The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner, Albert F. Cook, had a relationship with the Department of Corrections (DOC) at any time during the month of April, 1993, and if so, whether he was eligible to receive a retirement benefit for that month, as well.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was employed at times pertinent hereto by the Department of Corrections (DOC) at its Baker Correctional Institution facility. On February 19, 1993, he was notified of his transfer to the Florida State Prison, purportedly for disciplinary reasons. Upon learning of this eventuality, the Petitioner immediately went on sick leave. He maintains that it was duly- approved sick leave. No medical evidence to that effect was presented, but the Petitioner suggested that his illness might be of a psychiatric nature. He clearly was disgusted with the action taken by the DOC to transfer him. Subsequently thereto, he decided to apply for retirement, effective March 31, 1993. Shortly thereafter, he sought to have his retirement request rescinded or withdrawn; however, that request was denied. He was thereupon removed from the DOC payroll, effective March 31, 1993, essentially as a termination action. He received a retirement benefit check for the period of April 1-30, 1993 in the amount of $2,324.53 from the Division of Retirement. The Petitioner appealed the DOC employment action to the Public Employees Relations Commission and an administrative proceeding ensued. Ultimately, a settlement agreement was reached in that case which resulted in the Petitioner being allowed to resign, effective April 16, 1993, rather than suffer termination effective March 31, 1993. That agreement entered into by the parties in that case specifically stated that "the agency [DOC] will take whatever action is necessary to return the employee [Cook] to the payroll for the period between March 31, 1993 and April 16, 1993". The Division of Retirement was, of course, not a party to that agreement since it was not a party to the litigation involved. The agreement was incorporated into a Final Order issued by the Public Employees Relations Commission in Case No. CF-93-196, entered June 7, 1993. The Petitioner sent a letter to E.I. Perrin, the Superintendent of Florida State Prison, dated April 12, 1993, in which he stated "that if I am still on the payroll, I hereby resign my position with the Florida Department of Corrections effective April 16, 1993 . . .". According to attendance and leave reports signed by both the Petitioner and Marion Bronson, the Personnel Director of Florida State Prison, the Petitioner was on sick leave for the payroll period of March 26, 1993 through April 8, 1993. While the date of the Petitioner's signature on the relevant time sheet was April 8, 1993, the end of the pay period, the Petitioner testified that the time sheets had actually been submitted earlier. Attendance and leave reports for the following pay period indicated that the Petitioner continued on sick leave status through April 16, 1993. The time sheets for the latter period were not signed by the Petitioner but were signed by Marion Bronson. DOC ordered a manual payroll made up to record payment and to pay the Petitioner through April 16, 1993. He received a salary warrant for $1,234.43 for that period from April 1-16, 1993. That salary check and warrant reflects that retirement contributions were paid as to that April payroll period salary. Because he received additional retirement service credit and a new average final compensation as a result of being in a payroll status and being paid for the period of time in April 1993, the Petitioner's monthly retirement benefits actually now exceed what he would receive as retirement benefit payments had he not been compensated as an employee for his service through April 16, 1993. The Petitioner testified at hearing that he was terminated on March 31, 1993 and not re-hired. He further testified that he neither wanted nor expected payment from DOC for the period of March 31, 1993 through April 16, 1993 and that he "merely wanted to clear his name". Nevertheless, he entered into the settlement agreement which provided for him to be compensated and on payroll status through April 16, 1993, when he entered into the settlement with DOC in the proceeding before the Public Employees Relations Commission. He is presumed to have full knowledge of the content of that settlement agreement, and it reflects that he freely and voluntarily entered into it, as does his testimony. According to Mr. Bronson's testimony, during the relevant period from March 31, 1993 through April 16, 1993, the Petitioner was occupying an authorized and established employment position with DOC. His employment relationship continued with the Department, as a result of the settlement agreement, until April 16, 1993. Because Mr. Bronson and DOC are not parties to the present proceeding and have no financial interest in the outcome of this litigation, Mr. Bronson's testimony is deemed credible and is accepted insofar as it may differ from that of the Petitioner. The Respondent agency learned that a payroll had been prepared for the period of time in April of 1993 in question and that a salary warrant was issued on the basis of the settlement agreement extending the Petitioner's employment with DOC through April 16, 1993. The Division of Retirement thus temporarily reduced the Petitioner's retirement benefits to recover the amount of the resulting, unauthorized April retirement check. It was unauthorized because he remained employed for the period of time in April and was paid as though he were employed, as a result of the settlement agreement. Consequently, he was not entitled to retirement benefits for that period of time in April 1993 ending on April 16, 1993. Mr. Snuggs testified that every retirement applicant, such as the Petitioner, receives a form FRS-TAR, entitled "Retirement System Termination and Re-Employment". The Petitioner did not deny receiving that form (Respondent's Exhibit 4) which advises prospective retirees of their rights and obligations in terms of retirement and retirement benefits as it relates to re- employment.
