given month. The representative also informed Petitioner that if she were to submit a second election while not earning service credit, the election might be processed but ultimately would not be considered valid. On May 10, 2017, while on FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act) leave, Petitioner completed a “2nd Election Retirement Plan Enrollment Form” to switch from the FRS Pension Plan to the Investment Plan. The Plan Choice Administrator processed the election on May 11, 2017. On July 28, 2017, a representative with the Division of Retirement informed Petitioner that she had earned service credit for May 2017, the month in which she made her second election. Later that same day, a different representative informed Petitioner that her election into the Investment Plan had been approved. However, soon thereafter, the representative called Petitioner back and informed her that her election was invalid because, according to the SBA, Petitioner was not earning service credits in May 2017. Service Credit During FMLA Leave Monthly service credit is awarded for “each month salary is paid for service performed.” § 121.021(17)(b)4., Fla. Stat. Section 121.021(58) defines “leave of absence” as “a leave of absence from employment under the Florida Retirement System, subsequent to November 30, 1970, for which retirement credit [i.e., FRS service credit] may be received in accordance with s. 121.121.” This definition is reiterated in Florida Administrative Code Rule 60S-6.001, which provides: LEAVE OF ABSENCE (Authorized Leave of Absence) – Means a leave of absence from employment under the Florida Retirement System, subsequent to November 30, 1970, for which retirement credit may be received in accordance with Rule 60S-2.006, F.A.C. By default, FRS members do not earn service credits while on an unpaid leave of absence. Service credits may be earned, however, if the member meets the following requirements of rule 60S-2.006: A member may receive retirement credit for a total of two work years of creditable service for authorized leaves of absence under the Florida Retirement System, subject to the following: A leave of absence must be authorized in writing by a member’s employer prior to or during the leave of absence. The member must satisfy the service requirements for vesting, excluding any periods of leave of absence, except for military leaves of absence as provided in subsection 60S-2.005(1), F.A.C., prior to receiving retirement credit for leaves of absence. The member must return to active employment performing service with a Florida Retirement System employer in a regularly established position immediately upon termination of the leave of absence and remain on the employer’s payroll for one calendar month. The exceptions to this requirement are: A member placed on a leave of absence for medical reasons who retires on disability while on the leave of absence shall not be required to return to employment in order to be eligible to receive credit for the leave of absence; and A member whose work year is less than 12 months and whose leave of absence terminates between school years shall be eligible to receive credit for the leave of absence as long as he or she returns to covered employment at the beginning of the next school year and remains on the employer’s payroll for one calendar month. Petitioner did not return to work after her leave of absence (or at the beginning of the following school year), or retire on disability during her leave of absence. Petitioner did not earn service credit during her leave of absence in May 2017. Id. It appears Petitioner misunderstood the distinction between salary and FRS service credit, believing that the paycheck she received in May 2017 meant that she also earned FRS service credits for that month. The delay between the date on which her second election form was processed and the date on which it was invalidated exacerbated this problem, and perhaps gave Petitioner false hope that her second election was valid.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, State Board of Administration, issue a final order denying Petitioner’s request to transfer from the FRS Pension Plan to the Investment Plan. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of February, 2018.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner's deceased wife, Dorothy Bazzel, made a valid selection of retirement "option 1" instead of "option 2"; whether that apparent selection was a mistake and, consequently, whether the Petitioner should be allowed to receive retirement survivors benefits in accordance with "option 2", as provided for under section 121.091(6), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Joe Bazzel, is a resident of Blountstown, Florida, and is retired. His wife, now deceased, was Dorothy Bazzel. She was a longtime teacher in the Bay County school system, with more than 46 years continuous creditable service in the Florida Retirement System and as a teacher. She retired on July 1, 1988. The Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida charged with administering and enforcing the statutes, embodied in Chapter 121, and related rules, by which operation of the Florida Retirement System, including determinations of entitlement to and payment of benefits, is accomplished. Mrs. Bazzel underwent surgery for breast cancer on January 11, 1987. She had been diagnosed by Dr. Dixon