Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Frank A. Orlando, was employed as a teacher in Dade County, and enrolled as a member of the Teachers' Retirement System (TRS), Chapter 238, Florida Statutes, in 1957. In September, 1960, Petitioner was granted a leave of absence from his employment to attend law school at the University of Florida. To maintain his tenured status with the Dade County School Board, it was incumbent that Petitioner remain current in his profession by working in the field of education within one year from the grant of his leave of absence. Consequently, in February, 1961, while enrolled as a full-time law student at the university, Petitioner applied for, and was employed as, a resident assistant at Hume Hall, a university residence facility. Petitioner's employment apparently satisfied the requirements of the Dade County School Board, since he retained his tenured status until his resignation in late 1962 or early 1963. 1/ In June, 1963, Petitioner graduated from law school, and left his employment with the university. Petitioner's Retirement Account In November, 1981, Petitioner requested that the Division of Retirement (Division) audit his retirement account and advise him whether he had been accorded credit for the period he had been employed at the university. By memorandum dated November 12, 1981, the Division advised Petitioner that for $179.82 he could purchase: . . . service not contributed on during the following periods of employment with the ... (univer- sity) ...; May 1961; March 1962 to June 1962; and September 1962 to June 1963. By claiming this service, you would be increasing your service credit by 1.33 years. This service has not been included in previous audits. By check dated March 9, 1982, Petitioner paid the designated monies, and the service was credited to his account. In August 1983, Petitioner requested that the Division provide an updated audit of his retirement account. By memorandum of August 30, 1983, the Division advised Petitioner that, as of June 30, 1983, he had 25.59 years of service credited to his account. In December, 1985, Petitioner telephoned the Division and requested that it calculate a retirement date for his at 30-years service, as well as provide an estimate of his retirement benefits. By memorandum of December 19, 1985, the Division provided Petitioner an estimate of his retirement benefits, and advised him that he could retire on December 1, 1987, with 30.01 years of service. On March 31, 1986, Petitioner again called the Division regarding credit for the period he had been employed by the university. Petitioner apparently felt he was entitled to more credit than previously accorded, and requested that the Department review its records to be sure he had retirement credit for the periods from February 1961 to June 1961, September 1961 to June 1962, and September 1962 to June 1963. The Division's review of its records, with respect to Petitioner's specific request, resulted in its determination that the memorandum of December 19, 1985, which had established an estimate of benefits for an effective retirement date of December 1, 1987, was in error, and that Petitioner was not entitled to credit for the periods he was employed in 1962 and 1963 by the university. Succinctly, the Division wrote that: On March 31, 1986, you called our office and spoke with Mrs. Stanley Colvin. You asked that she check your file to make sure you had retirement credit for the periods from February 1961 to June 1961, September 1961 to June 1962, and September 1962 to June 1963. To check this service for you, she looked at the Comptroller's Quarterly Social Security Records (referred to as Quarter Check Tapes). When these records were reviewed, she noted that the salaries listed for this service were paid from an Other Personal Services (OPS) account. Thus it is not creditable for retirement purposes under the FRS. * * * When your estimate of benefits dated December 19, 1985 (with an effective retirement date of December 1, 1987) was calculated, this OPS service was used in error. A record of the earnings had been furnished to this office by the University of Florida and the service was erroneously used since there was no mention that the payment was from an OPS account. Enclosed is a corrected estimate of retirement benefits effective March 1, 1989, at which time you will complete 30 years creditable service required for normal retirement under the FRS. By copy of this letter, I am advising Mr. Robert Buttons, Personnel Director, University of Florida, of our findings and requesting that he research the payroll records at the University and advise this office if his findings agree with ours. I am also enclosing state warrant #1982675 for $177.07 which represents the amount you paid to claim this service. 2/ A subsequent review of the records available at the University revealed that its records agreed with the Division's findings. Petitioner's Employment Status With The University Petitioner avers that he was employed by the university from February 1961 through June 1963, as a resident assistant for Hume Hall. The proof establishes that the resident assistants employed by the university were full- time graduate students or candidates for professional degrees and that they supervised 6-8 undergraduate resident assistants, assisted their superior in the administration of Hume Hall, and were available for student counseling on an as needed basis. 3/ While Petitioner avers that it was his understanding that he held a regular full-time position, he offered no proof that he received annual leave, sick leave, insurance or other employee benefits during the term of his employment, or that he had withheld from his salaries any social security deductions. In sum, petitioner offered no persuasive proof to establish that he was employed by the university as a regular employee filling an authorized position, as opposed to being an OPS employee, at any time subsequent to July 1961. The quarterly check tapes from the Office of the Comptroller, which the Division uses in carrying out its functions, show that Petitioner received two salary checks in May 1961, one on May 10, 1961 for $18.90 and one on May 24, 1961 for $12.60 for having worked 2 days and one day, respectively. 4/ No other payments to Petitioner for the year 1961 are reflected by the quarterly check tapes. The records of the university, to the extent they exist, corroborate the payments reflected by the Comptroller's records but reveal that the May 10, 1961, payment was for services rendered in April, 1961. Consequently, the Division agreed at hearing to give Petitioner retirement credit for April, as well as May, 1961. The university was unable to locate its remaining records for 1961, and Petitioner did not produce any documentary evidence to substantiate his employment for the remaining months of 1961 or any evidence to establish his salary for any other month in 1961. For the years 1962 and 1963, the Comptrollers' quarterly check tapes reflect that Petitioner was paid as a "other personal services (OPS) employee for 15 months. According to those records, Petitioner was paid $83.33 a month for February 1962 through May 1962; $41.66 in June 1962 for one-half months salary; and $80.00 a month for September 1962 through June 1962. 5/ The records of the university corroborate the payments reflected by the Comptroller's records, and Petitioner did not produce any documentary evidence to demonstrate that he was employed in any capacity other than as an OPS employee or any evidence to demonstrate be received any salaries other than as reflected by the Comptroller's tapes. 