The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to disability retirement benefits calculated as if she had reached the age of 65, irrespective of her true age.
Findings Of Fact From April 1969 until March 1996, Petitioner, Bobbie Jones Scott, was employed as a school teacher by the Okaloosa County School Board. She served 27 years as an elementary school teacher, teaching at the same Okaloosa County elementary school for her entire tenure. Prior to commencing her teaching career, Petitioner served as a library aide in Okaloosa County for the full 9-month term of that position in the 1967-1968 school year. Petitioner is a member of the TRS. The TRS was closed to new members on December 1, 1970. Since closure, teachers have been enrolled in the Florida Retirement System (FRS). At some point, Petitioner purchased retirement credits in TRS for the school year during which Petitioner served as a library aide. Early retirees under both TRS and FRS, retiring without disability, have their retirement benefits actuarially reduced by five percent per year or five-twelfths percent per month for each year or fraction of year that the retiree is under the age of 62. See, Section 121.021(30), Florida Statutes and Rule 6S-7.003, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner first inquired about retirement in 1993, when her husband, also a teacher, retired. She requested and obtained from the Division an estimate of early retirement benefits. In 1993, the early retirement penalty reduced Petitioner's retirement benefit to 67.9 percent of her normal retirement benefit. The reduction was so great that Petitioner elected to keep teaching. On October 16, 1994, Petitioner severely injured her arm when she slipped on a freshly waxed floor at the elementary school. Several surgical procedures were required over the next two years as a result of this accident. Despite extensive physical therapy, Petitioner did not regain full range of motion and full use of her dominant right arm. Petitioner could not raise her arm above shoulder level and could not raise it high enough to write on a blackboard. The injury clearly interfered significantly with Petitioner's ability to teach. In December 1994, because of her injury, Petitioner requested an estimate of retirement benefits. Again, the early retirement penalty reduced the retirement benefit to 77.9 percent of normal benefits. The reduction was so great that Petitioner could not afford to retire. Approximately three months after her accident on January 17, 1995, the Petitioner returned to teaching. Her physical therapy and surgical treatment continued. In June 1995, while recuperating from the third operation on her arm, Petitioner called the Division of Retirement to request information on disability retirement. She specifically told the person she spoke with that she was a member of TRS. Petitioner was sent an application form and instructions for retirement under FRS instead of an application and instructions for TRS. At that time, the Petitioner did not submit the application because a decision on the application would not be reached before the start of the 1995-1996 school year. Petitioner wished to avoid commencing the school year, only to leave teaching several weeks into the school year, necessitating finding and hiring a replacement teacher and disrupting the students’ course of studies. In November 1995, Petitioner was diagnosed with diabetes. Teaching was becoming detrimental to Petitioner's health. At the urging of her physician she elected to pursue disability retirement. The Petitioner reviewed a booklet sent to her by Respondent entitled "Florida Retirement System Disability Benefits." The Petitioner relied on the statement on page 27 of the booklet which states, "Disability benefits are not reduced for early retirement." Based on that statement Petitioner applied for disability retirement and submitted the disability retirement application which she had received earlier along with the requisite supporting documentation on January 10, 1996. Neither the FRS disability retirement application form nor the FRS Disability Retirement Handbook informed Petitioner that there would be an early retirement penalty for disability retirees. However, the FRS literature also indicates that employees who are members of other retirement systems may be governed by different rules and should look to those other retirement systems. Unfortunately, Petitioner had been given the wrong information by the Division of Retirement even though she had specified she was a member of TRS. On February 9, 1996, after receiving Petitioner's application, the Division of Retirement sent a letter to Petitioner advising her that the incorrect disability retirement application form had been used. A TRS Disability Retirement Application form was enclosed with the letter. Only the title of the application was changed. In essence, the TRS application was the same as the FRS application. No booklet or pamphlet explaining the TRS system was provided. On February 14, 1996, immediately upon her receipt of the February 9, letter and the TRS Disability Retirement Application form, Petitioner telephoned the Division of Retirement and spoke with Mark Sadler, a retirement administrator in the disability determination section within the Division of Retirement. The Petitioner explained that she had used the disability retirement forms provided to her by the Division. She inquired as to whether an additional 30 days would be needed to process her application. She also indicated that the reason she was still working and had not retired previously is that she could not afford to be assessed the early retirement penalty. Mr. Sadler informed the Petitioner that she would need to submit the correct TRS Disability Retirement application. However, Mr. Sadler agreed to accept the physician’s report of disability already submitted with the FRS form and to expedite her request for disability retirement since the medical information which Petitioner had submitted met the TRS requirements for disability documentation. On or about March 7, 1996, Petitioner received notification from the Division of Retirement that her application for disability retirement had been approved. The next day, Petitioner met with Virginia Bowles, a benefits specialist with the Okaloosa County School Board, to obtain an estimate of her retirement benefits under Plan E of the TRS system. Mrs. Bowles prepared an estimate of Petitioner’s benefits. The estimate did not show any reduction of benefits for early retirement. The form Ms. Bowles prepared was clearly labeled "estimate" and provided, inter alia, that Petitioner would receive a calculation of her retirement benefits from the Division of Retirement in approximately three weeks. While in Mrs. Bowles’ office, Petitioner insisted on confirmation from the Division of Retirement that an early retirement penalty would not be imposed on her benefits. In the Petitioner’s presence, Mrs. Bowles called the Division of Retirement to verify that there was no early retirement penalty for disability retirees. Mrs. Bowles was assured that there was no such penalty. Mrs. Bowles immediately relayed that information to Petitioner. Based on this representation, Petitioner immediately resigned her position on March 8, to be effective March 13, 1996.1 Had Petitioner known there would be a reduction in her disability retirement benefits and had she not received incorrect information from both the Division of Retirement and the Okaloosa County School Board, she would have found some way to continue working to avoid the early retirement penalty even though continued employment would have been detrimental to her health.2 At the time of her retirement, Petitioner had attained the age of 58 years and 4 months, 44 months short of the normal retirement of age 62. The estimate prepared by Ms. Bowles reflected that Petitioner's monthly retirement benefit would fall between $1,458.20 and $1,512.41. At the time of her resignation, Petitioner was earning over $39,000 per year as an experienced teacher. Once Petitioner resigned her position, she could not immediately return to work. Board policy required her to wait one year before re-employment and then she could be rehired at a starting teacher’s salary of about $21,000. A couple of weeks after resigning her position, Petitioner received a calculation of her retirement benefits from the Division of Retirement. The benefits were significantly lower than the estimate of benefits prepared by Mrs. Bowles. Retirement benefits under Plan E are calculated by, first, determining an "average final compensation," or AFC, for an employee by averaging the 10 highest years of salary in the employee’s last 15 years of employment. The employee’s compensation percentage, or "comp percent," is then determined by assigning a 2 percent value for every year of creditable service. The AFC is then multiplied by the comp percent to arrive at a retirement benefits figure. In Petitioner’s case, the Division calculated AFC as $32,601.10. The Division, based on 27.9 years of service, arrived at a comp percent of .558, resulting in a normal retirement allowance of $18,191.41 per year or $1,515.95 per month.3 However, because Ms. Scott fell into the early retirement category under TRS her benefits were reduced. In calculating Petitioner’s disability benefits, the Division of Retirement reduced the otherwise normal retirement benefit calculation by 18.33 percent to 81.667 percent of her normal benefit. The reduction resulted in a monthly retirement benefit of $1,238.03. The reduction is the result of a five- twelfths of one percent reduction for each month that Petitioner was short of age 62 and is the correct benefit calculation under TRS. See Rule 6S-7.003, Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it RECOMMENDED: That the Division of Retirement calculated Petitioner’s benefits correctly and is not estopped from reducing Petitioner’s benefits based on her status as a disability retiree. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of July, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of July, 1997.