McCloy, of Panama City, with breast cancer sometime in January of that year. Her progress after surgery was satisfactory, and she kept all appointments, had required x-rays, examinations and mammograms thereafter, by which her physicians monitored her progress. She had expressed to several persons of her acquaintance a desire to retire by the end of the 1987-1988 school year. In order to prepare for that event, she contacted her brother-in-law, Ray Bazzel, who testified in this case, and asked him to contact the Division of Retirement in Tallahassee, Florida, to obtain an estimate of her expected retirement benefits. He made that request to Ms. Loreen Vause, an employee of the Division, on July 16, 1987, by telephone. The Division of Retirement has an ongoing program which automatically generates an estimate of benefits for members who have certain amounts of creditable service and are of a certain age. When Mr. Bazzel made his request for an estimate of benefits for Mrs. Bazzel, the Division was already in the process of preparing a benefit estimate for her through its routine program. That estimate was forwarded to Mrs. Bazzel on July 22, 1987, and it stated as follows: This is a routine audit of your account. Noting the many years of service you have, we are furnishing you an estimate of your benefits as if you terminate your employment on June 30, 1988, and retire effective July 1, 1988. This is furnished for informational purposes only. By means of that estimate, Mrs. Bazzel was informed as to the benefit amounts which she would receive under all four retirement options. See Respondent's exhibit 8 in evidence. Ray Bazzel would visit Mrs. Bazzel on occasion during his visits to Panama City. She was described by him in his testimony to be a very private person not given to talking much about her illness or the operation. She did discuss the possibility of her retirement on one occasion with him, sometime during the summer of 1987. They discussed all four retirement options, and he explained the options in detail to her. He advised her that she would have to make a decision as to which option she would take, but he was never advised by Mrs. Bazzel nor anyone else as to which option she had actually selected until after her death. He did not know that she had made application for retirement on January 14, 1988. Harold Bazzel is a nephew of the Petitioner. He testified that he did not know that Mrs. Bazzel had made an application for retirement and did not know what option she selected until after her death. Richard Locker was the personnel officer with the school board where she was employed and knew Mrs. Bazzel personally and professionally. He was the principal for six years at Cove Elementary School where both his wife, Nan Locker, and Mrs. Bazzel taught. Mr. Locker had a policy of discussing retirement issues with Florida Retirement Service members on his staff and advising them of correct procedures to follow, as to the paperwork involved, and as to the full retirement options which they could select. He advised all members who were employed at his school to call the Division of Retirement in Tallahassee for more information. He never advised anyone of which option they should take because each case is an individual case, and he did not feel comfortable advising an employee or friend which option to take and then later have that person accuse him of advising the wrong option. Mr. Locker saw Mrs. Bazzel after her surgery and stated that after the surgery, she appeared to be in good health. He saw her in May of 1988 and stated that she was very optimistic and appeared capable of teaching the next year. She did not seem moody or depressed in any way to him. He believed that she exhibited an attitude that her treatment had been a success and that her health had been restored. He discussed with her the possibility of her retiring at the end of the 1987-88 school year, and he believed that she would retire at that time. In two telephone calls, he and Mrs. Bazzel discussed the four different retirement options. She appeared to know what he was talking about and to understand those options. He felt that she understood that option 1 would pay the highest benefit amount to her of the four options. He, however, did not really know what option she had chosen until after the Petitioner, her husband, informed him after Mrs. Bazzel's death. Based upon the testimony of Ray and Harold Bazzel and that of Richard Locker, concerning their contact and discussions with and advice to Mrs. Bazzel, it is found that Mrs. Bazzel was aware of the four options and the differences between them. She was aware that option 1 provided the highest benefit to the retiring member for the lifetime of that member and that it would cease at the death of the member with no further benefits being payable to any person. On January 14, 1988, the Petitioner, Joe Bazzel, drove his wife to the offices of the school board, where she completed the forms necessary for her retirement. She talked with Vicky Poole, the records clerk, who helped teachers and administrators complete necessary retirement forms as part of her job duties. Ms. Poole had worked at the school board offices for approximately seven years and had an established procedure for informing prospective retirees of all information needed to process retirement applications. As part of her instructions to them, she would