6/ Based on the proof, I conclude that Petitioner was employed by the university in an OPS position for all months which he received compensation, except for April and May, 1961. Petitioner's employment in April and May, 1961, which predated the establishment of the "other personal services" category of employment by the legislature, is, however, creditable under the Florida Retirement System. Petitioner's Claim Of Estoppel Petitioner is currently a circuit court judge in Broward County, Florida. He was re-elected in 1985, and his term of office expires in 1992. Petitioner desires, however, to retire from the bench, and enter the private practice of mediation, but to date he has not resigned or taken any action which would jeopardize his current employment. In response to the Division's memorandum of December 19, 1985, which established a retirement date of December 1, 1987, Petitioner began to attend workshops and seminars to train himself as a mediator to conciliate cases involving divorce and complex civil litigation. This training, which encompasses 200-300 hours, was undertaken in reliance upon the retirement date projected by the Division. Additionally, Petitioner has a moral commitment, although not contractual, to teach a course in mediation at the university of Minnesota during the summer of 1988. Mediation is a relatively new field within the practice of law, which is designed to reduce the courts' case load by resolving disputes without the necessity of trial. Petitioner is highly regarded by his peers, and possesses those attributes which would accord him a recognized expertise in the field. Petitioner offered proof that if he is to be successful as a mediator, it is essential that he enter the practice immediately after December 1, 1987. According to Petitioner, persons who enter this new field early will effectively preempt later entrants by earning a reputation as recognized leaders in the field. Petitioner's offer of proof is rejected as speculative and unpersuasive. While Petitioner's entry into the field may be 15 months later than expected, or desired, there is no reason to believe that the regard with which he is held by his peers will not enable him to succeed at his new profession.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Administration, Division of Retirement, enter a Final Order granting the petition of Frank A. Orlando for creditable service under the Florida Retirement System for the months of April and May 1961, but denying any credit for any other months during the period of February 1961 through June 1983. DONE AND ORDERED this 15th day of April, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of April, 1987.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner, Evelyn S. Day, is entitled to modify her type of retirement benefits from "early service retirement" to "disability retirement."
Findings Of Fact The Findings of Fact set forth in paragraph 1 are accepted. The Findings of Fact set forth in paragraph 2 are accepted. The Findings of Fact set forth in paragraph 3 are accepted. The Findings of Fact set forth in paragraph 4 are accepted. The Findings of Fact set forth in paragraph 5 are accepted in part. In that paragraph, the Hearing Officer found as follows: Her memory and thought processes had evidentially [sic] already begun deteriorating because Mrs. Day was unable to ask guestions concerning her retirement rights, responsibilities, and entitlements very well. Because of this condition, Ms. Hobby agreed to accompany her to the offices of the Division of Retirement in order to ascertain what her retirement rights, entitlements, and responsibilities might be preparatory to Mrs. Day electing to retire. The above-quoted findings are rejected as conclusory and not supported by competent, substantial evidence. The Findings of Fact as set forth in paragraph 6 are rejected as not supported by competent, substantial evidence, except the finding that Mrs. Day retired and Ms. Hobby filled out her application for retirement. Additionally, the Hearing Officer's findings that petitioner was incompetent and suffering from Alzheimer's disease are rejected as being legal conclusions not supported by any judicial order or by any competent, substantial evidence in the record. The Findings of Fact as set forth in paragraph 7 are accepted. The Findings of Fact as set forth in paragraph 8 are accepted. The Findings of Fact as set forth in paragraph 9 are accepted. That portion of the Findings of Fact in paragraph 10 which concluded the petitioner was incompetent is rejected as not supported by competent, substantial evidence. The petitioner has never been declared incompetent or determined to be incompetent by a medical doctor. Findings of Fact as set forth in paragraph 11 are accepted in part and rejected in part. That portion of the Findings which states that the application for retirement was not filed by Ms. Day is not supported by competent, substantial evidence. In point of fact, the Division has a filed application signed by the petitioner. The portion of the paragraph finding the petitioner incompetent is rejected as not supported by competent, substantial evidence. There has been no legal or medical determination that the Petitioner is incompetent. Additionally, there is no competent, substantial evidence that petitioner is suffering from Alzheimer's disease. The Hearing officer's finding that the petitioner's application was filed in error is not supported by competent, substantial evidence.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Department of Administration, Division of Retirement, according the Petitioner, Evelyn Day, the opportunity to change the status of her retirement benefits from early retirement to disability retirement, effective as of the date her earlier retirement application was accepted by the agency. DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of January, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 48B-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of January, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-2085 PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT 1-8. Accepted. RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT Accepted. Accepted to the extent that the record establishes that the Petitioner signed the application. Accepted to the extent that it was established that Petitioner has received the retirement checks. It is not established that the Petitioner cashed or deposited those retirement checks by preponderant evidence of record. Accepted insofar as it recites the Respondent's position in this matter. Accepted. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Aletta Shutes, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Esq. General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Mr. Joseph G. Stokes 911 "B" Street Crestview, Florida 32536 Larry D. Scott, Esq. Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center Building C 1639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560
The Issue Whether petitioner's employment from January 13, 1975 to January 24, 1977, was creditable service for purposes of calculating retirement benefits under applicable statutes and rules? Whether respondent is estopped to deny that this period of employment amounted to creditable service, where respondent's personnel twice advised petitioner it was, and petitioner continued working for Escambia County for some three years in reliance on this advice?