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 Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, temporarily reducing the Petitioner's retirement benefits, in the manner already proposed by that agency, until such time as his April 1993 retirement benefit, paid to him previously, has been reimbursed to the agency. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 30th day of December, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-2292 Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-11. Accepted. The Petitioner filed no proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Albert F. Cook Post Office Box 782 Sneads, Florida 32460 Robert B. Button, Esquire Department of Management Services Division of Retirement 2639 North Monroe Street, Bldg. C Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 A.J. McMullian, III, Director Division of Retirement 2639 North Monroe Street, Bldg. C Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 William H. Lindner, Secretary Department of Management Services Knight Building, Ste. 307 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
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 Petitioner and Respondent agreed to the following facts: On November 23, 1975, Herschel and Audi Motes, a deputy sheriff with the Putnam County Sheriff's Department, died of a heart attack while arresting an individual who struggled with the arresting Louise Motes, Petitioner in this cause, was married to Herschel Audi Motes at the time of his death, thereby becoming his widow. Mrs. Motes remains unmarried to date and is qualified as to her status for all of the rights and benefits granted January 21, 1976, Sheriff E.W. Pellicer wrote a letter to the Department of Administration, Division of Personnel and Retirement, furnishing the Department with the record of Mr. Motes' salary, contributions to the retirement fund, together with the dates of his employment. The letter concluded by stating, "I would appreciate hearing from you at an early date and if anything further is needed, please advise." The letter was signed by E.W. Pellicer, Sheriff, Putnam County, Florida. On March 10, 1976, Mrs. Motes received a letter from Marjorie B. Smith, Retirement Benefits Specialist, with the letter showing a copy to Mr. E.W. Pellicer. The letter stated as follows: "As the designated beneficiary and surviving spouse of Herschel A. Motes, who died November 23, 1975, you are entitled to the refund of the accumulated retirement contributions which amount to $4,325.69 or the Option 3 monthly retirement benefit. If you desire the refund of the contributions, you should execute a request for refund, form . . . which must be completed in the personnel office of the Putnam County Sheriff's Department If you prefer the Option 3 monthly retirement benefit, which has been computed to be $125.29 based on 18.30 years of service, you should execute the enclosed form FST-11b on which a single beneficiary must be designated and send your personal remittance in the amount of $1,089.23 made payable to the Florida Retirement System. This payment is necessary to allow credit for four years of military service, service rendered from April through August 1963, and complete payment of the necessary contributions for the 1963-64 and 1964-65 years. This monthly benefit, if elected instead of the refund, is a lifetime income which will continue even though you should remarry. In the event of your death prior to receiving in monthly benefits an amount equal to the total accumulated retirement contributions, any contribution on deposit in excess of the total monthly benefits paid will be refunded to your beneficiary. Please let us know if we may be of further assistance." (emphasis added). Enclosed with this letter was form FST-11b which is an "Application of Beneficiary for Monthly Benefits." The form. Joint Exhibit I, contained no reference whatsoever to any rights or benefits under Section 121.091(7)(c)(1), Florida Statutes (the death in the line of duty benefits). Either the Division of Retirement or a Mrs. Key, with the Sheriff's Office of Putnam County, had filled in the blank portions of the first sentence of the form by writing "121" and "3" in the blanks where the form states "Chapter 121, Option 3." The remainder of the form is typed in except for the signature of Louise A. Motes. After filing the "application" through the Putnam County Sheriff's Office, and receiving her first benefit check, Mrs. Motes had a conversation with a Mr. Ronald Clark of Palatka, Florida, about workmens' compensation comprehension benefits. As a result of that conversation, she went to an attorney, who filed a workmens' compensation claim for her. Sometime thereafter, Mrs. Motes was going through some of her husband's papers, which were contained in a filing cabinet at the Sheriff's Office, which her sons brought home. In those papers, she found a newspaper article that Mr. Motes had cut out and saved which told about the death in the line of duty benefits, a copy of the newspaper articles is attached to and made part of Joint Exhibit K. In response thereto, Mrs. Motes went back to the attorney who had filed her workmens' compensation claim and inquired about the "death in the line of duty retirement benefits" of Section 121.091(7)(c), Florida Statutes. At no time prior to or during her filing out the "application" from the State of Florida, Bureau of Retirement, was she informed by anyone that she might possibly entitled to higher benefits because of the manner in which her husband died. At no time prior to filling out the retirement "application" did she have any actual knowledge that the State paid benefits other than those benefits which had been presented to her which were listed on said application. At no time did the Sheriff's Office inform her that she had any possibility of benefits other than the benefits listed on the above stated State of Florida, Bureau of Retirement, application form. By letter of November 7, 1977, Steven S. Mathues, Assistant Division Attorney for the Division of Retirement, Department of Administration, informed Ms. Jill Brown (the attorney for Mrs. Motes who began the original inquiry as to obtaining the "death in the line of duty benefits"), that " . . . it is this