Findings Of Fact The parties entered into a stipulation, which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, but is quoted for the sake of clarity: Stipulated Facts Petitioner is Charles E. Kellum whose address is 10420 SW 119th Street, Miami, Florida. Petitioner is a forty-two (42) year-old male whose education consists of a graduate equivalency degree received while serving in the Air Force from 1954 through 1958. His Air Force work and training was as a fire fighter in the Crash Rescue and Fire Department of the United States Air Force. In 1959, Petitioner became employed with the Sheriff's Department of Dade County, Florida, as a motorcycle officer and first joined the Florida retirement system then in effect for county employees. Later, Petitioner changed to what is now known as the Florida Retirement System. While employed by Dade County, while on duty, and while a member of the Florida Retirement System or its predecessor, Petitioner was involved in four (4) accidents. The accidents and injuries sustained are as follows: In 1964, Petitioner was in a motorcycle accident for which he first received treatment from Dr. Samartino for abrasions and contusions; In a separate motorcycle accident, on February 16, 1965, Petitioner sustained a fractured radial head of the right elbow. In surgery that month the radial head was removed. In April, 1965, the end of the ulna was removed. In November, 1965, certain reconstructive surgery was attempted to increase the motion in his right arm. Subsequent reconstructive surgery was attempted in February, 1966. (Deposition of Dr. Samartino, pages 8 - 11); In an on-duty accident in March, 1970, Petitioner fell and injured his knee and underwent surgery on the knee in April of 1970. In May, 1974, Petitioner was involved in an accident wherein, while making an arrest, he fell on a rocky terrain and suffered re- injury to his arm and knee and injury to his back. (Deposition of Kellum, pages 4 - 5). That Petitioner was retired from Dade County for medical reasons in May, 1974. He has not been employed since, except for approximately one year he was operating a small lawn maintenance business with the help of his son and another helper. His activities are limited to driving a truck and soliciting business. Stipulated Evidence Exhibit 1 - The deposition of Charles Kellum, Petitioner Exhibit 2 - The application for retirement benefits filed December 9, 1974, and the employer's statement of disability dated December 6, 1974. Exhibit 3 - The reports of Dr. Toth dated December 9, 1974, and August 6, 1974. Exhibit 4 - The reports of Dr. Gilbert dated December 9, 1974, and October 30, 1974. Exhibit 5 - The reports and deposition of Dr. Samartino. Exhibit 6 - The reports and deposition of Dr. Jacobson. Exhibit 7 - The deposition of Harry Windler, pages 8 - 14 and pages 19 - 36. Exhibit 8 - The letter from the Director of Retirement dated April 10, 1975. Upon a consideration of the evidence further findings of fact are: The various in-line-of-duty injuries and back pain suffered by Petitioner caused his involuntary retirement from the Dade County Department of Public Safety in 1974, after an injury on May 4, 1974. Petitioner applied for work with the police department, and wants and has wanted to return to some kind of law enforcement or police work. Respondent through its administrator, as provided in Section 121.091(4), Florida Statutes, denied Petitioner Kellum's disability retirement benefits by letter dated April 10, 1975, a copy of which is marked Exhibit "A" and make a part hereof. Petitioner requested an administrative hearing in April of 1975. The Respondent denied the petition as being untimely but thereafter revoked the denial and requested the Division of Administrative Hearings to hold a hearing on the issues presented. The employer, Metropolitan Dade County Department of Public Safety, in its statement of disability stated that "physicians' statements indicate that this employee is unable to perform police duties." It also stated that no other jobs in the organization, suitable to the applicant's abilities, exist consistent with his classification. The departmental policy of the Metropolitan Dade County Department of Public Safety is to phase out employees who have become liabilities from an insurance risk management point of view. Because of the stringent minimum physical requirements imposed upon law enforcement officers in Dade County, Florida, Petitioner cannot perform his duties as a policeman or law enforcement officer and could not be re- employed in that position. There are no permanent sheltered positions for law enforcement personnel. Doctors Alex Toth and Robert G. Gilbert stated that Petitioner's condition is "prognosis guarded." They both stated that Petitioner was unable to perform regular duties. Dr. Toth stated Petitioner was "completely disabled," and Dr. Gilbert stated "for all intent and purposes, this patient is totally disabled." Dr. G. Thomas Samartino, in answer to the question, "At this time, in 1977, do you forecast any further degeneration in his health due to that particular diagnosis?" (degenerative arthrosis of the right elbow), answered "Yes." He further stated that he could not really forecast disability but that "it may stay pretty much the way it is or get a whole lot worse," and noted that there has been no improvement since 1966. He stated Petitioner suffered a 35 percent disability of the upper right extremity and a 30 percent disability of the body as a whole, which includes pain. All three physicians stated that they felt the Petitioner should not be employed as a policeman. Dr. Robert E. Jacobson, a neurologic surgeon, stated that from the functional standpoint the Petitioner would be unable to return to work as a combat policeman, although he could do other type of work. He also stated that the numerous injuries and back and neck complaints would add up to a more marked problem than any one would imply. Petitioner's training was as a fire fighter in the crash rescue fire department while in service of his country from 1954 to 1958. He joined the service immediately out of high school and, before his discharge, took the GED test to get a high school certificate. His employment and further training has been in police work, being employed by the Metropolitan Dade County Public Safety Department in October of 1959, a position he filled for fifteen, (15) years. His training after Air Force service consists of little more than on- the-job training for his employment as a motorcycle officer. Petitioner was self-employed, driving a truck and soliciting business together with two other persons in the yard maintenance work. He applied without success for at least two positions with private employers, but he has not applied for rehabilitative training. His remuneration from his self- employment was approximately $6,000.00 per year, substantially lower than he earned as a police officer, which pay classification is approximately $8,000.00 to $20,000.00. Petitioner is totally and permanently disabled from rendering useful and efficient service as an employee in police and law enforcement work, but he can perform a useful work service. Petitioner contends: That he is permanently and totally disabled from doing the police or law enforcement work for which he is trained and for which he had been employed for some fifteen (15) years, and that his disability arose from his work; That he is unable to perform materially or substantially all or any of the remunerative duties for which he is educated and trained, and which might permit him to be compensated at or near the compensable rate of a Dade County policeman; and That he is entitled to the disability benefits authorized by Section 121.091(4), inasmuch as he is totally and permanently disabled to perform duties as a police or law enforcement officer because of injuries he received while on such duty. Respondent contends: That Petitioner is not totally and permanently disabled hut only partially disabled, and can and does work and earn an income although he is disabled from performing the duties of his normal occupation; and That a showing that Petitioner is incapable of performing duties of his usual occupation is not sufficient to obtain disability retirement benefits under the statute.
Recommendation Grant Petitioner Charles E. Kellum disability retirement benefits. DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of May, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Melvin R. Horne, Esquire Post Office Drawer 1140 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Stephen S. Mathues, Esquire Division of Retirement 530 Carlton Building A Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF RETIREMENT CHARLES E. KELLUM, Petitioner, vs. DOAH CASE NO. 77-465 DIVISION OF RETIREMENT, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the surviving spouse of Huldah C. Roach. At the time of her death, Mrs. Roach was a retired member of the Florida Retirement System, and was receiving retirement benefits pursuant to Chapter 121, Florida Statutes. The Respondent, Division of Retirement, sent Mrs. Roach her retirement benefits for the month of June, 1977, at the end of that month. The warrant for the retirement benefit was received by the Petitioner on or about June 30, 1977, and was deposited by him in the joint account which he had shared with Mrs. Roach. On June 8, 1977, Mrs. Roach died. By letter dated July 4, 1977, the Petitioner advised the Respondent of his wife's death. He also advised the Respondent that he was holding the benefit warrant, but in a telephone conversation on August 22, 1977, he advised the Respondent that the warrant had been deposited in the joint account. By letter dated August 24, 1977, the Respondent advised the Petitioner that Mrs. Roach was entitled to retirement benefits only up to the date of her death, and that $330.81 of the June payment thus represented an overpayment. The letter included a demand for repayment of the asserted overpayment. The Respondent made no effort to collect the asserted overpayment between August 24, 1977, and December 5, 1979, when the Respondent, through counsel, forwarded a demand letter to the Petitioner. The petitioner was not able to identify what expenses he paid from the June, 1977, retirement benefit. Mrs. Roach received retirement benefits in excess of her total contributions to the Florida Retirement System, and under the retirement option that she selected, she was entitled to no additional benefits after the day of her death. The Respondent has consistently interpreted provisions of the Florida Retirement Law as allowing payment of retirement benefits only through the date of a retiree's death.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, John Hasko ("Petitioner"), is entitled, pursuant to the City of Dania Beach Code of Ordinances ("Code") section 18-49(4), to be paid retirement pension benefits under the City of Dania Beach Police and Firefighters Retirement System's ("Respondent" or "System") "100 Percent Joint and Last Survivor Annuity" ("Last Survivor Annuity") or the "Modified Cash Refund Annuity" ("Life Annuity").
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is a retired police officer who was employed by the City of Dania Beach Police Department ("Police Department") and who has qualified for, and is receiving, retirement pension benefits under the System. Pursuant to chapter 18, article IV of the Code, Respondent is the retirement pension system provided for the benefit of firefighters and police officers, including Petitioner, who are or previously were employed by the City of Dania Beach. Evidence Adduced at Final Hearing Background Petitioner was hired by the Police Department on December 18, 1980, and, upon being employed, began accruing credit toward a pension under the System. Petitioner was employed by the Police Department for 20 years. On October 1, 1988, the City of Dania Beach Police Department merged with the Broward County Sheriff's Office ("BCSO"). At that time, Petitioner was given the option whether to remain in the System or to retrieve his contributions and become enrolled in the Florida Retirement System ("FRS"), which was and is the retirement program in which BSCO employees are eligible to enroll. At that time, Petitioner elected to remain enrolled in the System rather than enrolling in the FRS. On August 28, 2000, Petitioner executed a retirement benefits election form to select the type of pension under which he would receive pension benefits from the System starting on January 1, 2001. Petitioner retired from the Police Department effective December 31, 2000. In April 2001, Petitioner began receiving monthly pension payments under the System, and also received back payments for January through March 2001. Immediately upon retiring from the Police Department, Petitioner began working with the BCSO. At that time, he enrolled in the FRS and began accruing credit under a life annuity plan provided through the FRS. Petitioner was employed by the BCSO for slightly over 14 years. As the result of a series of work-related injuries, attendant surgeries, and permanent restrictions on his activities, Petitioner retired from the BCSO on April 14, 2014. In the 2006-to-2007 timeframe, Petitioner was diagnosed with a cardiac condition that ultimately necessitated placement of a stent in 2012. Petitioner remains under the regular care of a cardiologist and is on medication to treat his cardiac condition. He credibly testified that since 2012, his condition has remained stable. In June 2014, Petitioner applied for pension benefits under the FRS. Petitioner testified, credibly, that he had four options from which to choose,1/ and that he selected the Ten Year Certain option. Under this plan, Petitioner receives monthly payments for the rest of his life. If Petitioner were to predecease his beneficiary——in this case, his wife——before the 120-month period ends, she would continue to receive payments through the end of the 120-month period; however, if Petitioner were to predecease his wife after the end of the 120-month period, she would not receive any further payments. Petitioner testified that, based on his belief that he had enrolled in the Last Survivor Annuity under the System, he selected the FRS Ten- Year Certain Option so that if he predeceased his wife, she would receive benefits payments from two sources for the remainder of her life——the Last Survivor Annuity and Social Security. Petitioner receives benefit payments through the FRS to date. Petitioner has received monthly retirement benefit payments through the System since April 2001, including back payments for January through March 2001. He continues to receive monthly retirement benefit payments from the System to date. Evidence Regarding Petitioner's Election of Benefits Under the System The City of Dania Beach Police and Firefighters Retirement System Summary Plan Description ("SPD") summarizes the System's available pension plan options. The section titled "Forms of Benefits Payment," on page 16 of the SPD, states under the "Normal Form of Benefit Payment" subsection: "[u]nless you elect otherwise before your retirement, your pension is payable as a Single Life Annuity with a guaranteed refund of your