Findings Of Fact 12 In late 1974, Escambia County operated under the CETA program which was operated by the county under three separate programs known as Title I and Title II, and then later under Title VI. Title I was an on-the-job training program which provided training to individuals in jobs that were in addition to the regular employment positions already maintained by the County. Title II was an employment program for targeted groups of persons. At the beginning of the Title II program, the County paid retirement contributions on behalf of some of those participants. However, when it was advised that this was improper, it stopped such payments and refunded those contributions to some of the participants. Title VI was a program to employ as many people as possible. The positions were funded with Federal grant money and were considered public service employment positions for a limited tern. The County administered the program which eventually included about 300 participants. Payment of all CETA participants was made from a special sub-account (set up for this purpose) of the salary account. Mr. Wayne Peacock, currently Assistant County Administrator who was directly involved in the CETA program during its entire existence, testified that none of the participants who worked for the County occupied regularly established positions, or were in budgeted positions and none were paid from county budgeted salary funds. Mr. Little's employment file stated that he was hired in January, 1975, as a Title VI CETA participant and that no record showed payment of any retirement contributions on his behalf. Mr. Little testified that retirement contributions were deducted from his first four (4) paychecks, but thereafter stopped. Ruth Sansom, the Division representative, testified that the Division records as provided by the County reflected that the County began payment of retirement contributions on Mr. Little in January, 1977, and that there was no evidence or record that contributions had been paid from January, 1975, to January, 1977. Mr, Little submitted the Minutes of Escambia County for (inter alia) February 11, 1975, which showed numerous individuals hired as "manpower: laborers and four (4) men hired as "manpower planning aides". Included in that latter group was Mr. Little. Ms. Sansom testified that she checked the retirement records of several persons in the first group and all four (4) persons in the latter group. None of the persons had received creditable service for the employment, and the Division had no record of contributions having been paid. The evidence shows that Mr. Little was employed as a CETA participant and was not a county employee.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to continue to receive benefits under the Florida Teachers' Retirement System.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed as a school teacher in the public school system of Broward County, Florida, prior to October 1, 1989. Petitioner had been so employed for approximately 28 years and he was a member of the Florida Teachers' Retirement System. Petitioner was born January 1939 and was, at the time of the formal hearing, 52 years of age. In addition to his employment as a school teacher, Petitioner worked part-time, on weekends, holidays, and during vacations as a longshoreman at Port Everglades. On August 21, 1988, the Petitioner suffered an injury to his left ankle and leg while working as a longshoreman on the docks at Port Everglades. This accident occurred when a piece of equipment backed over Petitioner, breaking his ankle and leg. Two operations by a Dr. Smith followed the accident. Thereafter, Petitioner was treated by Dr. William A. Morris, III, M.D., a family practitioner. Petitioner applied for disability retirement benefits under the Florida Teachers' Retirement System and asserted that the injuries he suffered on the docks rendered him unable to teach. Respondent thereafter received a certification from Dr. Morris expressing the opinion that Petitioner was disabled as a result of his injuries and unable to teach school. Respondent granted Petitioner's application for disability retirement benefits in partial reliance on Dr. Morris's certification of disability. Petitioner's official retirement date was October 1, 1989, and he thereafter began to receive disability retirement benefits from the Florida Teachers' Retirement System. As part of its operations, Respondent receives computer reports from the Florida Auditor General's Office which provides information as to income earned by retirees who receive benefits under the Florida Teachers' Retirement System. From the Auditor General's report, it became apparent to Respondent that Petitioner continued to work as a longshoreman at Port Everglades. The report reflected that Petitioner was receiving income from several shipping companies at the same time he was receiving disability retirement benefits. Mark Sadler, one of Respondent's Retirement Administrators, thereafter requested that Petitioner complete FRS Form FR-13e, entitled "Retirees' Report of Continuing Disability", so that a determination could be made as to Petitioner's continued entitlement to disability retirement benefits. Petitioner gave a negative response to the following question on Form FR13-e: "Since the date of your disability retirement, or the date you last completed a Disability Evaluation Statement, have you ever been employed in any capacity?" This response was not truthful. Respondent also requested that Dr. Morris complete Form FR-13f, entitled "Physician's Report of Re-Examination" to ascertain his opinion as to Petitioner's continued disability. Dr. Morris returned the form, dated May 7, 1991, and expressed the opinion that Petitioner was still totally and permanently disabled. Dr. Morris also wrote Mr. Sadler a letter, dated June 16, 1992, expressing his opinion that Petitioner's condition was essentially unchanged from his previous indications. On July 7, 1992, Mr. Sadler informed Dr. Morris by telephone that it appeared that Petitioner had been gainfully employed as a longshoreman. Dr. Morris had not been aware of that employment and expressed the opinion to Mr. Sadler by telephone that Petitioner could teach if he could perform the duties of a longshoreman. On August 4, 1992, Respondent advised Petitioner in writing that it had determined that Petitioner was no longer entitled to disability retirement benefits. Petitioner contested that decision and requested a formal administrative hearing. This proceeding followed. Respondent thereafter took Petitioner's deposition to determine the extent of his employment as a longshoreman. In that deposition, Petitioner described his job activities and the hours he worked. Petitioner worked as a longshoreman on the docks throughout the time he was receiving disability retirement benefits. He was employed by different shipping companies in several different capacities. He worked as a porter handling luggage, he worked with a crew loading and unloading scrap iron, he worked with a crew loading foodstuffs on passenger ships, and he worked with a crew directing