Division's position that all retirement benefits and options become fixed when the first warrant is cashed. However, it would appear that under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, your client would have a right to challenge this position . . . . As I see it, the issue would be whether Mrs. Motes' notarized application . . . and continued acceptance of benefits would estop her from now attempting to change the benefit " Thereafter, Mrs. Motes' case was referred to Mr. Maynard, who after several conferences with Mr. Mathues, the attorney for the Division of Retirement, filed a Petition for Administrative Hearing on Mrs. Motes' behalf, alleging, among other things, that Herschel Audi Motes was killed in the line of duty within the meaning of Section 121.091(7)(c)(1), Florida Statutes. The petition also alleged that the Division's "policy" that as of the moment Mrs. Motes had cashed one of her benefit checks her retirement benefits had vested and could not be changed by her subsequent to that event was within the definition of a rule as defined by Section 120.54(14), Florida Statutes, and that the Division of Retirement had never promulgated such a rule in accord with the procedures required by Chapter 120. Depositions were taken in Daytona, Palatka, and Tallahassee on the issue of whether or not Mr. Motes had been "killed in the line of duty." Subsequent to those depositions, Mr. Mathues informed Petitioner that the Division of Retirement no longer wanted to contest the in line of duty issue. Thereafter, Mr. Mathues and Mr. Maynard, attorney for Petitioner, executed a "Joint Motion for Continuance" which states as follows: "1. The parties have settled all of the questions which relate to the issue of whether Herschel Audi Motes, his widow, to the in line of duty death benefits provided in Chapter121, Florida Statues. The only remaining issue in dispute is whether or not Louise Motes has waived her rights to the in line of duty death benefits provided in Chapter 121, Florida Statutes, because she has been cashing her benefit checks since 1975. The remaining issue is solely a legal issue and does not require any testimony by witnesses, with the possible exception of testimony by Mrs. Motes and/or affidavits from Mrs. Motes and the Putnam County Sheriff's Office if the parties cannot agree to a stipulation of facts. Therefore, this issue can be argued by the undersigned attorneys for the parties in Tallahassee, Florida, at the time and place stated above." The Joint Motion was signed by both Mr. Maynard and Mr. Mathues. In response to that Motion, the hearing officer promulgated an Order entitled "Order of Continuance" which stated: "The parties in the above styled cause have filed a Joint Motion for Continuance of the hearing from February 15, 1979, at 1:00 p.m. in Palatka, Florida, to February 26, 1979, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 103, Collins Building, in Tallahassee, Florida. The Motion is granted. Done and Ordered this 12th day of February, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida." With the Division of Retirement, Department of Administration, no longer contesting the in line of duty issue, a final hearing was held on February 26, 1979, on the only remaining issue in dispute which is whether or not Louise Motes has waived her rights to the in line of duty death benefits provided by Chapter 121, Florida Statutes, because she has been cashing retirement benefit checks since 1975. The issue as to whether Petitioner's husband died in such a manner as to entitle her to in-line-of-duty death benefits has been settled by agreement of the parties in Petitioner's favor. This Administrative Hearing was held to resolve the issue of whether Petitioner waived her right to the in-line-of-duty death benefits provided in Section 121.091(7)(c)(1), Florida Statutes, inasmuch as she has been cashing benefit checks awarded her pursuant to Section 121.091(6)(a)(3). Inquiry to the Respondent as to subject retirement claim was made by Petitioner, Louise Motes, when she became aware of the possibility of her entitlement to in-line-of-duty death benefits. No rules have been promulgated in relation to Section 121.091(7) Death benefits, although Rule 22B-4.10(5) was promulgated in 1972 (amended 1974) under authority of Section 212.091(6), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Deny the request of Petitioner to change the retirement benefits she now receives to in-line-of-duty death benefits provided in Chapter 121, Florida Statutes. DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of June, 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: Stephen S. Mathues, Esquire Division of Retirement Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Zollie M. Maynard, Esquire 502 East Jefferson Street Post Office Box 1716 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION DIVISION OF RETIREMENT LOUISE MOTES, Petitioner, vs. DOAH Case NO. 78-2105 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, DIVISION OF RETIREMENT, Respondent. /
The Issue The central issue is whether the Petitioner is entitled to modify her deceased husband's retirement benefit option.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following findings of fact. Petitioner is the surviving spouse of Lamar W. Whaley, Jr., deceased. From 1972 to 1990, Mr. Whaley was employed by the Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners (Board) and as such was a member of the Florida Retirement System. Mr. Whaley retired from his position as a minibus driver with the Board on June 29, 1990. In anticipation of his retirement, Mr. Whaley filed an FR-9 Form with the Division of Retirement (Division). The FR-9 Form, entitled "Request for Audit," was signed by Mr. Whaley and dated November 6, 1989. The FR-9 Form is used by members of the Florida Retirement System who want estimates of the monthly payments which they will receive after they retire. The FR-9 Form provided a space where Mr. Whaley could list the name and birthdate of a joint annuitant. On the FR-9 Form, Mr. Whaley named the Petitioner and the Petitioner's birthdate in these spaces. On the line immediately after the spaces provided for name and birthdate of the joint annuitant, the FR-9 expressly states that "This is not an official beneficiary designation." By listing a joint annuitant and that individual's birthday on the FR-9 Form, the Division is able to calculate the monthly benefits that would be payable to a member under each of the four retirement options available. In response to Mr. Whaley's audit request, the Division calculated the amount of the monthly payments he and/or his survivor would receive under the four retirement options available. On or about November 22, 1989, the Division sent Mr. Whaley information which reflected an estimate of the monthly benefits he and/or his survivor would receive under each of the four retirement options from which he was eligible to select. Included with the estimate of retirement benefits sent to Mr. Whaley, was a document entitled, "What Retirement Option Should I Choose?". This information sheet listed sent to Mr. Whaley listed and described the four different options. In 1990, members of the Retirement System contemplating retirement were provided a Division Form FR-11, Florida Retirement System Application for Service Retirement (Application). The application listed the four different options and provided a brief description of each. Next to Option 1 was the following: "Benefit for the Member Only." A further notation on the application read, "SEE THE REVERSE SIDE FOR AN EXPLANATION OF THESE OPTIONS." The Application adequately described the consequences of the election of each option. The explanation read as follows: Option 1: A monthly benefit payable to you for your lifetime. This option does not provide continuing benefit to a beneficiary. Upon your death, the monthly benefit will stop and you beneficiary will receive only a refund of any contributions you paid which are in excess of the amount you received in benefits. If you wish to provide a beneficiary with a continued monthly benefit after your death, you should consider selecting one of the other three options. The option 1 benefit is the maximum form of lifetime payment and all other optional payments are derived by applying actuarial factors to the option 1 benefit. Option 2: A reduced monthly benefit payable to you for your lifetime. If you die before receiving 120 monthly benefit payments, your designated beneficiary will receive a monthly benefit payment in the same amount as you were receiving until the total monthly benefit payments to both you and your beneficiary equal 120 monthly payments. No further benefits are then payable. Option 3: A reduced monthly benefit payable to you for your lifetime. Upon your death, your joint annuitant (spouse or financial dependent), if living, will receive a lifetime monthly benefit payment in the same amount as you were receiving. No further benefits are payable after both you and your joint annuitant are deceased. Option 4: An adjusted monthly benefit payable to you while both you and your joint annuitant (spouse or financial dependent) are living. Upon the death of either you or your joint annuitant, the monthly benefit payable to the survivor is reduced to two- thirds of the monthly benefit you were receiving when both were living. No further benefits are payable after both you and your joint annuitant are deceased. (Emphasis in original text.) On January 12, 1990, Mr. Whaley executed an Application. The Application listed the Petitioner as beneficiary and indicated that the retirement option selected was Option 1. In selecting Option 1, Mr. Whaley rejected all other options. The fact that Petitioner was listed on the application as a beneficiary is of no consequence given that Mr. Whaley chose Option 1. An explanation on the back of the retirement application expressly states, "This option does not provide continuing benefit to a beneficiary." Because Mr. Whaley chose Option 1, Petitioner, as his beneficiary, would have been entitled only to a refund of Mr. Whaley's contributions in the event that Mr. Whaley's contribution exceeded the amount of monthly benefits paid to him before prior to his death. Petitioner did not assert, nor did the evidence establish that the refund provision in Option 1 applies in the instant case. Petitioner stated that Mr. Whaley could read and was not mentally impaired at the time he completed the retirement application, yet Petitioner testified that the agency did not explain to Mr. Whaley the benefits of the plan which he selected. According to the testimony of Stanley Colvin, administrator and supervisor of the Division's Survivor Benefits Section, staff members are available to provide counseling to members who come in or call with questions relative to their retirement. There is no record that Mr. Whaley ever contacted the Division with questions regarding the various options. The pastor of the church which Petitioner is a member testified that Mr. Whaley may have needed help to understand the ramifications of legal documents. Mr. Whaley's daughter also testified that her father may not have understood the retirement option he chose. Both the pastor and Mr. Whaley's daughter testified further that in conversations with Mr. Whaley, he had indicated to them that he had taken care of the legal work necessary to ensure that his was family was taken care of in the event of his death. Notwithstanding the testimony of Petitioner and others, there is no evidence that at the time Mr. Whaley selected Option 1 he did not fully understand the nature and effect of his selection. Neither does the evidence support the claim that the selection of Option 1 by Mr. Whaley was inconsistent with his desire or intention at the time the choice was made. At the time of Mr. Whaley's retirement, he was in good health. Given this fact it is not unusual that he selected the option that would provide him with the maximum monthly benefit. Statements by Mr. Whaley that he had taken care of matters and that "things were in order" do not provide substantial evidence that the selection of Option 1 by Mr. Whaley was made only because he did not fully understand the consequences of his choice. The testimony revealed that upon Mr. Whaley's death, the Petitioner was the beneficiary of his life insurance policy and also the recipient of benefits under his social security. Under these circumstances, Mr. Whaley's selection of Option 1 was not