contributions. This is a series of monthly payments for your life." This provision effectively makes the "Normal Form" the "default" form of benefits payments if the employee does not elect another form of benefit payments before retiring. The "Election of Optional Forms of Benefit Payments" subsection of the SPD states: "You have the right at any time before your retirement date to elect not to have your retirement benefit paid in the Normal Form." This subsection identifies other forms of benefit payments available that the employee may choose as an alternative to the Normal Form. These forms are the Joint and Last Survivor Annuity, the Ten Year Certain and Life Thereafter Annuity, and another optional form actuarially equivalent to the Normal Form. Petitioner decided to retire from City of Dania Beach Police Department at the end of 2000. On August 28, 2000, he met with Sonia Brown, then the plan administrator for the System, to fill out an application for retirement benefits. He completed a form titled "City of Dania Beach Police and Firefighters' Retirement System Application for Benefits" ("Application Form"). Section 1 of the Application Form, titled "For Retirement or DROP Benefits," contained a section to identify the beneficiary for the Joint and Survivor and Ten Year Certain options. Petitioner completed this portion of the form, naming his wife as his beneficiary and providing pertinent information about her. He also completed section 4 of the form, designating his wife as his beneficiary for all purposes under the System. He signed and dated the Application Form. Petitioner testified that he met with Brown again in early December 2000, to finalize his election of his benefits that he would be paid under the System. According to Petitioner, at that time, he told Brown that he chose the Last Survivor Annuity option. He testified that Brown gave him paperwork to fill out, that he completed the paperwork, and that she told him that he would receive benefit payments of between $2,400 and $2,500 per month based on his chosen option. Petitioner testified that Brown did not give him the "City of Dania Beach Police and Firefighters Retirement System Notification of Benefits Payable as a Result of Retirement" form ("Notification of Benefits Form") to complete at the December 2000 meeting. Petitioner testified that he did not specifically remember what documents he completed that day, and that he did not receive a copy of those documents. Respondent's file regarding Petitioner's benefits election does not contain either the original or a copy of the documents that Petitioner claims he signed in December 2000. In short, there is no physical evidence substantiating the existence of these documents. Petitioner testified that based on the December 2000 meeting with Brown, he believed he had selected the Last Survivor Annuity and that the payments under that option would start in January 2001. After Petitioner retired from the Police Department, he did not receive his benefit payments under the System for January, February, and March 2001. He testified that he assumed that this delay was due to the time involved in processing the paperwork he claims to have completed in December 2000. On January 23, 2001, Brown sent correspondence to the System's actuarial services firm requesting that Petitioner's early retirement benefit be calculated according to the various benefits options available to police plan participants who are eligible for early retirement with 20 years of service. Petitioner is shown as having been copied on this letter, and he acknowledges having received the letter. By letter dated February 19, 2001, Respondent sent Petitioner "several forms to be completed by you and returned to this office for further processing of your early retirement benefit." The letter identified these forms as the Notification of Benefits Form, a W-4P form for specifying the amount to be withheld from the benefit payments for federal income tax, and a form to authorize direct deposit of the benefit payments into Petitioner's bank account. Petitioner claims that he did not receive this letter. Petitioner testified that in March 2001, Brown contacted him to complete a "verification of beneficiary form." On March 8, 2001, Petitioner went to Brown's office, where she presented him with what he characterized as a "verification of beneficiary form." According to Petitioner, Brown "asked him to make sure my beneficiary information was correct" and to sign and date the form where she had placed check marks. The "verification of beneficiary form" Petitioner signed actually consists of the second page of the Notification of Benefits Form. The second page of the Notification of Benefits Form that Petitioner executed contains a table that identifies Petitioner's wife (whose name is redacted) as his beneficiary. Portions of the table consist of spaces in which to state information regarding the amount of the nontaxable portion of monthly benefits for the various annuity options, which are identified by number and listed on the first page of the form. There are no amounts listed in those spaces on the form that Petitioner signed; those spaces have been left blank. A paragraph below the table states: "[t]he Survivor Annuity benefit amounts shown above are based on the beneficiary named above and are payable only to this beneficiary. Should you wish to change your beneficiary before your payments begin, new amounts have to be calculated."2/ Near the bottom of the form is the sentence "I accept the terms above, including my choice of annuity form, and confirm the information shown above to be correct."3/ Immediately below the above-referenced sentence is a "Participant's Signature" line. Petitioner signed the form on this line and dated it "3/08/01." Petitioner testified that at the time he signed this form, the spaces for the signature by the Board of Trustees representative and the date of signature were blank. The form subsequently was executed by the Board of Trustees, through Eugene H. Jewell, on March 13, 2001. Petitioner testified that in November 2015, he became aware, through checking his various beneficiary designations as the result of a bank error,4/ that the System was paying his retirement benefits pursuant to the Life Annuity rather than the Last Survivor Annuity. Petitioner testified that on November 6, 2015, he went to the System office to verify that his wife was correctly designated as his retirement pension beneficiary. He met with Cathy David,5/ the current system plan administrator, to review the documents in his retirement pension file. Petitioner testified that, he saw, for the first time, the first page of the Notification of Benefits Form contained in his file. This page had a check mark next to the "Modified Cash Refund"——i.e., the Life Annuity——option. He testified that he did not make the check mark next to the "Modified Cash Refund" option on the form. Petitioner obtained documents contained in the Salem Trust ("Salem")6/ file regarding his retirement pension. Among these documents was a letter dated March 13, 2001, from Brown to Livia Nixon, with Petitioner shown as copied, transmitting the completed forms to enable Salem to process Petitioner's retirement pension, and requesting that Salem expeditiously issue retroactive checks to Petitioner for January through March 2001. Petitioner testified that he had not previously received a copy of the March 13, 2001, letter or the attached forms, and that he did not see them until he obtained the documents in the Salem file. Petitioner also testified that he did not receive a December 6, 2001, letter from Respondent notifying him that the System's auditors, S. Davis & Associates, P.A. ("SDA"), were conducting an annual audit of Respondent's financial statements.7/ This letter contained information regarding Petitioner's pension ——including information expressly identifying the type of benefit Petitioner was receiving as the "Life Annuity." The letter requested that Petitioner review the information contained in the letter and correct any errors by providing the correct information to SDA. Petitioner testified that he first saw this letter during his November 6, 2015, review of the documents in the System's file, so he did not respond to SDA in 2001. In sum, Petitioner claims that at a December 2000 meeting with Brown, he selected the Last Survivor Annuity as the form in which he would be paid retirement pension benefits under the System. He claims that he did not select the Life Annuity, and that he did not make the check mark by the "Modified Cash Refund" option on the first page of the Notification of Benefits form that was contained in the System file. In sum, Petitioner also claims that he did not receive or otherwise was not provided the following documents: (1) the unidentified "paperwork" that he claims he completed at a meeting with Brown in December 2000, at which he selected the Last Survivor Annuity; (2) the letter dated February 19, 2001, from Brown to Petitioner, transmitting forms——including the entire Notification of Benefits Form——that Petitioner needed to complete to enable processing of his early retirement benefit; (3) the first page of the Notification of Benefits Form on March 8, 2001, when he completed the second page of that form confirming his wife as his beneficiary; (4) the March 13, 2001, letter from Brown to Livia Nixon of Salem, transmitting Petitioner's retirement pension forms completed on March 8, 2001, to Salem for processing; and (5) the December 6, 2001, letter to Petitioner from Respondent's outside auditor, SDA, requesting him to verify the accuracy of the information regarding his pension and to correct any errors in that information. Petitioner acknowledges that he did receive a letter from Cathy David dated July 1, 2012, regarding a change in Florida law that could affect retirees. That letter expressly stated "[y]ou chose the life annuity when you retired on January 1, 2001." Petitioner claims that he did not read this letter in its entirety, so he did not see the statement in the letter regarding having chosen the life annuity. Findings of Ultimate Fact Upon careful consideration of the evidence in the record, it is determined that Petitioner did not show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he selected the Last Survivor Annuity, rather than the Life Annuity, so that, pursuant to section 18-49(4) of the Code, he should be reclassified as being enrolled in the Last Survivor Annuity. First, the undersigned finds implausible Petitioner's testimony that he signed unspecified "paperwork" selecting the Last Survivor Annuity——clearly, a very important decision on his part——but that he does not "remember specifically" what that paperwork was and that he did not receive a copy of that paperwork. Compounding that implausibility is that neither the original nor any copies of that "paperwork" were found in Respondent's file or in Salem's file. Simply stated, there is no physical evidence establishing the existence of this "paperwork" ——which Petitioner claims is the instrument through which he elected the Last Survivor Annuity.8/ Second, the first page of the Notification of Benefits Form that was contained in Respondent's file on Petitioner's retirement pension shows the "Modified Cash Annuity" option—— i.e., the Life Option——as having been selected by the placement of a check mark next to that option. It is undisputed that Petitioner executed the second page of the form. This complete Notification of Benefits Form contained in Respondent's file constitutes the complete, most credible evidence in the record that Petitioner selected the Life Annuity when he executed the form on March 8, 2001. To this point, Petitioner offered no credible evidence to support his assertion that someone——unknown to him and having unknown motives——must have placed the first page of the Notification of Benefits Form, having the check mark next to the "Modified Cash Refund" option, in Respondent's file without his knowledge. The undersigned does not find credible or persuasive Petitioner's testimony that he was not given the first page of the Notification of Benefits Form on March 8, 2001,9/ and that based on the language in the paragraph below the table, quoted in paragraph 29 above, he reasonably believed that the second page of that form constituted a "verification of beneficiary" that simply confirmed his beneficiary for his previous selection of the "survivor annuity." However, in order for the clause "the Survivor Annuity benefit amounts shown above" in that paragraph to make sense, it must be read in conjunction with the table above the paragraph. As discussed above, in the table on page 2 of the Notification of Benefits Form that was executed by Petitioner, no amounts of nontaxable portion of monthly benefit for any of the survivor annuity options have been filled in, even though the paragraph below the table expressly refers to the "Survivor Annuity benefit amounts shown above." The absence in the table of any "Survivor Annuity benefit amounts shown above" is inconsistent with Petitioner having chosen a survivor annuity option. Thus, the paragraph below the table can only be reasonably read to mean that to the extent the employee has selected one of the different survivor annuity options on the first page of the form, the survivor annuity benefits amounts shown in the table apply to the particular beneficiary identified in the table. Accordingly, if no survivor annuity benefit amounts are "shown above"——i.e., set forth in the table ——that would indicate, and only be consistent with, the selection of a retirement option other than a survivor annuity. The undersigned also does not find plausible Petitioner's testimony that he did not receive or otherwise was not given copies of five crucial retirement-related documents—— four of which clearly informed him that he was enrolled in the life annuity——so that he was not timely informed of the need to correct a mistake in his retirement pension enrollment. That these documents were transmitted by different senders—— Respondent, Salem, and SDA——compounds that implausibility.10/ For these reasons, it is determined that Petitioner has not sustained his burden in this proceeding to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he has been erroneously classified as being enrolled in the Life Annuity, and that, pursuant to section 18-49(4) of the Code, he should be reclassified as being enrolled in the Last Survivor Annuity.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order denying Petitioner's request for reclassification of pension enrollment from Life Annuity to Last Survivor Annuity. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of September, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS 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 21st day of September, 2018.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Fred E. Hild (Colonel Hild), a deceased member of the Florida Retirement System, was incapacitated at the time he selected his retirement option and through the time that his first benefits check was cashed and, if so, whether his retirement option should be amended retroactively to provide benefits for Petitioner, Lois Hild, his spouse.