the operator of a gantry crane. He drove a fork lift and served as a supervisor of various crews, a position known as a "header." Prior to his own deposition, Dr. Morris reviewed Petitioner's deposition and became familiar with Petitioner's employment history since his disability retirement. Dr. Morris expressed the opinion that Petitioner was physically capable of performing the tasks required of a school teacher. Petitioner testified that he suffered from pain in his left ankle and leg as a result of the accident and that he has difficulty at times walking or standing. Petitioner was also concerned that he would be inattentive to his students at times because of his discomfort and because of the medication he takes to alleviate that discomfort and to control his diabetes, gout, and arthritis. Petitioner argues that his employment as a longshoreman does not establish that he is able to return to teaching and that he remains disabled. Petitioner presented no medical testimony to support his arguments. Based on Dr. Morris's testimony, Petitioner's arguments are rejected, and it is found that Petitioner is capable of returning to his employment as a teacher.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which adopts the findings of facts contained herein and which terminates Petitioner's disability retirement benefits. DONE AND ORDERED this 6th day of January, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of January, 1993. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-5434 The only post-hearing submittal filed by Petitioner was a letter and attachment thereto that contains argument, but not proposed factual findings. Those arguments are contrary to the conclusions reached herein and are rejected. The proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Respondent are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Lewis B. Tunnage 450 North West 20th Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33311 Larry D. Scott, Esquire Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 A. J. McMullian, III, Director Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center Building C 2639 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Larry Strong, Acting Secretary Department of Management Services Knight Building, Suite 307 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue The central issue for determination is whether the Petitioner is entitled to retirement benefits which she claims as surviving spouse. Although she does not provide evidence that her husband earned sufficient creditable service to vest in the system, Petitioner claims entitlement based on two alternate theories: that approximately 480 hours of sick leave accrued at the time of her husband's death should be added to his creditable service to meet the ten-year requirement; and her husband should have been eligible for disability retirement prior to his death, but was prevented by his employer from making a timely application.
Findings Of Fact Robert L. Carruthers was a member of the Florida Retirement System (FRS) at the time of his death on May 26, 1988. His membership commenced on September 13, 1979, when he was employed by the Brevard County District School Board. On June 30, 1980, he transferred to the Orange County District School Board and remained in that employment until his death. Joy Ruth Carruthers is the surviving spouse of Robert L. Carruthers. During his employment with the two school boards, Mr. Carruthers earned 8.75 years of creditable service in the FRS. Mrs. Carruthers is unaware of any other employment which might be credited as service. The Division of Retirement has no information of other employment which might be credited as service in the FRS. As the result of a complaint by Carol Stearns, the mother of Joy Carruthers, Robert Carruthers was placed on "relief of duty, with full pay and benefits" as of February 18, 1988, by the Orange County School Board. Prior to that time he had worked as an ROTC instructor at Evans High school. He was on the "relief" status at the time of his death. Sometime in late February 1988, Robert Carruthers became paralyzed from the waist down, and could not walk, as the result of a progressive illness. He had formerly walked with a cane. He had worked at the school up through the day he was given his "relief from duty" papers. Mrs. Carruthers claims that when he was placed on relief status, her husband was forbidden to go anywhere near the school or school board offices and was thus prevented from filing an application for retirement disability benefits. No witness substantiated that claim, and the letter from Dennis Reussow, Assistant to the Superintendent for Employee Relations and Administrative Services, to Mr. Carruthers states, ". . . . During this time you are directed to remain away from the Evans High School campus and to avoid contact with students assigned to the school. . . ." (Petitioner's exhibit #4.) This prohibition appears to be limited to the school and would not include the administrative offices. In early May the school board received a statement from Robert Carruthers' doctor that he would not be able to return to work indefinitely. Shortly thereafter, John B. Hawco, the Orange County School Board Administrator for Employee Relations, went to Carruthers' home with insurance forms. They were able to communicate and Carruthers signed some forms. It is not clear from the record whether a disability retirement application was completed on that occasion, but at some point a scribbled, illegible signature for Robert Carruthers was obtained on an FRS application for disability retirement. The application is dated May 25, 1988. The employer's statement of disability attached to the application was completed by John B. Hawco on May 26, 1988. When he completed the form, John Hawco did not know that Robert Carruthers had died the same day. The application form was date-stamped at the Division of Retirement on May 31, 1988. The employer's statement of disability is stamped June 6, 1988. (Petitioner's composite exhibit #3.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Division of Retirement enter its Final Order denying Petitioner's request for benefits. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Joy R. Carruthers Post Office Box 680-151 Orlando, Florida 32858 Stanley M. Danek, Esquire Office of General Counsel 440 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Esquire General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Adis Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
The Issue The issue presented for decision in this matter is whether petitioner is entitled to disability retirement benefits pursuant to F.S. Section 121.091(4). 1/