necessarily inconsistent with his statement that things "were in order" or his listing Petitioner as beneficiary on the Application. On several documents provided to and/or completed by Mr. Whaley, it was clearly stated that once a member begins to receive his benefit, the option selection cannot be changed. The information sheet, "What Retirement Option Should You Choose?," mailed to Mr. Whaley on or about November 22, 1989, contained the following provision: Option Choice Cannot Be Changed Once you begin to receive your benefit your option selection cannot be changed. Therefore, it is important to carefully study your personal circumstances before making your decision . . . . The Application submitted to the Division by Mr. Whaley on or about January 25, 1990, contained a statement that "[o]nce you retire, you cannot add additional service nor change options." Finally, the Acknowledgment of Retirement Application sent to Mr. Whaley by the Division on or about February 8, 1990, provided in relevant part the following: ONCE YOU RETIRE, YOU CANNOT ADD ADDITIONAL SERVICE OR CHANGE OPTIONS. RETIREMENT BECOMES FINAL WHEN ANY BENEFIT CHECK IS CASHED OR DEPOSITED! Mr. Whaley received his first retirement check on or about the last working day in July 1990. Petitioner testified that Mr. Whaley cashed this check in July or August of that same year. By cashing that check, Mr. Whaley was precluded from thereafter changing his retirement option. By selecting Option 1, Mr. Whaley received the maximum benefits payable to him during his lifetime. However, under the provisions of retirement Option 1, upon Mr. Whaley's death, his beneficiary, the Petitioner is not entitled to receive any benefits.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Division of Retirement enter a final order denying the request of Petitioner to modify the retirement benefits elected by Mr. Whaley, the deceased husband of Petitioner. RECOMMENDED this 1st day of August, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 1st day of August, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-0059 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1a-1c. Rejected as not being supported by competent and substantial evidence. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1-6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7-8. Accepted. 9-11. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Gladys Whaley 3807 East Norfolk Street Tampa, Florida 33604 Robert B.Button, Esquire Division of Retirement Legal Office 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 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Paul A. Rowell, Esquire General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 265 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue The issue in the case is whether supplemental payments made to the Petitioner by Brevard Community College constitute creditable compensation for purposes of determining retirement benefits under the Florida Retirement System.
Findings Of Fact From 1970 until his retirement in June 1998, Brevard Community College employed Stephen J. Megregian at an executive level. The State of Florida, Division of Retirement, manages and oversees operation of the Florida Retirement System (FRS) in which Brevard Community College (BCC) participates. In June 1990, the college adopted an Employee Benefit Plan for BCC Executive Employees. The provisions of the plan covered Mr. Megregian, an executive employee. In fact, Mr. Megregian drafted the plan, which was adopted by the college's Board of Trustees. The executive benefit plan included a severance pay benefit for plan participants. The severance benefit was calculated according to a formula using the employee's daily base pay as multiplied by the sum of "benefit days." Benefit days were earned according to employment longevity. A "severance day" calculation determined the amount of severance pay a departing employee would receive. Apparently, at some point in 1994, participants in the FRS learned that the Division of Retirement would exclude some types of compensation, including severance pay, from the "creditable compensation" used to determine retirement benefits. In June 1995, the college amended the plan to provide a severance pay "opt-out" provision to plan participants. The provision entitled plan participants who were within five years of eligibility for FRS retirement benefits to "opt-out" of the severance package and instead immediately begin to receive supplemental payments. Mr. Megregian drafted the "opt-out" provision, which was adopted by the college board. The decision to "opt-out" was irrevocable. A plan participant could not change his or her mind and take the severance package once the "opt-out" decision was made. The supplemental payments were calculated based upon the "severance days" that the employee would have otherwise earned during the year. The payments were made along with the employee's salary payment. The "opt-out" plan did not require a participant to retire after the fifth year of receiving the supplemental payment. The Petitioner asserts that the creation of the "opt- out" provision was in accordance with information provided by the Division of Retirement. There is no evidence that the Division of Retirement provided any information suggesting that the "opt-out" provision would result in an increase in creditable compensation for purposes of determining FRS benefits, or that the "opt-out" provision was an acceptable method of avoiding the severance pay exclusion. There is no evidence that, prior to March of 1998, the college specifically sought any direction or advice from the Division of Retirement as to the supplemental payments made to employees under the "opt-out" provision. The evidence as to why the college did not simply increase base salaries for employees to whom supplemental payments were being made is unclear. There was testimony that the plan was designed to avoid unidentified tax consequences. There was also testimony that the supplemental plan was designed to avoid increasing some employees base salaries beyond the percentage increases awarded to other employees. There was apparently some concern as to the impact the supplemental payments would have on other college employees who were not