Findings Of Fact Colonel Fred Hild, late husband of Lois Hild, served in the Air Force for 25 years before retiring from that service. After retirement from the Air Force and after Valencia Community College opened in Orlando, Florida, Colonel Hild joined the college staff, first as a teacher and then as an administrator. At the time of his retirement from the college, he was assistant to the provost. He worked at the college from 1978 until 1996. His employment at the college was covered by the Florida Retirement System (FRS). With the exception of a year's employment in her family's business, Mrs. Hild never worked outside of her home. She and Colonel Hild were married over 50 years and had a full, active life together. Colonel Hild provided the financial support for the family and, except for routine household expenses when he was away in the Air Force, he handled all of the family's financial affairs. Colonel Hild's family and co-workers acknowledge that he was a remarkable man in many ways, physically vigorous and mentally sharp. His work was always an important aspect of his life; he was well-respected and well-known on the college campus and, because of his long tenure, was very knowledgeable about the history and functioning of the college. As he aged, Colonel Hild slowed down a bit; he had days at work when he was sleepy or grumpy. Most days, though, he was quite normal and sharp. He knew all of the regulations for the college and always went by the rules. On October 12, 1995, at the age of 81 years, Colonel Hild suffered a major cerebrovascular accident (stroke) while at home. The stroke left lasting side effects. For a time after the stroke he lost all short-term memory and could neither read nor write. He became passive and frail. He underwent rehabilitation and improved quite a bit, according to Mrs. Hild, but he was never again the same man. Colonel Hild's son, David, who lived in California, sold his car and possessions and moved in with his parents to help Mrs. Hild provide the care Colonel Hild then required. This care included driving and assistance ambulating in the home neighborhood, where he would sometimes get lost. Colonel Hild was never again able to drive, as he lost part of his peripheral vision and would forget where he was going. He was unable at times to recognize friends or family members. He slept a lot and needed supervision in showering and dressing. He never again was able to assume responsibility for the financial affairs of the family. The Hild's son, Steve, an accountant in Miami, Florida, helped Mrs. Hild with financial planning and paperwork. Before his stroke Colonel Hild had made some plans for retirement. He spoke to co-workers of investments in stocks and bonds, and when the Air Force brought in a survivor's benefit program, he took advantage of that so that his wife would have some benefits when he died. He also spoke to Mrs. Hild of their having retirement benefits from Valencia for ten years. Still, before the stroke Colonel Hild worried about having enough for retirement and his worries increased after the stroke. He insisted on returning to work at the college after his rehabilitation and some recovery. Although they were worried about how he could function, Colonel Hild's wife and sons were reluctant to oppose him when he was so insistent. Dr. Collins, his personal physician for over 20 years, provided certificates authorizing Colonel Hild to return to the college part-time on April 8, 1996, and full time on June 1, 1996. Dr. Collins believed that the duties would be light and that the family and college staff would look out for Colonel Hild. Colonel Hild's son, David, drove him to and from work and made sure Colonel Hild got in the building. The first time they made the drive, Colonel Hild directed his son to the wrong campus of the college. Already thoroughly trained in the paperwork, the secretaries picked up much of the work that Colonel Hild had been doing. For example, they listened to students' problems and tried to work them out with the department chairpersons. For final decisions, the staff referred the problems to the provost, Dr. Kinzer. Colonel Hild's duties on his return to work were light. Because Colonel Hild was very organized and knew so much about the college, he was able to function with the help of his staff. He could review documents prepared for him and would initial or sign the documents, as appropriate, sometimes changing something if it had not been prepared correctly. Some days were better than others; he slept more than he did before his stroke and would sometimes get lost on campus. Because he was so well- known, someone would always help him back to his office. One of the annual responsibilities of Colonel Hild was organizing the graduation processions, making a list of the order of the march and placing posters or signs in the corridors for guidance. He performed this function without complaint in early May 1996. He refused assistance of his staff and, except for a couple of posters on the opposite wall, he managed to get everything done. At the actual graduation night, however, Colonel's Hild's, son, David, had to help him find his way at the end of the ceremony and recessional march. Colonel Hild retired from Valencia Community College on July 31, 1996. In preparation for that retirement he had several contacts with staff in the college's human resources office. Initially, Colonel Hild signed a form on May 30, 1996, applying for retirement and leaving blank the benefit option selection since he had not yet received an estimate of the amounts he would receive under each option. Vicki Nelson, a staff person in the human resources office, had approximately 4 or 5 contacts with Colonel Hild, face-to-face or over the telephone, while preparing paperwork for his retirement. At one point she was concerned that she was having to explain things over again and she suggested to Colonel Hild and to his secretary that maybe he should bring Mrs. Hild in with him. The issue she was trying to explain had something to do with the need to obtain Mrs. Hild's birth certificate if he selected either option 3 or 4. The suggestion was never followed up and ultimately Mrs. Hild's birth certificate was unnecessary. Michael Break is assistant vice-president of human resources at Valencia Community College. In his capacity as director of human resources Dr. Break was involved in preparing Colonel Hild's retirement documents. On June 19, 1996, Dr. Break, Vicki Nelson, and Colonel Hild met to discuss the benefit options and the monthly estimates of each amount. The FRS provides four benefit options to its retirees. Option 1 yields the maximum monthly benefit, but when the retiree dies there is no survivor benefit. Option 2 yields a reduced monthly benefit for 10 years. If the retiree dies before the end of 10 years, the benefit is paid to the survivor for the balance of the 10 years. Option 3 provides a reduced benefit for the joint lifetimes of the member and beneficiary; Option 4 provides a reduced benefit for the lifetimes of the retiree and beneficiary, which benefit is reduced by 33 1/3% upon the death of either. As explained to Colonel Hild, his monthly benefit under option 1 was $2,569.64; under option 2, his benefit was $1,692.72; under option 3 the benefit was $1,546.92; and under option 4, the benefit was $1,856.41, reduced to $1,237.61 upon the death of Colonel or Mrs. Hild. In his discussion with Colonel Hild, Dr. Break pointed out the implications of the various options, including the need to consider such factors as one's health and financial arrangements for a dependent spouse. In response, Colonel Hild mentioned that he had other financial means and this was not the only retirement that he depended on. Although Dr. Break was aware that some people were concerned about Colonel Hild's effectiveness after his return to work, nothing in Colonel Hild's responses to the discussion in the meeting raised red flags to alert Dr. Break that Colonel Hild did not understand. Colonel Hild expressed his opinion that the difference between benefits under option 1 and the remaining options was excessive. In Dr. Break's experience, and as he counsels pre- retirees, sometimes the selection of option 1, with the additional purchase of an annuity or life insurance policy, inures to the greater benefit of an individual's dependents than the other reduced-benefit options under the FRS. When a retiree selects option 1 or 2, there is a section on the option selection form for the spouse to sign in acknowledgment of the option. Colonel Hild brought the form home and gave it to Mrs. Hild to sign one morning before he left for work. When she signed it the form was blank. All she knew was what he told her, that the form was something she had to sign for his retirement. She did not question her husband or even read enough of the form to know that there were 4 options. Mary Ann Swenson has been employed at Valencia Community College for thirteen years, 8 of which have been in the human resources department. Ms. Swenson notarized Colonel Hild's signature on the benefits option form on June 24, 1996, and remembers the occasion. Colonel Hild came to the human resources office to meet with Vicki Nelson, who called Ms. Swenson. At the time that Colonel Hild signed the form, Mrs. Hild's signature was already on it, but her signature did not require a notary. Likewise, option 1 had been checked on the form and, in response to a question by Colonel Hild, Vicki Nelson showed him that he marked option 1 and said, "Yes, you have marked option 1." Colonel Hild signed the form and then Ms. Swenson notarized it. On June 24, 1996, during the approximately 10 minutes that Ms. Swenson spent with Colonel Hild and Vicki Nelson, she had no reason to believe that he was not in complete control of his mental facilities or that he failed to understand and recognize what he was signing. Colonel Hild retired, as planned, the end of July 1996, and his first retirement check arrived approximately August 30, 1996. Mrs. Hild saw the check and had her husband endorse it. She then cashed the check. She understood that by doing so, she was accepting the amount of the check. She saw no problem with this because she assumed that Colonel Hild had opted for what he and she had discussed as the "ten year" provision. Mrs. Hild assumed that the check reflected the number of years he was employed and the amount of money that he was making. The Hild's son, Steve, made the same assumption, as he and Colonel Hild had discussed retirement sometime in the early 1990's and Steve understood that his father would take the 10- year plan with Valencia. Neither Steve nor Mrs. Hild had requested any information from the college or Division of Retirement about the option selected by Colonel Hild or the amount of benefits he would receive once he retired. Colonel Hild died on September 28, 1997. He had received a total of approximately $37,000, or 14 months of benefits under FRS option 1 during his lifetime. Mrs. Hild and Colonel Hild's sons learned of the option 1 selection when the checks stopped coming after Colonel Hild's death and when Mrs. Hild called the college human resources office. It is necessary to glean Colonel Hild's mental capacity and state of mind from the circumstances described by the witnesses in this case, all of whom were candid and credible. From those circumstances it is impossible to find that Colonel Hild was incompetent to make the decision to chose option 1 for his FRS benefits. That decision was entirely consistent with his concern, described by his family and staff at the college, that there be enough money coming in when he retired. Although he plainly was concerned for making financial arrangements for his spouse, he had made some arrangements already with his Air Force retirement and with other assets or investments. Described as strong-willed, disciplined and well- organized, Colonel Hild, in spite of his diminished capacity after his stroke, convinced his family, the college and his long time physician that he should return to work. And he did function in that work prior to retirement, performing by habit those tasks that he had mastered in his long tenure. No one suggests that Colonel Hild was coerced, pressured or hurried into the decision he made. The various staff who met with him on several occasions regarding his retirement believed that he was capable of making his own decision and that he exercised the very option that he intended.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: THAT the Florida Division of Retirement issue its final order denying the relief sought by Petitioner, Lois Hild. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 4th day of March, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold Lewis, Esquire Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center 2639-C North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Julia Smith, Esquire Amundsen and Moore 502 East Park Avenue Post Office Box 1759 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 A. J. McMullian, III, Director Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Emily Moore, Chief Legal Counsel Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Building C Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to purchase leave of absence retirement credit on behalf of James Gapinski, Petitioner's ex- husband and a deceased member of the Florida Retirement System.