ask each potential retiree to inform her of the option they wanted to select, who their beneficiary would be and where the checks were to be sent. She would inform them when they would start receiving checks, would discuss with them their sick leave balance "payoff", and what steps they needed to take to obtain social security benefits. This discussion with prospective retirees would take up to one-half hour if the retirement form had not been partially completed before the retiree came into the office, or about 15 minutes if the form had already been partially completed. If Mrs. Bazzel already understood the retirement options and had formed an opinion of what she wanted to do concerning retirement and the selection of an option, and if the form had already been partially completed, then the entire process on January 14, 1988 could have occurred in a few minutes. It was Ms. Poole's practice to sit next to the prospective retiree, obtain the necessary information, and type it on the retirement form at that time. She would then advise the member of the various options by referring to the back of the retirement form (Respondent's exhibit 12 in evidence) or to a pamphlet explaining the options issued by the Division of Retirement. Both of those documents contain a narrative description of the retirement options. Ms. Poole did not choose a retirement option or advise a prospective retiree of which option to choose. The retiree must choose his or her own option. Ms. Poole would never advise a person concerning which option to take and had been advised by the Division of Retirement never to give such advice on option selection. If Ms. Poole perceived that a prospective retiree was indecisive about option selection or did not appear to understand the options or the consequences of such election, she would advise that person to speak with someone else who was knowledgeable about the retirement system and about the retiree's financial situation, such as a friend or relative. If a prospective retiree was still indecisive or unsure of the meaning of options or which option to select, Ms. Poole would hold the form and not complete it without being sure in her own mind that the retiree understood the option and knew what it meant. In her standard procedure, she would go over each item on the form at least two and up to four times with a retiree. If they were very certain of the option they wanted to select, she would then finish the form and have the person sign it and give it to Ms. Bolinger to notarize. Ms. Poole realized that the choice of an option was an important decision and conducted her interview with the retiree accordingly. She testified in this regard as follows: If they said well I'm looking at 2 and 3, that's waivering. If they said I want option 1, I typed 1 in and I would say it several times as I typed it in. I mean I was very well aware that this selection was for the rest of their life and could affect someone else. I was very well aware of that. So, I would repeat it several times and when I was complete, when the form was complete, I'd give it back and go over it again, again reemphasizing the option. If they did waiver, I would briefly go over the options and there was time, I always mention, you know, there's time to do this, to choose your option, perhaps you want to talk to someone. I could not advise them. That's what I did. Ms. Poole remembered that Mrs. Bazzel came into the office but did not remember if the retirement forms had already been completed or partially completed prior to the visit. She testified that there was no doubt in her mind that Mrs. Bazzel chose option 1 and no doubt that she knew what option 1 meant. Ms. Bolinger began to work with the school board dealing with retirement applications in 1984. She is now the records clerk who handles retirement matters for teachers and school administrators. This is the same job that Ms. Poole performed in January of 1988. Ms. Bolinger notarized the retirement form of Mrs. Bazzel. Ms. Bolinger learned her job from Ms. Poole and testified that the retirement form was always completed in the office before a retirement clerk and was never sent to anyone. She stated that the clerk would ask the member if they understood each of the options, and the clerk would be sure that the member did understand them. It was the practice to ask such a retiring person if he or she was familiar with the options. If the retiree seemed the least bit confused, Ms. Bolinger testified that the clerk would discuss each option all over again with the prospective retiree, give him the form with the options listed on the back, and they would then discuss each one and make sure that the prospective retiree understood each option before continuing the process of executing the requisite forms. Thus, Ms. Poole and Ms. Bolinger or any school board clerk follows a routine practice of examining and discussing in detail each retirement option with a prospective retiree and makes sure that person understands the wording of the four options and what the four options mean before making a selection, answering any questions the prospective retiree might have and advising them to seek counsel from a qualified person if the prospective retiree remains unsure of which option to elect. After the forms are completed, the clerks, including Ms. Bolinger and Ms. Poole, when she was performing that function, examine the