receiving the additional funds. There is no evidence that the Petitioner performed any additional duties on the college's behalf in exchange for the supplemental payments. The Petitioner was eligible to participate in the "opt- out" plan beginning in the college's 1995-1996 fiscal year, and he elected to do so. As a result of his election, supplemental payments were made in amounts as follows: Fiscal Year 1995-1996, $7,938.46. Fiscal Year 1996-1997, $8,147.13. Fiscal Year 1997-1998, $8,395.40. On March 21, 1998, Brevard Community College requested clarification from the Division of Retirement as to how the supplemental payments would affect a plan participant's benefit. On April 30, 1998, the Division of Retirement notified the college that the supplemental payments would not be included within the calculation of creditable compensation. The Petitioner retired from his employment at Brevard Community College on June 30, 1998. The Petitioner is presently entitled to retirement benefits under the FRS. The Division calculates FRS retirement benefits based on "creditable compensation" paid to an employee during the five years in which an employee's compensation is highest. Some or all of the three years during which the Petitioner received supplemental payments are included in the calculation of his creditable compensation. The evidence fails to establish that the supplemental payments made to the Petitioner should be included within the creditable compensation upon which FRS benefits are calculated. Under the statutes and rules governing FRS benefit determinations, the supplemental payments made to the Petitioner are "bonuses" and are excluded from the "creditable compensation" calculation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the State of Florida, Division of Retirement, enter a final order finding that supplemental payments made to Stephen J. Megregian are bonus payments and are excluded from calculation of creditable compensation for FRS benefit purposes. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of December, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of December, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: David A. Pearson, Esquire Dean, Mead, Egerton, Bloodworth, Capouano & Bozarth, P.A. Post Office Box 2346 Orlando, Florida 32802-2346 Robert B. Button, 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 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Paul A. Rowell, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue The general issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner is entitled to modify her deceased husband's retirement benefit option by changing from "Option 1" to "Option 3". Embodied within that issue is the question of whether the Petitioner's deceased husband was competent to effect a change in his retirement option from service retirement "Option 3" to disability retirement "Option 1."
Findings Of Fact The decedent, Elijah B. Hutchinson, was a teacher of math and science for the Calhoun County school district for some 31 years. In the early 1980's, his health had deteriorated significantly due primarily to diabetes mellitus, which caused a number of associated complications necessitating several hospitalizations during the early 1980's. In consideration of his deteriorating health, the decedent elected to retire in the spring of 1983. He filed an application dated May 27, 1983, seeking regular retirement benefits from the Florida Retirement System. See Exhibit 1 in evidence. In response to his application, the decedent received information from the Division advising him of his retirement benefits under the different retirement options he was entitled to select. On or about June 24, 1983, the decedent elected retirement Option 3. Option 3 retirement benefits include the retiree's entitlement to a reduced monthly retirement benefit during his lifetime with the same monthly retirement benefit being paid, after his death, to his "joint annuitant", in this case, his surviving spouse, the Petitioner. Thereafter, and before he received any benefit check from his initially-selected Option 3 retirement, the decedent appeared at the Division's offices and requested to change his type of retirement or option. On August 12, 1983, therefore, the decedent requested to change his type of retirement benefit from regular retirement to disability retirement. On that date, he requested to change his option selection from Option 3 to Option 1. See Exhibit 4 in evidence. An explanation of the benefits to be provided and the differences in the two options as to his benefits was given to the decedent by an employee of the Division. See Exhibit 4 in evidence. The decedent thereupon changed his option selection from Option 3 to Option 1. In 1983, a retirement system member receiving retirement benefits as the result of a disability could only receive benefits in accordance with either Option 1 or Option 2, if he chose to elect disability retirement. On September 16, 1983, the decedent was mailed a letter from the Division advising him that his application for disability retirement benefits had been approved by the State Retirement Director and acknowledging that he had elected Option 1 for disability retirement. Thereafter, the decedent received and cashed a number of State warrants representing payment of those retirement benefits under Option 1. See Exhibit 10 in evidence. The decedent died on March 8, 1991. The Petitioner had been unaware that he had changed from Option 3 benefits to Option 1 benefits, as delineated above. Upon learning of this, after the decedent's death, the Petitioner, on April 30, 1991, requested the Division to modify the benefits option selected by the decedent to Option 3 benefits. Her basis for requesting this change was that the decedent had not been mentally or physically competent to make an informed selection at the time he changed his Option 3 retirement benefits election to Option 1 and that, therefore, she should be allowed to modify and reinstitute his retirement election to Option 3 benefits, which would provide her the death benefits permitted under the Option 3 election. This request was denied by the Division by its "final agency action letter" dated May 21, 1991, by which the Division advised