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Geraldine Gapinski, is the former spouse of James Gapinski, deceased. At the time of his death, Mr. Gapinski was an employee of Florida State University and a "vested" Florida Retirement Service (FRS) member. Petitioner is an employee of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) and an active member of FRS. Mr. Gapinski was continuously employed by Florida's Univeristy System from approximately 1970, until his death on November 20, 2000, with the exception of a period from September 10, 1976 to June 9, 1977, during which period he took an approved leave of absence. During the period September 10, 1976 to June 9, 1977, no contributions were made by Mr. Gapinski or on Mr. Gapinski's behalf to FRS toward his accruing retirement benefits and he earned no creditable service in FRS for this eight month period he was on his leave of absence. On May 4, 2000, Mr. Gapinski requested an audit and estimate of retirement benefits from Respondent. At the time of his request for an audit and estimate, Mr. Gapinski and Petitioner had begun a dissolution of marriage proceeding (divorce). At all times material, each litigant had independent legal counsel, and each lawyer was aware that Mr. Gapinski's FRS benefits were "on the table" for division of the marital estate in the course of the divorce proceedings. At all times material, Mr. Gapinski was terminally ill with cancer. On September 14, 2000, Mr. Gapinski applied for participation in the Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP). His application (DROP Form DP11) requested a DROP "begin date" of September 1, 2000, and designated each of Mr. Gapinski's two adult daughters as 50 percent primary beneficiaries. Petitioner, who at that time was still married to Mr. Gapinski, was not even designated a secondary beneficiary. The application, which Mr. Gapinski signed, stated in pertinent part, I understand that the earliest date my participation in the DROP can begin is the first date I reach my normal retirement date as determined by law . . . I cannot add additional service, change options, or change my type of retirement after my DROP begin date (emphasis in original). The application also specified eight required acts before Mr. Gapinski could retire and become a DROP participant, including, but not limited to, 4. A check payable to FRS for any amount you owe, or a written statement that you do not wish to claim the service . . . . On September 15, 2000, Respondent provided James Gapinski with two estimates of benefits. Estimate No. 1 showed the benefit Mr. Gapinski would be entitled to if he chose to purchase the one year leave of absence for $6,820.52, providing for a DROP beginning date of September 1, 2000. This estimate further advised that 6.5 percent per annum would be posted on June 30, 2001. It also stated, Comments: The amount due is to purchase service for your leave of absence from September 10, 1976 to June 9, 1977. This amount must be paid for a DROP begin date of September 1, 2000. Mr. Gapinski was also notified of the need to purchase his leave of absence credit in a letter from Respondent dated September 15, 2001, stating, in pertinent part, as follows: The following items are pending. The amount due is to purchase service for your leave of absence from September 10, 1976 to June 9, 1977. If you do not elect to pay the above amount due and purchase the service it represents, we must have written notification of your intent. * * * Completion of the Option Selection for FRS members, . . . AFTER YOUR FIRST MONTH OF DROP PARTICIPATION YOU CANNOT ADD ADDITIONAL SERVICE, CHANGE OPTIONS, CHANGE YOUR DROP BEGIN DATE OR CHANGE YOUR TYPE OF RETIREMENT. * * * Estimate No. 2 sent to Mr. Gapinski on September 15, 2000, showed the benefit Mr. Gapinski would be entitled to if he chose not to purchase his leave of absence and waited until March 1, 2001, to participate in DROP, when he would accrue 30 years of service without counting the gap left by his 1976-1977 leave of absence. This estimate also stated: Comments: This estimate does not include the purchase of your leave of absence and is provided for comparison purposes. It is provided for DROP purposes with a March 1, 2001, DROP begin date (see the enclosed DROP brochure). If you do not elect to pay the amount due and purchase the service it represents, we must have written notice of your intent. Apparently, neither attorney ever saw any of the foregoing papers. The thrust of Petitioner's attorney's actions and advice was to obtain survivorship retirement benefits, not necessarily DROP benefits, for Petitioner. On October 23, 2000, Petitioner's attorney was told by telephone by Ms. Ferguson, a representative of Respondent, that Petitioner must make a non-party request to release Mr. Gapinski's retirement information to her. So far as this record shows, no third party request was ever made, but that day, Petitioner's attorney and Ferguson also generally discussed retirement pay-out options that Mr. Gapinski could elect, and Petitioner's attorney was generally aware that the DROP process was not complete. On October 24, 2000, Petitioner's attorney discussed by telephone, retirement, divorce, and survivorship benefit issues and life insurance payment options with Ms. Hudson, a representative of Respondent. On October 26, 2000, Petitioner's attorney discussed, by telephone, retirement options and steps to be taken, with both Ms. Ferguson and Mr. Helms, another of Respondent's representatives. Mr. Helms told her the DROP application was not complete but if the couple were still married, Option No. 3 would give the most benefit for survivorship benefits. During the October 2000, conversations, Petitioner's attorney made each of Respondent's representatives aware of the impending divorce and of Mr. Gapinski's impending death, but the attorney did not specifically inquire how soon the lapsed time payment must be made and none of Respondent's representatives volunteered information on that issue. At Mr. Gapinski's request, the divorce proceeding was bifurcated. Prior to the divorce, Petitioner's attorney had done independent research and was aware that Mr. Gapinski had to pay the $6,820.52, in order to perfect the DROP program and in order to complete 30 years of creditable service in order to be eligible for survivorship benefits on his retirement. This information was communicated to Petitioner by her attorney and whether or not Petitioner would be willing to pay half the amount was discussed. Petitioner stated she would be willing to pay half the amount owed. As a condition to her agreement to bifurcate the divorce proceeding, that is, as a condition to letting Mr. Gapinski out of the marriage but reserving jurisdiction in the Circuit Court to resolve certain disputes concerning assets and entitlements, Petitioner required that the couple enter into an "Agreement" on October 27, 2000, which provided, in pertinent part, as follows: BIFURCATION: The Husband shall be entitled to bifurcation of the dissolution action. The marriage of the parties shall be dissolved with the Court reserving on all remaining unresolved issues not addressed in this agreement. In light of the Husband's health, the Wife shall schedule and appear at an ex parte hearing to dissolve the marriage, to obtain Court-ordered approval of this agreement, and to ensure the Court's reservation of jurisdiction to hear any and all issues pertinent to support and the division of property not yet settled by the parties. * * * B. The Wife further agrees that all marital assets awarded to her in this cause (including proceeds from the Husband's retirement and life insurance in the event the Husband predeceases her), shall be placed in an inter vivos trust, from which she may draw living, personal, and medical expenses, during her life, with the parties' adult daughters named as the irrevocable beneficiaries of the remainder of such trust. C. The Husband agrees to bequeath sufficient marital assets, awarded to him in this cause, to the parties' adult daughters to aid in their comfort and support. HUSBAND'S RETIREMENT: The Husband shall elect an option on his retirement with the State of Florida that provides for survivorship benefits for the benefit of the Wife. The wife shall be entitled to all such retirement survivorship benefits which, like the other assets she receives in this bifurcated action, shall be placed in an inter vivos trust for her living, personal and medical expenses, during her life, with the adult daughters as irrevocable beneficiaries of the remainder of the trust. The Husband shall, simultaneously with the signing of the agreement, execute such documents as are necessary to create retirement survivorship benefits in accordance with this term. Should the Husband fail to execute the survivorship option on his retirement or should he ever change such option in contravention of this term, the Husband agrees that the obligation of this term is binding upon his estate, which estate shall be responsible for paying such retirement survivorship benefits to the Wife. The Agreement could have, but did not, specifically require that the leave of absence be purchased by either Mr. Gapinski or Petitioner. Petitioner's and Mr. Gapinski's Agreement does not bind the Respondent, which was in no way privy to that Agreement. Petitioner and Mr. Gapinski's marriage was dissolved on November 1, 2000. Petitioner's attorney provided Mr. Gapinski, through his counsel, with DROP forms (FST-12 and FRS-11o). On November 1, 2000, Mr. Gapinski executed Option 2 for his DROP retirement on these forms, naming Petitioner as his sole primary beneficiary and negating his prior designation of his adult daughters as beneficiaries. Option No. 2 provides for a reduced monthly benefit payable for the FRS member's (Mr. Gapinski's) lifetime. If the member dies before receiving 120 monthly payments, his designated beneficiary (Petitioner) would receive a monthly benefit in the same amount until the monthly benefit payments to both of them equaled 120 monthly payments, when payments would terminate. Option No. 2 is available for regular service retirements as well as DROP retirements. Option No. 3 is also available for regular service retirements and DROP retirements. Option No. 3 would have provided a reduced monthly benefit payable for Mr. Gapinski's lifetime, and upon his death, his joint annuitant, if living, would receive a lifetime monthly benefit payment in the same amount as Mr. Gapinski was receiving. Then, no further benefits would be payable after both he and his joint annuitant were deceased. There are exceptions to the foregoing general description, none of which matter to the case at bar. Option No. 3 would clearly provide more money to Petitioner if she were eligible. On November 2, 2000, Petitioner's attorney had three short telephone conversations with Mr. Helms, who opined that since Mr. Gapinski had signed up for DROP while the couple were still married, Petitioner could still get Option No. 3, with DROP retroactive to September 1, 2000, but that the leave of absence must be paid for. Apparently, Petitioner's attorney did not ask what would happen if the gap was not paid for before Mr. Gapinski died and no representative of Respondent volunteered that information. The thrust of Petitioner's case continued to be to persuade Mr. Gapinski to pay the whole amount due and to change his Option election to No. 3. On or about November 3, 2000, Mr. Helms sent an estimate letter based on selecting a September 1, 2000, retirement date with Option No. 1, to Mr. Gapinski. This estimate letter stated Mr. Gapinski had 30.11 years of creditable service. It did not mention DROP or any pay back. It did state that no lump sum retirement or cash value payments were available. (Second page of attachment to Exhibit P-11). On November 3, 2000, Petitioner's attorney wrote Mr. Gapinski's attorney that Mr. Gapinski was considered by Respondent to be in the DROP program as of September 1, 2000, not March 1, 2001, as supposed before the divorce, but he had not bought back his leave by paying $6,820.52, and requested that Mr. Gapinski change his Option Election Form to Option No. 3 and authorize the payment of the $6,820.52 to Respondent. On or about November 9, 2000, Petitioner's attorney sent the already-executed FST-12 (Beneficiary Designation Form) and FRS-11o (Option Selection for FRS Members) showing Option No. 2 to Respondent. Mr. Helms acknowledged receipt. On or about November 9, 2000, Mr. Helms told Petitioner's attorney that the forms were correct and anyone could pay the $6,820.52. The attorney felt Mr. Gapinski was enrolled in DROP but that the $6,820.52 was still needed. On November 15, 2000, Petitioner's attorney sent Mr. Helms a letter memorializing their conversation, in which Mr. Helms had indicated it was not necessary for Petitioner to sign below the Option No. 2 selection paragraph on FRS 11o as long as she was aware of the option Mr. Gapinski had selected. On November 20, 2000, Mr. Gapinski passed away without anyone having purchased his leave of absence credit. Mr. Gapinski was only 57 years of age when he died. DROP retirement or regular service retirement with full benefits is possible at 62 years of age or upon attaining 30 years of creditable service. Mr. Gapinski remained in