forms with the retiring member to make sure that all information is correct. "We wait until they check the whole thing and this is exactly what they want, and I watch them sign it." The signature is the last item which is placed on the retirement form. If the retiring member appears unsure about the options, Ms. Poole and Ms. Bolinger will ask them to go home and think about it and think it all through before they decide. Like Ms. Poole, Ms. Bolinger leaves the option selection up to the retiring member and does not attempt to advise persons about which option to select, merely giving them the information concerning the effect of selecting a particular option. In her capacity as a notary, Ms. Bolinger stated that if a person did not look like they knew what they were doing in executing the form, she would not notarize the form. If they did not appear to understand that they were applying for retirement, or which facet of it they were applying for, she would, likewise, not notarize the form. She would not notarize a signature after the fact of the signature being placed on the form. Ms. Bolinger was shown a copy of Petitioner's exhibit 7, in evidence, which is a copy of the retirement form that did not have her notary signature. She observed that her notary stamp was on that copy but that her name had merely been signed in the wrong place, possibly because she was new to those duties concerning retirement clerk matters. She testified, however, that her signature was correctly placed on the form, she believes, that same day. See pages 17 and 37 of Petitioner's exhibit 7, in evidence. On January 14, 1988, Mrs. Bazzel completed two forms: FR-11, "Application for Service Retirement", and FR-9, "Request for Audit", (see Respondent's exhibits 9 and 10, in evidence). Both of those forms contain Mrs. Bazzel's signature and are dated with the same date, January 14, 1988. The FR- 11 form had that date written on it in three places. The two forms were then filed with the Division of Retirement. They were acknowledged by the Division as being received on the next day, January 15, 1988, according to the form FST- 40C, "Acknowledgment of Retirement Application", which has January 15, 1988 as the received date. See Respondent's exhibit 11 and the testimony of Stanley Colvin, in evidence. The Petitioner testified that he believes the retirement application forms referenced above were suspect as to accuracy because, according to his testimony, he took his wife to the school board offices on a Friday to sign the forms after the end of the teaching day on either January 8th or January 15th, and states that generally he remembers that it was a Friday because that was the day they had the habit of leaving the Panama City area to visit relatives for the weekend. However, the forms are dated January 14, 1988 in several places. The forms in evidence and the testimony of Ms. Colvin establish that the application documents were received on January 15th in the offices of the Respondent agency. Thus, they could not have been signed on Friday, January 15th. If they had been signed on Friday, January 8th, the record leaves no explanation as to why all of the forms were dated January 14th. The Hearing Officer can only logically find that, indeed, the forms were signed by Mrs. Bazzel on January 14, 1988 and received in the offices of the Division in Tallahassee, Florida, on January 15, 1988. The date of January 20, 1988, appearing on the documents, was established to be the date they were received in the bureau within the department which actually performs benefit calculations, not the date it was first received by the department. The evidence establishes that Mrs. Bazzel selected option 1, the retirement option which provides no survivor's benefits. None of the exhibits in evidence can support a finding that she chose or intended to choose option 2, which provides survivor's benefits. The application for service retirement shows an election for option 1 and the acknowledgment of receipt of that retirement application, FST-40C, shows that option 1 was selected, as well as the letter that informed Mrs. Bazzel that she was being added to the retirement payroll in the category of option 1 benefits. On August 1, 1988, the day after the first retirement warrant would have been received by Mrs. Bazzel, Ray Bazzel called the offices of the Division of Retirement to state that Mrs. Bazzel had checked the wrong number of income tax exemptions and wanted to change them. In order to know how many exemptions she had, he would have had to see the stub from that first retirement warrant. The stub would have depicted the gross amount of the benefit, which was the same amount as that provided for option 1, and not the gross amount attributable to option 2. See FST-40C form, in evidence as Respondent's exhibit 8. Additionally, in a conversation with one of her closest friends, Nan Locker, Mrs. Bazzel led Ms. Locker and friends at school to believe that her surgery had alleviated her medical problem with cancer and that she was in good health. During a conversation they had approximately nine months before Mrs. Bazzel's death, Mrs. Bazzel, in talking about retirement with Ms. Locker, who was also contemplating retirement, made a comment as follows: "Well, I've got my retirement and Joe's got his." This comment was made sometime in the fall of 1989 before Mrs. Bazzel's death in July of 1990. Although