the Petitioner that based upon its records, the decedent, who had requested Option 1 retirement benefits, was added to the retirement payroll in that category for September, 1983 and that he had received benefit payments and negotiated the checks, so that, under the provisions of Rule 22B-4.002(3), Florida Administrative Code, the selection of the option could no longer be altered. The Petitioner's testimony and that of Phillip H. Hutchinson indicates that sometime in 1983, the decedent suffered a cerebral-vascular incident or "stroke". This testimony is borne out by the medical records in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 1, which, however, does not indicate when the stroke occurred. The Petitioner and her son maintain in their testimony that the stroke resulted in a deterioration in the decedent's mental faculties such that he could no longer manage his business affairs, pay bills, and handle financial matters in general. They maintain that this was evidenced also by a marked personality change whereby the decedent became extravagant with money, as evidenced by impulsively ordering and purchasing items which he observed advertised on television, sending money to television evangelists, and otherwise being free with donations. This was entirely different from his character and personality before he suffered the stroke, whereby he was known to be miserly with the family funds and very careful about not spending money unnecessarily. As a result of his stroke, he was no longer able to handle his business affairs; and his spouse, the Petitioner, had to assume the duties of paying family bills and otherwise handling financial and business matters for the family. When the decedent first decided to retire, he had explained to the Petitioner that he would select a retirement option which would give her something after he "passed"; and he showed her the retirement system booklet of allowable retirement options in discussing the matter with her. He never mentioned to her that he decided to or did change his option to Option 1 disability retirement. Although the Petitioner may have established that due to the stroke he suffered, the decedent may have, indeed, had difficulty attending to financial matters and overseeing and managing the family finances, the Petitioner failed to establish that at the time he made the election to select Option 1 retirement benefit, he did not possess the mental capacity to make a knowing and intelligent selection of that option and to waive his previously-selected Option 3 benefits. The evidence shows that he appeared at the Division's offices and, after an explanation of the option he chose to select, he freely and voluntarily selected that option and signed the pertinent documents attesting to it. It has simply not been demonstrated by substantial evidence that at the time the decedent made the second retirement option election, he did not understand the nature and consequences of that election, especially since it was not established by the Petitioner when he actually suffered the stroke, other than that it occurred sometime in 1983. As found above, the decedent made the election to chose Option 1 retirement benefits in August, 1983. Consequently, due to insufficient evidence, it cannot be found that the Petitioner's decedent was incompetent to knowingly and intelligently elect to receive Option 1 retirement benefits at the time he made the election.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Division denying the request of the Petitioner to modify the retirement benefits elected by the decedent from Option 1 retirement benefits entitlement to Option 3 retirement benefits entitlement. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of December, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrativ Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24 day of December, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 91-3870 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted. Accepted, except that the evidence does not support that the stroke actually occurred in mid 1983. 3-4. Accepted. Rejected, as not being demonstrated by the preponderant evidence of record. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-14. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: A.J. McMullian, III, Director Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Bldg. C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1560 John A. Pieno, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Phillip H. Hutchinson 4115 Tanglewood S., Apt. 570 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Larry D. Scott, Esq. Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1560
The Issue Whether the Petitioner may withdraw from participation in the Deferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP)?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Henry Gohlke, is a member of the Florida Retirement System (FRS), which is governed by Chapter 121, Florida Statutes (2003). The Petitioner is employed by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. The Petitioner divorced his former spouse, Joanne Marie Gohlke, on October 29, 1997, and a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) was entered which provided that Joanne Marie Gohlke was the alternate payee of the Petitioner's retirement benefits. See Exhibit J-10. Under the terms of the QDRO, when the Petitioner retired, his future retirement benefits would be incorporated into alimony payable to Joanne Marie Gohlke, beginning with the first monthly retirement benefit payment made to the Petitioner. The payment was fixed based upon the value of the Petitioner's pension at the time, and Joanne Marie Gohlke would receive $552.05 per month. DROP is a program which permits an employee, who has qualified for retirement, to retire; draw his retirement benefit based upon the retirement option he selected; and have the money paid into a non-taxed, interest-drawing account for up to five years while the employee continues to work. At the end of the five years or such other shorter time the employee elects, the employee may cease working and receive all or a part of the money in a lump payment paying the income taxes due on the amount, or roll the money over into an Individual