Findings Of Fact Having heard the testimony presented and considered the exhibits received into evidence at hearing, it is found as follows: On April 30, 1973, petitioner was employed by Metropolitan Dade County as a fire lieutenant, when he injured his back while unloading fire hoses. 2/ He then took some vacation time and returned to work for about three months. He saw a medical doctor during this time for pain in his right hip and lower back. For a while, his back pains seemed to improve, but then got worse again. In August of 1973, petitioner again injured his back at work when responding to an emergency. Dr. Ray Lopez saw petitioner after this second injury and put him in the hospital. Apparently, petitioner did not return to work after August 30, 1973. On September 10 or 11, 1973, Dr. Hubert Aronson performed surgery on petitioner and removed a herniated disc. According to Dr. Aronson, on September 25, 1973, petitioner's legs were free of pain, but he was still having some back pains, as he was on October 16, 1973. His pain in his right leg had abated somewhat after the surgery. On October 24, 1973, petitioner suffered a gunshot wound to the abdomen. The bullet entered the spinal canal and cut some of the nerve roots inside the spinal canal. Immediately after the gunshot wound, petitioner had a partially paralyzed left leg. Abdominal surgery was performed in connection with the gunshot wound. In December of 1973, a third operation was performed on petitioner. This operation was also related to the damage done by the gunshot wound. After the gunshot wound, petitioner began to have pain recurring in the right leg. Since his left leg was paralyzed as a result of the gunshot wound, he was having to use his right extremity almost exclusively in his ambulation. His complaints from this point forward relate primarily to pain in his right leg, right hip, and lower back. As noted above, petitioner did not return to work after August 30, 1973. Petitioner is now receiving benefits under a long-term disability program by Metropolitan Dade County, which determined that petitioner was, for that purpose, totally and permanently disabled as a result of the work-related accidents and was not capable of being placed in any of its approximately 500 job classifications. It was petitioner's testimony that although the pain in his right leg and hip is somewhat relieved by medication, he is still uncomfortable even with the medication. He testified that he cannot sit or stand for any long period of time and only gets relief when he lies down. He stated that although he would like to work, he does not feel that he is able to do so because of his pain and the resulting medication. Petitioner is 39 years of age, has a high school education and has been employed as a plasterer, as well as a firefighter. It was Dr. Aronson's opinion that petitioner received a twenty-five percent permanent physical impairment as a result of the work-related injuries. As to the injuries resulting from the gunshot wound, Dr. Aronson estimated the permanent physical impairment to be forty or fifty percent. The combination of the work-related injuries and the gunshot wound would be less than seventy-five percent. In answer to questions regarding petitioner's ability to work, Dr. Aronson opined that petitioner would not be able to be an active firefighter and, as to other jobs, Aronson stated that only the petitioner could answer that question because he is the one who suffers the pain. Dr. Aronson did state that, while the gunshot wound produced the greater physical impairment, the work-related injuries produced the greater disability due to the pain involved. Dr. Ray Lopez felt that the gunshot would aggravate the prior work-related injuries. Had petitioner not been shot, he may have been able to return to work in some capacity with the fire department. Even after the gunshot wound, it was Dr. Lopez's opinion that while petitioner could not return to work as an officer in the fire department, he may "potentially, eventually be rehabilitated in some other type of endeavor".
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is my recommendation that petitioner's request for disability retirement benefits be denied. Respectfully submitted and entered this 30th day of October, 1975, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE E. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 904/488-9675
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner held a "regularly established position" during the period from January 1979 through June 1979, when she worked as a teacher's assistant for a district school board; if so, then she would be entitled to receive retirement service credit for the period, which Respondent so far has declined to grant.
Findings Of Fact Historical Facts Petitioner Silvia Urrechaga ("Urrechaga") worked for nearly 30 years, in various positions, as an employee of the Miami-Dade County School Board ("MDCSB"). As an employee of a district school board, she became a member of the Florida Retirement System ("FRS"), which is administered by Respondent Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement ("Division"). It is undisputed that, before July 1, 1979 (and thus at all times material to this case), local employers (such as district school boards) that participated in the FRS had the authority to determine, in the exercise of discretion, which of their employees would be covered under the FRS. At that time, the Division did not have the authority to review and overrule local employers' decisions in this regard. From January 1979 through June 1979, Urrechaga was employed as a teacher's assistant. A "Request for Personnel Action" memorandum dated January 8, 1979, memorializes MDCSB's hiring of Urrechaga to fill this part-time hourly position. The memorandum specified that Urrechaga would be "paid from discretionary funds until [the] end of [the] 78/79 school year." On or around January 19, 1979, a "Personnel Transaction Form" was completed, wherein it was recorded that, effective January 8, 1979, Urrechaga would participate in Retirement Plan "F." It is undisputed that Plan "F" meant the FRS. It is further recorded on the personnel form that MDCSB would contribute 9.1 percent of Urrechaga's salary into the FRS trust to fund her retirement benefit. An Annual Earnings Report for the 1978-79 school year shows that for the payroll period ending February 6, 1979——her first as a teacher's assistant——Urrechaga was paid a gross salary of $208.89, and that MDCSB deposited 9.1 percent thereof, or $19.01, into the FRS trust for the benefit of Urrechaga, a Plan "F" participant. Beginning with the very next pay period, however, and continuing through the end of June 1979, Urrechaga's retirement plan designation on the Annual Earnings Report is "J" rather than "F." It is undisputed that "J" meant no retirement benefit. Consistent with that designation, MDCSB (apparently) did not contribute to the FRS on Urrechaga's behalf for the pay periods ending February 9, 1979 through June 22, 1979, at least according to the Annual Earnings Report. MDCSB does not presently have any records documenting the grounds, if there were any, for removing Urrechaga from the FRS. There are likewise no existing records reflecting that Urrechaga was notified contemporaneously that, wittingly or unwittingly, she had been taken out of the retirement plan. It is reasonable to infer, and the undersigned does so, that MDCSB neither informed Urrechaga that she was being excluded from participation in