the Petitioner introduced exhibits 1, 2 and 4 in an attempt to show that his wife meant to select option 2 and that some mistake was made by the school board or the Division in preparing and submitting the documentation setting up Mrs. Bazzel's retirement benefit situation; in reality, those exhibits merely show that Mrs. Bazzel possibly did some calculations as to the difference in monthly amounts between option 1 and option 2. The exhibits can only show that she may have been aware of the difference in monthly benefit amounts between the two options, but they do not show that she intended to select option 2. Indeed, the evidence and testimony, considered in its totality, shows that her selection of option 1 was a voluntary, knowing selection. The evidence also shows that Mrs. Bazzel was mentally and medically competent to make that selection, freely and voluntarily. Her visits with Dr. McCloy, her treating physician, in the first half of 1988, to monitor her health situation after the cancer surgery, were normal and showed nothing unusual as far as any recurrence of cancer was concerned. Her chest x-rays were negative for recurrent cancer. On June 3, 1988, she was diagnosed as having a small duodenal ulcer, but no indication of recurrent cancer was present. Dr. McCloy treated her for the ulcer with medication; and by August 10, 1988, her symptoms attributable thereto had largely been alleviated. Her visits to Dr. McCloy were routine for the remainder of 1988 and 1989, with normal results. It was not until March of 1990 that she was diagnosed with a spot on the left rib, which proved to be recurrent cancer, probably attributable to the original breast cancer. She deceased as a result of this condition on July 9, 1990. Dr. McCloy testified that he never advised Mrs. Bazzel that her cancer was terminal because he believed that it had been successfully treated after the surgery and for a long period of time thereafter he had no evidence of its recurrence. Therefore, he had not advised her that she was terminally ill during the period of time she was making the retirement decisions, applying for and receiving her first retirement check during essentially the first half of 1988. Dr. McCloy's testimony further establishes, without doubt, that Mrs. Bazzel was alert, possessed her full intelligence and faculties, and understood the significance of his medical instructions, and understood his advice as to her health status. Accordingly, it has been established that Mrs. Bazzel did not have a recurrence of cancer until it was diagnosed in March of 1990, long after she had made the relevant retirement decisions pertinent hereto, and that she knew and was fully aware of her medical condition during the process of applying for her retirement benefits. She, therefore, understood the steps she took for retirement application and benefit receipt purposes, and was not medically or mentally impaired to make those decisions. It was established that she began her teaching career as a member of the Teacher Retirement System, pursuant to Chapter 238, Florida Statutes. She subsequently transferred into the Florida Retirement System under Chapter 121, Florida Statutes, during an open enrollment period. While a member of the Teacher Retirement System, she paid $12,870.33 in total contributions, plus interest, which accumulated on those contributions in the amount of $8,561.97, for a total on deposit in her account of $21,432.30. During the period of her retirement before her death, Mrs. Bazzel received total benefits in the amount of $49,551.95. She, therefore, received $28,119.65 more in benefits than she had paid into the Teacher Retirement System in contributions, plus accumulated interest. It was proven that the distance to the residence or places of business of the deponents, whose depositions were admitted into evidence, comports with the standard of Rule 1.330, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Since the locations of the deponents as potential witnesses accorded with the 100 mile standard, their depositions were admitted in lieu of live testimony.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued by the Division of Retirement determining that the Petitioner, Joe Bazzel, is not entitled to have the retirement option selected by Dorothy Bazzel changed from option 1 to option 2. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of September, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of September, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-5774 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-5. Rejected as not being in accord with the preponderant weight of the evidence. 6. Accepted but not itself materially dispositive. 7-11. Rejected as not being in accord with the preponderant weight of the evidence. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-25. Accepted. 26-30. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: A.J. McMullian, III, Director Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Bldg. C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1560 Mr. Larry Strong Acting Secretary Department of Management Services Knight Building, Suite 307 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950 Joe Bazzel P.O. Box 46 Blountstown, FL 32424 Stanley M. Danek, Esq. Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center 2639 North Monroe Street, Bldg. C Tallahassee, FL 32399-1560