regular employment until his death. Because he had not purchased the leave of absence credit, Mr. Gapinski died with only 29 years and 9 months of creditable service for purposes of retirement. In other words, he was 3 months and ten days short of the 30-year retirement mark necessary to activate DROP or regular service retirement. Petitioner never communicated directly with Respondent until after Mr. Gapinski's death. Mr. Gapinski's will provided for the effective disinheritance of Petitioner to the extent provided by law. On December 14, 2000, Petitioner's attorney spoke by telephone with Mr. Helms, who told her he thought Petitioner could still pay the leave of absence money but he would call her back. On December 15, 2000, Stanley Colvin, another of Respondent's representatives, telephoned Petitioner's attorney to say Petitioner could not pay the amount after Mr. Gapinski's death. At no time prior to Mr. Gapinski's death did any representative of Respondent affirmatively represent to anyone that Petitioner could pay the money after Mr. Gapinski's death or the conditions under which no benefits would be paid or specifically what would happen if Mr. Gapinski died before the money was paid by someone. By a December 15, 2000, letter, Respondent notified Petitioner that since Mr. Gapinski had elected not to purchase the leave of absence, he could not have reached the required 30 years of service necessary to participate in the DROP program until March 1, 2001. It further stated that since Mr. Gapinski's death occurred before completion of the required months necessary to participate in DROP, his DROP application was cancelled and his choice of Option No. 2 was nullified. Moreover, Mr. Gapinski was viewed as an active FRS member on the date of his death, and because Petitioner, though designated as his beneficiary was not also a joint annuitant, she could only receive a refund of Mr. Gapinski's retirement contributions in the amount of $4,719.19,and was not eligible to receive Option No. 3. Respondent did not send a similar letter to prior beneficiaries, the decedent, or his estate/personal representatives. Petitioner requested a review, and on February 2, 2001, Respondent issued its proposed final agency action letter, to the same effect as the December 15, 2000, letter. Respondent did not send a similar proposed final agency action letter to prior beneficiaries, the decedent, or his estate/personal representatives. However, the undersigned notes that Mr. Gapinski's adult daughters, who also were his joint personal representatives, were present in the courtroom on September 24, 2001, the first day of hearing. As of the second day of hearing on October 21, 2001, the estate had been closed and the personal representatives had been discharged. Mr. Larry Hunnicutt, Benefits Administrator for the Bureau of Retirement Calculations, Division of Retirement, testified by deposition. He indicated that Respondent Division of Retirement has no rules in place specifically addressing DROP. Therefore, in DROP cases, Respondent interprets and applies Chapter 121, Florida Statutes, and the existing rules addressing regular service retirement. In practice, Respondent gives DROP applicants a 90-day grace period from the date of application in which to finalize all the outstanding documents or other requirements for DROP eligibility, including payments of amounts due, even though there are no provisions in place authorizing a grace period for DROP applicants. If there are money amounts due, the member must pay up during this period. If the member fails to pay up during this period, the DROP application and the option selected for DROP is cancelled by a certified letter, but the designated beneficiary remains intact. Herein, because the amounts were not paid before Mr. Gapinski died, and because it would serve no purpose to notify the decedent, who could no longer complete his DROP requirements, Respondent did not send the deceased member a cancellation of his DROP application and Option No. 2 selection. Rather, it treated the DROP application and option selection as null and void and notified his ex-wife, the designated beneficiary, of what Respondent understood to be her rights. In this notification, Respondent applied the statutes as its personnel understood them to apply to a member who dies in active service prior to reaching either 62 years of age or 30 years of creditable service. Respondent would have permitted Petitioner to pay the money on Mr. Gapinski's behalf only during his lifetime. If the amount due had been paid, and Petitioner were qualified for Option No. 2, she would receive approximately $500,000 plus cost of living increases as opposed to $4,719.19. She would receive considerably more if she qualified for Option No. 3.
Recommendation Upon 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 purchase leave of absence credit on the account of James Gapinski. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of December, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 14th day of December, 2001.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner, as a surviving spouse, is entitled to a continuing benefit from the Florida Retirement System (FRS) based on the retirement account of her deceased husband, George S. Bohler. More specifically, it must be determined whether the forgery of the spousal acknowledgement form renders the member's election of the "Option 1" retirement benefit payment, which precludes a survivor's benefit for his spouse, invalid and void.
Findings Of Fact George Bohler, the FRS member at issue, was employed, at times pertinent, as a Professor of Economics at Florida Community College in Jacksonville. The College is an FRS employer and Mr. Bohler was a member of the FRS retirement system. The Division of Retirement is an administrative agency charged with regulation and operation of the Florida retirement system, including calculation of and determination of entitlement to retirement benefits, under various options and member circumstances. On March 22, 1999, Mr. Bohler filed a completed Florida Retirement System Application for service retirement and the Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP). This was accomplished through his filing of "Form DP-11." The Form provides a retiree with information pertaining to four options by which his retirement benefits may be paid. One full page of that form provides an explanation of each option. Mr. Bohler selected Option 1, a retirement benefit pay-out plan which provides the highest monthly benefit. The Option 1 selection provides that this highest monthly benefit is payable for the lifetime of the retiree only. Upon his death, the benefit would stop and his beneficiary, here his spouse, the Petitioner, would receive only a refund of any contributions the member might have paid into the FRS which exceeds the amount he had received in benefits. Option 1 provides no continuing or survivor benefit to a beneficiary or surviving spouse. The DP-11 Form filed with the retirement application contained an apparent spousal acknowledgement purportedly signed by Deborah T. Bohler, the spouse of member George Bohler. It appears to acknowledge that the member had elected either Option 1 or Option 2, which provide no survivor/spouse benefit. The DP-11 Form indicated to the Division that the member was married. The parties have stipulated, however, that the Petitioner's signature on the FRS application for service retirement and the DROP program was actually forged. George Bohler, the member, was an FRS member from August 19, 1968, to March 31, 2005. He received FRS retirement benefits based upon the above-referenced application from the Division from April 1, 2000, to October 31, 2007. The Form DP-11 contained a statement to the effect that the retiree member understood that he could not add additional service, change options, or change his type of retirement once his retirement became final. Mr. Bohler began participation in the DROP program on April 1, 2000. Thereafter, his last date of employment was March 31, 2005, and he passed away on October 18, 2007. He received FRS benefits from April 1, 2000, until October 31, 2007. For 28 years, until his death on that date, Mr. Bohler was legally married to the Petitioner, Deborah Bohler, during which time they were never separated or divorced. On March 10, 1999, Mr. Bohler executed the FRS Application for Service Retirement and the DROP program. He had his signature notarized as required for that form. Joint Exhibit 1, in evidence. Mr. Bohler designated the Petitioner as his primary beneficiary on the DROP Application. He elected to begin participation in the DROP program as of April 1, 2000, and to retire from state employment effective March 31, 2005, which he did. There are four options which an FRS member may select for his or her retirement benefits to be paid to the member or to the survivors/beneficiaries. Mr. Bohler selected "Option 1" on his DROP Application form. This results in a significantly higher retirement monthly benefit than does Options 3 or 4, which have survivorship rights. The acknowledgement section on the DROP Application form requires that a member's spouse be notified and must acknowledge a member's selection of Option 1 or Option 2 by signing that DROP Application form, so that the FRS is thus informed that the spouse made a knowing, intelligent waiver of survivorship rights to benefits. The spousal acknowledgement provision or section does not require that the member's spouse's signature be notarized. The form also does not require a member to swear under oath that the spouse was notified. The parties have stipulated that the Petitioner's apparent signature shown on Mr. Bohler's retirement application form was forged. The Petitioner had no knowledge that her name had been placed on the form by some other person, nor did she have any knowledge that Mr. Bohler had selected Option 1 prior to his death. The Petitioner first learned that her husband had selected Option 1 when she contacted the Respondent, after his death, to request that his retirement benefits now be paid to her. She believed that she was entitled to survivorship benefits. Her husband never informed her that he had selected a retirement option which would not pay her survivorship benefits, nor had they discussed the matter before or since his retirement. In their marital and family relationship, the Bohlers had divided certain duties in such a way that Mr. Bohler, the FRS member at issue, handled all financial matters himself. The Petitioner, Mrs. Bohler, dealt with any tax issues or filings the couple was required to make during the years of their marriage. The Petitioner is a certified public accountant. The Petitioner was simply aware that her husband received retirement benefits, and knew the amount of them, but did not know that they represented benefits for Option 1 rather than Option 3 or 4. The Petitioner's signature on the spousal acknowledgment section of the DROP Application form is stipulated to have been forged. The fact of the forgery, and the Petitioner's un-refuted testimony, establishes that she was never notified, nor did she ever acknowledge that her husband had selected Option 1. She was not aware that an attempt to waive or extinguish her survivor's benefits had been made. She believed, during his lifetime, that she was to be accorded survivor benefits. Testimony presented by the Respondent shows that the Respondent Division will not accept a retirement application form, or process it, if a member fails to complete the spousal acknowledgement section or, alternatively, to submit a signed statement explaining why that section is left blank, or the signature of the spouse has not been obtained. The fact that the Division will not accept a retirement or DROP Application form or process the related benefits if the acknowledgement section is unsigned or blank establishes the mandatory nature of the requirement that a spouse acknowledge a member's election to receive benefits under an option which would preclude a spouse's survivorship benefits. The acknowledgement is thus not an optional requirement. In fact, the legislature clearly placed that requirement in the statute, Section 121.091(6)(a), Florida Statutes, as a mandatory requirement so a spouse would know of any such attempt to waive the spouse's survivorship rights and benefits. It is an acknowledgement that the spouse has a vested or property right in such benefits, which must be knowingly and intelligently waived. The Statute says, in fact, that the spouse of any member "shall be notified of and shall acknowledge any such election." Therefore, obtaining a spouse's signature is not the only desired result set forth by the legislature (and under the rule adopted pursuant thereto) because it requires actual notification of the spouse, not merely the obtaining of a spouse's signature, whether genuine or forged. Actual notification is what must be accomplished. The required notification and indeed the obtaining of the Petitioner's signature was not accomplished in the facts of this case. In light of these facts, the act of declaring and accomplishing retired status, and selection of the related benefit option, was never completed. The Option selection was obviously a nullity and void ab initio because the mandatory condition precedent never was accomplished by the member.