the FRS nor notified her about any administrative remedies that she might have had in consequence of such action. Years later, after an issue had arisen regarding whether Urrechaga is entitled to retirement service credit for the months from January 1979 through June 1979, MDCSB investigated the situation and concluded that Urrechaga had been removed from the retirement plan by mistake. This determination was reported to the Division by MDCSB's Retirement Coordinator, Maria Y. Perez, in a letter dated July 23, 2003, which provided in pertinent part as follows: In reviewing the payroll/personnel records of Ms. Urrechaga, it's [sic] been determined that from January, 1979 through June, 1980, she was excluded from the retirement plan in error. Ms. Urrechaga was hired January 8, 1979, as a part-time hourly teacher assistant, job code 4259, a position eligible for retirement coverage[,] and [she] worked though June, 1979 [in that position.] The Division refused to accept MDCSB's determination, however, on the ground that it was not supported by sufficient proof that Urrechaga had been paid out of a "regular salary account." Consequently, by letter to the Division dated February 28, 2006, Ms. Perez reiterated MDCSB's conclusion, stating in relevant part as follows: Although I cannot provide you with a specific account serial number listing indicating [sic] that specifically Ms. Urrechaga was in a regularly established position; all our hourly teachers assistants were hired in a regularly established position, particularly as late as 1979, and not in a [sic] Other Personnel Services accounts. As support for this statement, Ms. Perez furnished the Division with the records of several other teacher's assistants who, the records unambiguously show, had been treated by MDCSB as FRS participants at the time that Urrechaga, who held the same employment position, had been excluded from the retirement plan. As of the final hearing, Ms. Perez continued to be MDCSB's Retirement Coordinator, a position she had held since 1982. In that capacity, Ms. Perez was MDCSB's senior management person in charge of retirement matters. Ms. Perez's communications to the Division regarding Urrechaga, which were written in her official capacity as MDCSB's agent, did not give voice to mere personal opinions, but rather——as statements clearly falling within the scope of her agency and authority——constituted MDCSB's official statements on the subject of Urrechaga's retirement benefit.1 In other words, Ms. Perez's letters to the Division concerning Urrechaga's retirement benefit expressed an agency determination of Urrechaga's substantial interests, namely the conclusion that Urrechaga had worked for MDCSB in a regularly established position and, accordingly, was supposed to have been a participant in the FRS during the period from January 1979 through June 1979, notwithstanding that conflicting statements in contemporaneously prepared documents give rise to some confusion concerning her participation therein.2 Determinations of Ultimate Fact From January 1979 through June 1979, Urrechaga worked in a "regularly established position" as a teacher's assistant with MDCSB. As an employee in such a position, Urrechaga was entitled to participate in the FRS, and she earned retirement service credit for her work during the period at issue.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division enter a final order awarding Urrechaga the retirement service credit that she earned for working in a regularly established position as a teacher's assistant with MDCSB during the period from January 1979 through June 1979. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of December, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 11th day of December, 2006.
Findings Of Fact The facts here involved are largely undisputed. Callie Grier was employed by the Polk County Hospital as a nurses aide from 1966 until July of 1972. She did not have 10 years employment for retirement purposes at the time of her death in 1976, hence her retirement had not vested. In 1966, and again in 1969, Callie Grier designated her husband, Timothy Grier, as beneficiary of her retirement benefits. At the beginning of her employment Callie Grier was covered under the City and County employees retirement system. In 1970 retirement provisions were modified to establish a Florida Retirement System to cover all city, county and state employees. Those employees covered under a previous retirement system were given the option of transferring to the new system or staying with their existing retirement system. In 1970 Mrs. Grier elected to transfer to the Florida Retirement System (Exhibit 7). On 18 September 1970 Callie Grier obtained a final judgment of divorce from Timothy Grier, Jr., which judgment provided for the payment of child support. (Exhibit 1) On 23 March 1971 an Order of Contempt was issued adjudging Timothy Grier, Jr. in contempt of court and sentencing him to IS days in jail for failure to pay child support. (Exhibit 2) . On 1 November 1971 Timothy Grier was adjudged to be in contempt of court and sentenced to jail for 90 days for being in arrears on child support payments (Exhibit 3) . Also on 1 November 1971 an order relinquishing jurisdiction over Timothy Grier to the Criminal Court was issued (Exhibit 4). On or about this time Timothy Grier departed Bartow and his present whereabouts is unknown to Petitioner. Callie Grier married Aaron Spencer after her divorce from Grier and was so married at the time of her death. Petitioner has custody of the minor child of Callie Grier and has had custody since the death of Callie Grier. On 10 February 1971 Callie Grier executed a change of beneficiary form for her insurance with The Travelers Insurance Company designating Willie Mae Barnes as beneficiary (Exhibit 6) At this time Callie Grier was suffering from a kidney disorder which later required the use of dialysis. Following a kidney transplant in 1976 Callie Grier died in a Gainesville hospital. In 1970 many of the employees in Polk County were not aware of all of their retirement benefits and little effort was expended by local employers to insure the employees had all information. The State Division of Retirement has held numerous seminars and workshops throughout Florida, including Polk County, for both supervisors and employees from time to time since the Division of Retirement was formed. In addition, at least annually brochures were prepared in sufficient numbers to provide one for each employee and sent to the various employers. These brochures explained the various retirement benefits to which employees are entitled. In these brochures. as well as he seminars and workshops, the requirement of having currently designated beneficiaries was stressed.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Sharon Fleita, made a valid “second election” to transfer from the Florida Retirement System (“FRS”) Pension Plan to the Investment Plan, pursuant to section 121.4501, Florida Statutes (2016).1/
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Sharon Fleita, was, at all times relevant hereto, an employee of the Jefferson County School Board (“School Board”) and enrolled as a member of the FRS Pension Plan. Respondent, SBA, is the state agency tasked with administering the FRS Investment Plan. § 121.4501(8), Fla. Stat. Petitioner’s Employment History Petitioner was employed by the School Board as a full- time teaching assistant from early 2011 through May 31, 2017. The last day Petitioner performed work for the School Board was on April 19, 2017. As of that date, Petitioner had exhausted her allotted paid sick leave. On April 21, 2017, Petitioner underwent ankle surgery. The recovery period was about three months, during which time Petitioner was required to use a wheelchair. From April 20 through May 31, 2017, Petitioner was on unpaid “Family Medical Leave Without Pay” as designated by the School Board on a form titled “Application for Leave of Absence,” which was signed by Petitioner. Realizing that her medical condition would prevent her from returning to work, Petitioner officially resigned on May 31, 2017.2/ At the time of her resignation, Petitioner had earned 7.27 years of FRS service credits and was a “vested” member of the FRS.3/ See § 121.021(45), Fla. Stat. Petitioner did not return to work after her leave of absence, nor did she retire on disability through FRS. Petitioner was found to be disabled by the Social Security Administration with a date of disability of April 21, 2017, but she never applied for disability with FRS.4/ On May 31, 2017, Petitioner received a paycheck from the School Board in the amount of $82.13, after deductions and taxes, indicating a pay period of May 1, 2017 through May 26, 2017. The paycheck was compensation for work performed prior to May 2017. Petitioner’s Second Election Ms. Fleita’s employer, the School Board, did not have a human resources director to help her through the second election process. Seeking guidance, Petitioner placed a number of calls to the Division of Retirement and the MyFRS hotline over the course of about five months, beginning in March 2017. Before she made her second election, several representatives informed Petitioner during these phone calls that she needed to be actively employed, earning a salary, and earning FRS service credits at the time the second election was made. On March 20, 2017, a representative with the MyFRS hotline informed Petitioner that she could not make a valid second election while on “unpaid leave of absence or summer break or anything like that.” The representative also recommended that Petitioner make her second election a month or so before her last day of work, in order to make sure the election was valid. On May 10, 2017, a representative with the MyFRS hotline explained to Petitioner that a salary and FRS service credits are distinct, and that it is possible to receive a paycheck but no FRS service credit for a given month. The representative also informed Petitioner that if she were to submit a second election while not earning service credit, the election might be processed but ultimately would not be considered valid. On May 10, 2017, while on FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act) leave, Petitioner completed a “2nd Election Retirement Plan Enrollment Form” to switch from the FRS Pension Plan to the Investment Plan. The Plan Choice Administrator processed the election on May 11, 2017. On July 28, 2017, a representative with the Division of Retirement informed Petitioner that she had earned service credit for May 2017, the month in which she made her second election. Later that same day, a different representative informed Petitioner that her election into the Investment Plan had been approved. However, soon thereafter, the representative called Petitioner back and informed her that her election was invalid because, according to the SBA, Petitioner was not earning service credits in May 2017. Service Credit During FMLA Leave Monthly service credit is awarded for “each month salary is paid for service performed.” § 121.021(17)(b)4., Fla. Stat. Section 121.021(58) defines “leave of absence” as “a leave of absence from employment under the Florida Retirement System, subsequent to November 30, 1970, for which retirement credit [i.e., FRS service credit] may be received in accordance with s. 121.121.” This definition is reiterated in Florida Administrative Code Rule 60S-6.001, which provides: LEAVE OF ABSENCE (Authorized Leave of Absence) – Means a leave of absence from employment under the Florida Retirement System, subsequent to November 30, 1970, for which retirement credit may be received in accordance with Rule 60S-2.006, F.A.C. By default, FRS members do not earn service credits while on an unpaid leave of absence. Service credits may be earned, however, if the member meets the following requirements of rule 60S-2.006: A member may receive retirement credit for a total of two work years of creditable service for authorized leaves of absence under the Florida Retirement System, subject to the following: A leave of absence must be authorized in writing by a member’s employer prior to or during the leave of absence. The member must satisfy the service requirements for vesting, excluding any periods of leave of absence, except for military leaves of absence as provided in subsection 60S-2.005(1), F.A.C., prior to receiving retirement credit for leaves of absence. The member must return to active employment performing service with a Florida Retirement System employer in a regularly established position immediately upon termination of the leave of absence and remain on the employer’s payroll for one calendar month. The exceptions to this requirement are: A member placed on a leave of absence for medical reasons who retires on disability while on the leave of absence shall not be required to return to employment in order to be eligible to receive credit for the leave of absence; and A member whose work year is less than 12 months and whose leave of absence terminates between school years shall be eligible to receive credit for the leave of absence as long as he or she returns to covered employment at the beginning of the next school year and remains on the employer’s payroll for one calendar month. Petitioner did not return to work after her leave of absence (or at the beginning of the following school year), or retire on disability during her leave of absence. Petitioner did not earn service credit during her leave of absence in May 2017. Id. It appears Petitioner misunderstood the distinction between salary and FRS service credit, believing that the paycheck she received in May 2017 meant that she also earned FRS service credits for that month. The delay between the date on which her second election form was processed and the date on which it was invalidated exacerbated this problem, and perhaps gave Petitioner false hope that her second election was valid.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, State Board of Administration, issue a final order denying Petitioner’s request to transfer from the FRS Pension Plan to the Investment Plan. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of February, 2018.