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 RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the State of Florida, Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, awarding the Petitioner retirement benefits based upon her status as a surviving spouse and joint annuitant, in the manner described above, adjusted to reflect re-calculation and recoupment of overpayment based upon the amount of benefits already paid from the subject retirement account pursuant to Option 1. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of November, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 10th day of November, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth Regina Stevens, Esquire Department of Management Services Office of the General Counsel 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32327 T. A. Delegal, Esquire Delegal Law Offices, P.A. 424 East Monroe Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Sarabeth Snuggs, Director Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Post Office Box 9000 Tallahassee, Florida 32315-9000 John Brenneis, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Rina Richard DeMichael (“Petitioner”), the surviving spouse of David DeMichael, is entitled to change the Florida Retirement System (“FRS”) retirement benefits payment Option 1 selected by Mr. DeMichael.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency charged under chapter 121, Florida Statutes, with administering the FRS. In 1991, Mr. DeMichael began employment with the Broward County Sheriff’s Office (“BCSO”). Mr. DeMichael was a member of the FRS pension plan based on his employment with the BCSO as a deputy sheriff. Mr. DeMichael married Petitioner on November 19, 2011. On February 11, 2013, Mr. DeMichael retired from the BCSO. At that time, he signed the Florida Retirement System Pension Plan Application for Service Retirement form (“Application for Service Retirement Form”) designating Petitioner as his primary beneficiary. On February 11, 2013, Mr. DeMichael also signed the Florida Retirement System Pension Plan Option Selection for FRS Members form (Form FRS-110)(“Option Selection Form”). On the Option Selection Form, Mr. DeMichael was required to select one of four retirement benefit payment options. The Option Selection Form provided an explanation for each of the four options. Mr. DeMichael selected to receive an Option 1 retirement benefit by checking the line next to the Option 1 benefit payment option. Option 1 provides the maximum benefit for the life of the FRS member with no continuing benefit after the member’s death. On February 11, 2013, Petitioner signed the Spousal Acknowledgement Form (Form SA-1)(“Spousal Acknowledgement Form”) acknowledging that Mr. DeMichael “selected either Option 1 or 2.” The purpose of the Spousal Acknowledgement Form is to inform the spouse that he/she will not receive a lifetime benefit following the FRS member’s death. The Spousal Acknowledgement Form does not give a spouse control over which option the FRS member selects. That option selection decision is the sole choice of the member. The Spousal Acknowledgement Form provided an explanation of the four different retirement payment options available to FRS members. At the hearing, Petitioner acknowledged she signed the Spousal Acknowledgement Form. Ms. Tiffany Pieters was a duly licensed notary with the State of Florida and an employee of BCSO on February 11, 2013. Ms. Pieters notarized the Application for Service Retirement Form and Option Selection Form signed by Mr. DeMichael, and the Spousal Acknowledgement Form signed by Petitioner. The Division received Mr. DeMichael’s Application for Service Retirement Form, Option Selection Form, and Petitioner’s Spousal Acknowledgement Form on or about February 11, 2013. On February 20, 2013, Respondent mailed Mr. DeMichael an Acknowledgement of Service Retirement Application letter acknowledging Respondent’s receipt of Mr. DeMichael’s Application for Service Retirement Form; his selection of Option 1 as the benefit payment option; his employment termination date of February 11, 2013; and retirement date of March 1, 2013. The Acknowledgement of Service Retirement Application letter expressly provides that Mr. DeMichael cannot change the option he selected once his retirement becomes final, and that retirement benefits become final when any payment is cashed or deposited. Mr. DeMichael’s Application for Service Retirement Form and Option Selection Form also expressly provide that he cannot change the option he selected once his retirement becomes final, and that retirement benefits become final when any benefit payment is cashed or deposited. On February 20, 2013, Respondent also mailed Mr. DeMichael an Estimate of Retirement Benefit letter, which provides an estimate of the payment benefit for each of the four options. The letter also acknowledges that Mr. DeMichael selected Option 1, and that his option selection cannot be changed after any payment is cashed or deposited. On April 1, 2013, Respondent mailed a request for birth date verification to Mr. DeMichael. In response, on April 30, 2013, Respondent received Mr. DeMichael’s birth certificate. Based on his selection of Option 1, Mr. DeMichael received an initial retroactive payment of $7,809.76 on May 10, 2013; an initial regular retirement payment of $3,904.88 on May 31, 2013; and a subsequent retirement payment every month in 2013 in the monthly amount of $3,904.88. Mr. DeMichael received a retirement payment every month beginning May 2013 until he died on August 25, 2015. Mr. DeMichael received a total of 29 retirement payments for a total gross benefit amount of $119,832.92. Each retirement payment was cashed or deposited into Mr. DeMichael’s bank account. Respondent was notified of Mr. DeMichael’s death in August 2015. On or about October 6, 2015, Respondent notified Petitioner that Mr. DeMichael’s benefit had ended and that there would be no continuing benefit to her based on Mr. DeMichael’s Option 1 selection. In this proceeding, Petitioner claims she is entitled to change Mr. DeMichael’s Option 1 retirement benefit selection and receive a continuing monthly spousal benefit. In support of her position, Petitioner contends Mr. DeMichael’s selection of Option 1 is invalid because he lacked the mental capacity to make a retirement option at the time his Application for Service Retirement Form and Option Selection Form was submitted to Respondent. Based on the persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing, Petitioner failed to establish that Mr. DeMichael lacked the mental capacity to make a retirement option at the time his Application for Service Retirement Form and Option Selection Form were submitted to Respondent. No medical evidence was presented establishing that Mr. DeMichael was mentally incapacitated at the time he executed the Application for Service Retirement Form and Option Selection Form on February 11, 2013. In fact, Mr. DeMichael was released from Sunrise Detoxification Center on February 11, 2013, following in-patient rehabilitative treatment for his alcoholism. Petitioner’s Exhibit 7 expressly states that Mr. DeMichael “was medically stable for discharge” at 8:00 a.m. that morning. Moreover, Petitioner and Mr. DeMichael ate breakfast together later that morning at the BCSO cafeteria. Subsequently, Petitioner was escorted to the BCSO Internal Affairs area where she was questioned about Mr. DeMichael’s alcoholism. After Petitioner refused to answer any questions, she was escorted to the BCSO rooftop terrace. After a while, Mr. DeMichael came to the rooftop terrace. According to Petitioner, Mr. DeMichael was smiling and they exchanged pleasantries. After February 11, 2013, Mr. DeMichael continued to manage his own financial affairs, including his bank account. On April 1, 2013, Respondent sent a request to Mr. DeMichael to provide verification regarding his date of birth. In response, Mr. DeMichael sent his birth certificate to Respondent. Finally, at no time did Petitioner ever seek a guardianship or power of attorney over Mr. DeMichael, and at no time was Mr. DeMichael adjudicated incompetent by a court. Petitioner also claims that Mr. DeMichael’s selection of Option 1 is invalid and that she is entitled to a continuing benefit because she lacked the opportunity to read the Spousal Acknowledgement Form before signing it. Based on the persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing, Petitioner failed to establish that she lacked the opportunity to read the Spousal Acknowledgement Form before signing it. In support of her position, Petitioner testified at one point in the hearing that she only saw the area of the form near where she signed it. However, in the area of the form near where Petitioner signed (Respondent’s Exhibit No. 6) is the express “acknowledgement that the member has selected either Option 1 or 2.” At another point in the hearing, Petitioner testified she saw the small writing below her signature at the bottom of the Spousal Acknowledgement Form, but she did not read any of the writing. The small writing below Petitioner’s signature at the bottom of the form provides an explanation of the four retirement benefit payment options. Notably, Petitioner did not testify that she asked Ms. Pieters for any explanation of the Spousal Acknowledgement Form. Further, Petitioner did not testify that she needed or asked for more time to read the Spousal Acknowledgement Form before signing it, or that Ms. Pieters refused to allow her to read the form. Petitioner could have asked Ms. Pieters for more time to read the Spousal Acknowledgement Form if she felt it was necessary, but she did not. At no time did Petitioner ever file a complaint against Ms. Pieters or complain about her handling of the Spousal Acknowledgement Form. Had Petitioner been concerned about the Spousal Acknowledgement form or Mr. DeMichael’s mental capacity on February 11, 2013, she also could have spoken to Judy Cowell, Mr. DeMichael’s supervisor at BCSO. Ms. Cowell greeted Petitioner and Mr. DeMichael at the front office when they arrived at BCSO on the morning of February 11, 2013, and Ms. Cowell escorted them to the cafeteria and rooftop terrace. At hearing, Petitioner testified that Ms. Cowell “was like a mom,” and that she had spoken to her on numerous occasions when Mr. DeMichael had problems with his employment. At hearing, the undersigned had the distinct opportunity to observe Petitioner’s testimony and her demeanor. Petitioner’s testimony regarding Mr. DeMichael’s alleged mental incapacity on February 11, 2013, and her not having the opportunity to read the Spousal Acknowledgement Form and the alleged invalidity of the Spousal Acknowledgement Form, Option Selection Form, and Application for Service Retirement Form, is not credited and is rejected as unpersuasive. In sum, Petitioner is not entitled to change Mr. DeMichael’s selection of Option 1 as his FRS retirement benefits payment option and she is not entitled to a continuing benefit.
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 the Florida Retirement System retirement benefits payment Option 1 selected by Mr. DeMichael and receive a continuing monthly spousal benefit. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ 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 14th day of April, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: James C. Casey, Esquire Law Offices of Slesnick and Casey, LLP 2701 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 200 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 (eServed) Ladasiah Jackson Ford, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed) Nikita S. Parker, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed) David DiSalvo, Director Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Post Office Box 9000 Tallahassee, Florida 32315-9000 (eServed) Sean Gellis, General Counsel Office of the General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed)
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 The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to change the type of her retirement benefits from early service retirement to disability retirement.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is charged with managing, governing, and administering the Florida Retirement System (FRS). The FRS is a public retirement system as defined by Florida law. Nearly 1,000 public employers participate in the FRS, including state agencies, local governments, and district school boards. There are more than 600,000 individual active members in the FRS. Petitioner was an employee of the Pasco County School Board until she submitted her resignation on February 28, 2011, in order to retire. By reason of her employment with the Pasco County School Board, Petitioner is a member of the FRS. After Petitioner resigned, she met with Michael Hudson, the director of Employee Benefits for the Pasco County District School Board, on March 4, 2011, to complete the paperwork for her retirement. At the March 4, 2011, meeting, Petitioner completed and signed the form application for service retirement. The information filled out on the form in Petitioner's clear handwriting included her name, position, address, telephone number, social security number, birth date, and service termination date. The following statement appears on the application form immediately above Petitioner's notarized signature: 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 service, change options, change my type of retirement (Regular, Disability, and Early) or elect the Investment Plan once my retirement becomes final. My retirement becomes final when any benefit payment is cashed or deposited. (Bold in original). Petitioner also filled out the payment option selection form, selecting Option 1 as the option for how her retirement benefits are to be paid out. Immediately above Petitioner's signature on the option selection form is this statement: 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 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, deposited or when my Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP) participation begins. (Bold in original). Petitioner was aware that she could seek to qualify for disability retirement benefits, but that in order to apply for disability retirement, she would have to submit certifications by two doctors that she was totally and permanently disabled, meaning that she was unable to work. Petitioner also knew that she could apply for early service retirement, which would not require proof of total, permanent disability. However, because Petitioner would be retiring early, her benefits would be discounted, so she would receive less. Petitioner understood, when she completed the application on March 4, 2011, that the type of retirement for which she applied was early service retirement. At retirement, she was 52 years and nine months old. In Petitioner's view, she was "forced" to retire. Petitioner had been employed as an adult education-health instructor at Marchman Technical Education Center, which she described as a stressful job. In 2010, she had to undergo three major abdominal and pelvic reconstructive surgeries. As she dealt with the challenges of complications and slow recoveries, she developed psychological issues that caused her to seek treatment from a psychiatrist. She was depressed and cried a lot, felt anxious and stressed, and experienced panic attacks. Petitioner took medication prescribed by her psychiatrist for her panic attacks and depression. She testified that the medication helped and that when she took her medication, she no longer cried all the time. However, she experienced side effects, including some drowsiness and difficulty processing information. By early 2011, Petitioner felt unable to return to her stressful job and had been attempting, without success, to find an appropriate job that she thought she could do with her limitations. She was worried and felt pressure, as a single mother who was supporting herself and her 17-year-old son, who lived with her. She was particularly concerned about ensuring a stream of income to pay for health insurance. Before Petitioner met with Mr. Hudson to apply for early service retirement, she discussed the different types of retirement with her good friend, Pat Beals. Ms. Beals had worked at Marchman Technical Education Center with Ms. Radicella. Both Petitioner and Ms. Beals testified that in discussing the different types of retirement, Petitioner believed at the time that she would not qualify for disability retirement. At the time in early 2011, Petitioner's belief was that she would be unable to obtain letters from two doctors who would render the opinion that Petitioner was unable to work. Ms. Beals apparently did not disagree with that opinion. Ms. Beals noted that Petitioner had been trying to get another job that she would be able to handle with her limitations. Ms. Beals said only that she thought Petitioner had tried to go back to work too soon, before she was fully healed. Petitioner went alone to her meeting with Mr. Hudson and did not ask any of her close friends or advisors, such as Ms. Beals or her neighbor, Mr. Edelman, to go with her. Petitioner testified that she had taken her medication to control her depression and her panic attacks that day. Petitioner was in good enough shape, mentally and physically, to safely drive herself to and from the school district administrative offices. Petitioner testified that Mr. Hudson explained Petitioner's choices to apply for early service retirement or to apply for disability retirement. Petitioner testified that Mr. Hudson explained that if she applied for disability retirement, two doctors would have to say she could never work again. This led Petitioner to choose early service retirement because, as she had discussed with Ms. Beals previously, she did not think two doctors would give the opinion that she was unable to work again. Moreover, at the time, Petitioner did not want to say that she would never work again. Petitioner found the meeting with Mr. Hudson to be very sad and embarrassing; she found the prospect of retirement itself to be very embarrassing, as she had always been independent and had always taken care of herself. Petitioner attempted to blame Mr. Hudson for the pressure she was feeling to make a choice and sign the paperwork presented to her, but Petitioner did not prove that Mr. Hudson was to blame for any pressure she felt. Petitioner failed to identify anything specific that Mr. Hudson said or did to create pressure, such as if he had told Petitioner she had to sign all of the paperwork then and there. Indeed, when asked if she felt pressured by Mr. Hudson, Petitioner's response was that "it was strictly business." Petitioner explained that she just "shut down," letting him give her papers, and she just signed them. Petitioner did not claim to misunderstand the different types of retirement benefits--early service retirement versus disability retirement--and indeed, expressed a very clear rationale for making the choice that she did. Petitioner had expressed that same rationale in conversations before March 4, 2011, with Ms. Beals. Petitioner testified that she did not understand the paperwork that Mr. Hudson presented her to sign and that she did not understand that she could not change the type of retirement from early service to disability retirement at a later date. Inconsistently, she testified that she understood that she would not be able to change her payment options after she cashed her first benefit check. That is part of the warning message appearing right above her signature. Petitioner did not credibly explain how she was able to understand that part of the warning message, while not understanding the other part of the warning message that she also could not "change my type of retirement (Regular, Disability, and Early)" after cashing her first benefit check. The notice appeared on both forms she signed that day in plain, clear language. Petitioner did not testify that she was given any misinformation or that she asked for explanations that were not forthcoming. Petitioner did not testify that she asked to delay signing the paperwork presented to her at the March 4, 2011, meeting, until she had had a chance to review it with one of her friends and advisors. Instead, Petitioner did not want to wait; she was in a hurry to sign the paperwork because the sooner she signed the paperwork, the sooner the payments would start. Petitioner attempted to disavow her March 4, 2011, early service retirement application on the theory that she lacked the mental capacity to understand the nature and consequences of her actions that day. Petitioner offered no competent medical opinion testimony or medical records to support her claim. Petitioner's two friends tried to support her theory, but they lacked the medical expertise to offer an opinion that Petitioner did not understand the nature or consequences of her actions that day. To the contrary, their testimony tended to confirm that Petitioner not only understood what she did on March 4, 2011, but that she acted as she did for a very rational, logical reason. The evidence did not establish that Petitioner was impaired to any great extent because of her physical or mental conditions or because of her medication taken to control her conditions. Petitioner may lack confidence and doubt herself; she may seek out opinions of her close friends when making important decisions because she did not trust her own ability to make decisions. However, as she acknowledged and certainly exhibited at the hearing, she is intelligent and capable. Petitioner was capable of functioning independently, living alone with her 17-year-old son and taking care of him. Petitioner was able to drive alone and did so. Petitioner took care of her own paperwork, writing out checks, and paying her own bills. Petitioner was not hospitalized or adjudicated incompetent because of her mental condition, nor was there any suggestion that her psychiatrist or good friends thought such steps were necessary for Petitioner's competency to manage her own affairs. After Petitioner returned from her meeting with Mr. Hudson on March 4, 2011, she called Ms. Beals to tell her about the paperwork she completed in her meeting with Mr. Hudson. Ms. Beals testified that she could tell Petitioner was anxious, because she was talking very fast. Nonetheless, Petitioner understood the nature and consequences of her actions on March 4, 2011, well enough to tell Ms. Beals that she had applied for early service retirement benefits. Ms. Beals was concerned and said that she may have made a mistake by not applying for disability retirement. While Ms. Beals expressed surprise that Petitioner did not ask her to go with her on March 4, 2011, she admitted that they had talked about the retirement issue previously and that Petitioner's actions on March 4, 2011, were consistent with what they had previously discussed. Petitioner's neighbor, Alvin Ellenwood, also testified that Petitioner called him later on March 4, 2011, and reported to him that she had completed the paperwork for early service retirement benefits. Mr. Ellenwood testified that he, too, was concerned and told Ms. Radicella that she may have made a mistake by not applying for disability retirement. Despite the concerns of both Ms. Beals and Mr. Ellenwood, apparently no steps were taken in the days after March 4, 2011, to review the forms that Petitioner had signed or to seek out any information from the Division regarding whether Petitioner could try to change the type of retirement benefits from early service retirement to disability retirement. On March 9, 2011, the Division issued and transmitted to Petitioner the following documents related to her application: Acknowledgement of Service Retirement Application (Acknowledgement); Estimate of Retirement Benefits (Estimate); an information sheet entitled, "What Retirement Option Should You Choose" (Option); and a FRS booklet published by the Division entitled, "Preparing to Retire" (Booklet). The Acknowledgement document confirmed receipt of Petitioner's service retirement application and repeated a similar warning as those appearing above Petitioner's signature on the forms she signed on March 4, 2011; this time, the notice was in all capital letters and in all bold print: "ONCE YOU RETIRE, YOU CANNOT ADD SERVICE, CHANGE OPTIONS, CHANGE YOUR TYPE OF RETIREMENT OR ELECT THE INVESTMENT PLAN. RETIREMENT BECOMES FINAL WHEN ANY BENEFIT PAYMENT IS CASHED OR DEPOSITED." Detailed information was provided about FRS retirement in the 15-page Booklet. The Booklet's first four pages are devoted to information for contacting the Division, including how to access the Division's website, and how to contact individuals, via numerous toll-free telephone numbers and e-mail addresses, to ask questions. And yet another warning message appears on page 11 of the Booklet, set apart from the rest of the text by a bold text box: Remember, once you cash or deposit any benefit payment or after the first payment is credited during your DROP participation period, you cannot add service credit, change your retirement benefit option selection, change your type of retirement from early to normal or from service to disability retirement, transfer to the FRS Investment Plan or cancel your DROP participation. The two other documents sent on March 9, 2011, the Estimate and Option documents, specifically addressed the retirement payment option choice. These two documents warned that Petitioner had selected Option 1 and could not change that option after cashing or depositing her first benefit check. Petitioner did not say what she did upon receipt of March 9, 2011, package of materials, whether she reviewed the material or whether she asked her friends to review it. Had these documents been reviewed, it would have been clear that once Petitioner cashed or deposited the first benefit payment, she could no longer change the type of retirement from early service retirement to disability retirement.2/ At any point in time before Petitioner received and cashed or deposited her first retirement benefit check, she could have sought to change the type of retirement benefit from early service to disability retirement. However, no such steps were taken. As Petitioner testified and Ms. Beals acknowledged, Petitioner did not believe at that time that she would qualify for disability retirement. In any event, it would have taken longer to seek disability retirement benefits because of the need to obtain verification by two doctors that Petitioner was unable to work, and Petitioner did not want to wait. Petitioner received her first retirement benefit check at the end of March 2011, and the state warrant was paid (cashed or deposited) on April 8, 2011. As of the hearing date, Petitioner had received an additional nine monthly payments for her early service retirement benefit. For some reason, it was not until June 2011, after receiving and cashing or depositing three early service retirement benefit payments, that Petitioner decided to submit an application for disability retirement benefits. The parties stipulated that Petitioner's disability retirement application was mailed to the Division on June 14, 2011.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby: RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, enter a final order denying the request to change from early service retirement benefits to disability retirement benefits submitted by Petitioner, Reneé Radicella. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR 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 27th day of February, 2012.