The Issue Is Petitioner, Cheryl Walker, entitled to an Option Two retirement benefit from the account of the deceased member, Mary Fowler (Fowler), in the Florida Retirement System (FRS)?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: On January 8, 1975, Fowler began employment with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, Florida (Clerk) as an Administrative Secretary. On January 8, 1975, Fowler enrolled in the retirement plan (Plan) that was being offered by the Clerk for her position. Fowler made regular payments to the Plan and remained current until the Clerk offered the Plan as a benefit package and paid the premiums on behalf of his employees. Fowler purchased her previous years employment with the Neighborhood Service Center for retirement purposes. On September 29, 1997, Fowler, due to a serious health condition took a medical leave of absence and went on no-pay status. While on no-pay status Fowler's salary was reported for creditable service in the FRS and the Clerk's office paid Fowler's life and health insurance premiums except for certain supplemental health and life insurance premiums. On October 31, 1997, Dr. Greenberg advised Fowler that she was suffering from terminal lung cancer and prescribed certain pain medication. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Fowler was eligible for retirement with the FRS. After Fowler was diagnosed as having terminal cancer, Petitioner moved in with Fowler and Petitioner became her caretaker. Petitioner's testimony that she held a durable-family power of attorney for Fowler and made all business decisions for Fowler after she was diagnosed with terminal cancer lacks credibility based on Petitioner's own testimony and the testimony of Grace Burmeister (Burmeister) and Victoria Spence (Spence), both of whom worked with Fowler before her illness and consulted with Fowler during her illness concerning her retirement. Likewise, there is insufficient evidence to show that Fowler advised the Clerk's office that Petitioner held a durable-family power of attorney for her and that Petitioner would be taking care of Fowler's business and business affairs. Fowler was never declared incompetent, and there is no evidence that she was incompetent to handle her own business affairs, notwithstanding that she was taking treatment for the cancer and taking pain medication. Sometime around November 3, 1997, Fowler notified the Clerk's office that she was terminally ill and would not be returning to work. At this time, Fowler was eligible for retirement under the FRS. On November 18, 1997, Petitioner talked to Burmeister concerning Fowler making a change of beneficiary for FRS and for life insurance benefits. Certain information concerning the rights of joint annuitants and beneficiaries was provided to Fowler by letter dated November 19, 1997. On November 19, 1997, Burmeister, Spence, and Neva Merckle, from the Clerk's office visited Fowler at her home and provided Fowler with certain forms to be completed for her retirement. Among those forms was a form to facilitate the change of beneficiary which Fowler completed and signed on November 19, 1997, naming Petitioner as beneficiary for her retirement benefits. Also among the forms provided to Fowler by Burmeister on November 19, 1997, was an Application for Service Retirement (Application). The Application was not completed by Fowler on November 19, 1997, as she apparently had not decided on the exact date for her retirement. In fact, Fowler, according to Spence, did not appear be interested in retiring on November 19, 1997, but agreed to consider retiring. Also at the meeting with Fowler at her residence on November 19, 1997, both Burmeister and Spence advised Fowler, among other things, that her date of retirement would occur on the first day of the month following her date of termination and that should her death occur before her date of retirement then there were serious consequences as far as the beneficiary was concerned. One of those consequences was that since Fowler did not have a joint annuitant, no one would receive the monthly benefit, except for monies Fowler had contributed to her retirement in the FRS. Both Burmeister and Spence advised Fowler to move forward immediately to set her date of termination so that her date of retirement would occur on December 1, 1997. Apparently, the comment expressed by Petitioner that the Clerk's office was attempting to push Fowler out the door had some impact on her decision not to fill out the retirement application until later. By letter dated December 2, 1997, Fowler gave the Clerk formal notice of her intent to resign December 31, 1997, for the primary purpose of retirement effective January 1, 1998. Although Burmeister could not remember going to Fowler's home but on one occasion, which was November 19, 1997, Spence was very clear in her testimony that she and Burmeister went to Fowler's home on two occasions to discuss Fowler's retirement. Although Spence could not remember the exact dates of their visits, apparently, the date of the second visit was on December 3, 1997, when Fowler completed and signed the Application in the presence of Burmeister, who notarized the Application, notwithstanding Petitioner's testimony to the contrary, which lacks credibility in that regard. Fowler selected Option 2, whereby she would receive a slightly reduced benefit payable monthly for her lifetime. However, should Fowler die before receiving 120 monthly payments, her designated beneficiary, Cheryl Walker, would receive the monthly benefit until the total number of monthly benefits paid to Fowler and to Cheryl Walker equaled 120. Fowler, either through documents furnished to her by the Division concerning retirement or information furnished by Burmeister during her visits on November 19, 1997, and December 3, 1997, had available to her sufficient information concerning retirement in order to make an intelligent decision concerning, among other things, her date of termination, date of retirement, and her Options. The FRS received Fowler's Application on December 9, 1997. However, an attempt to change the date of termination to November 30, 1997, and thereby change the date of retirement to December 1, 1997, was rejected by the FRS in that the FRS did not recognize retroactive terminations. Even though the Clerk's office was paying certain life and health insurance premiums, there is no evidence that this influenced Fowler's decision on retirement. Fowler died on December 14, 1997, and was an active member of the FRS at that time. Therefore, her termination date was established as the date of her death. Fowler also changed her life insurance and deferred compensation documents to name Cheryl Walker as the primary beneficiary. There is no provision in the FRS, nor is the FRS funded to provide a "death benefit" for the beneficiary of an active member who dies before the active member's effective retirement date, unless the beneficiary is a spouse or dependent beneficiary of the deceased member. By letter dated January 29, 1998, the Division notified Petitioner that since Fowler died before her retirement date, the only benefit available to her was a refund of retirement contributions paid by Fowler in the amount of $3,811.98. The Division also advised Petitioner that in order to receive the refund she would need to complete an application for beneficiary refund. Petitioner completed and filed the beneficiary refund application with the Division in February 1998. A warrant in the amount of $3,811.98 was mailed to Petitioner, which she cashed on April 8, 1998. Subsequently, Petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the Division's position and this proceeding ensued.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Division of Retirement enter a final order finding Petitioner, Cheryl Walker not eligible for an Option 2 benefit from the account of Mary Fowler. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of October, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 October, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Pobjecky, Esquire Post Office Drawer 7323 Winter Haven, Florida 33883-7323 Larry D. Scott, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Erin Sjostrom, Director Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Monesia Taylor Brown, Acting General Counsel Division of Retirement Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560