Retirement Account (IRA) or similar program without paying income taxes until the money is withdrawn from that account. The Petitioner testified that he queried Eddie Tanner, who at that time was a paralegal working with the Division of Retirement, about the effect of the QDRO on his DROP deposits. There is conflicting testimony about what the Petitioner was told; however, Tanner testified concerning his customary advice to persons subject to QDROs. The Petitioner was advised to seek clarification from the domestic relations court to be certain. The Petitioner elected to participate in the DROP program in March of 2003. He may continue to participate in DROP until March 28, 2008. See Exhibit J-7. When he began to receive retirement benefits, a letter was sent to him on June 25, 1998, advising him that Joanne Marie Gohlke would qualify for a $552.05 per month share of the Petitioner's accrued DROP benefit as provided in the QDRO. The letter also advised that, upon the Petitioner's ceasing to work, the moneys due Joanne Marie Gohlke would be paid to her together with the accrued interest. This letter was sent to the Petitioner's old address, and he did not receive the letter. Eventually, the Petitioner learned that his DROP payments would be subject to the allocation of $552.05 each month to his ex-wife pursuant to the QDRO. This money would be payable to his ex-wife at the same time the Petitioner accessed his DROP money. The Petitioner questioned this payment to his ex-wife. The status of DROP benefits has been litigated, and the courts have determined that DROP benefits are retirement benefits and subject to QDROs. See Ganzel v. Ganzel, 770 So. 2d 304, 306 (Fla 4th DCA 2000). Based upon this precedent, the Respondent denied the Petitioner's request not to pay the proceeds from DROP to Joanne Marie Gohlke. Upon learning that his ex-wife would receive a portion of his DROP account, the Petitioner sought to withdraw from his participation in the DROP. Although an employee may elect to continue to work at the end of five years with the permission and written concurrence of his employer, he or she would automatically lose his or her DROP moneys by continuing to work past the five-year mark.1/ There is no administrative mechanism for withdrawing from DROP which would be analogous to "un-retiring." The Respondent properly denied the Petitioner's request to withdraw from DROP.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Petitioner's Petition be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of January, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 27th day of January, 2004.
Findings Of Fact On February 15, 1977, Petitioner was employed by the City of Clearwater as a full-time firefighter. He became certified as a firefighter on April 21, 1977, and was issued certificate number 5374. After receiving an associate's degree from St. Petersburg Junior College, Petitioner became eligible to receive firefighters' supplemental compensation benefits on July 1, 1981. After receiving a bachelor's degree from Eckerd College, Petitioner became eligible to receive additional firefighters' supplemental compensation benefits on May 1, 1984. Until July 2, 1986, Petitioner received his supplemental compensation benefits according to the appropriate level. On July 2, 1986, a hearing was held before the City of Clearwater Pension Advisory Committee as to whether Petitioner was entitled to a job- connected disability pension for injuries that he received in firefighting related activity. Following a finding by the Clearwater Pension Advisory Committee that Petitioner was entitled to the disability, the City of Clearwater forwarded to Respondent a Notice of Ineligibility for Supplemental Compensation Benefits, reflecting an ineligibility date for Petitioner of July 2, 1986. Based upon the Notice of Ineligibility, as well as the fact that Petitioner had received a disability that could not be corrected to the satisfaction of the Respondent, Respondent voided Petitioner's certification as a firefighter and terminated his supplemental compensation benefits as of July 2, 1986. Petitioner elected a retirement plan option offered by the City of Clearwater under which he extended his termination of employment date by the amount of time due him for vacation, holiday pay, and one-half of his accrued sick leave. By utilizing the vacation and sick leave time to which he was entitled, Petitioner extended his termination of employment date to October 8, 1987. Between July 2, 1986 and October 8, 1987 Petitioner occupied the status of an employee on vacation or on sick leave, i.e., he was on leave with pay. He received a paycheck at the same time that other employees of the City of Clearwater received theirs, and his paycheck carried the same deductions that other employees would have in their checks. It is uncontroverted that although Petitioner received his disability on July 2, 1986, Petitioner has received compensation from the City of Clearwater on an uninterrupted basis encompassing the period from July 2, 1986 through October 8, 1987 for duties that he performed as a full-time firefighter for the City of Clearwater Fire Departments his employing agency.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered reinstating Petitioner's supplemental compensation benefits from July 2, 1986 through October 8, 1987 and directing that those benefits be paid to Petitioner forthwith. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of October, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 23rd day of October, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: William Gunter State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Fredric S. Zinober, Esquire Village Office Park, Suite 107 2475 Enterprise Road Clearwater, Florida 33575 Lisa S. Santucci, Esquire Department of Insurance 413-B Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 =================================================================
The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether Petitioner is entitled to receive benefits under the retirement plan of his deceased mother, Violet Portee, pursuant to the Florida Retirement System, Chapter 121, Florida Statutes. 1/
Findings Of Fact Violet Portee was employed by Jackson Memorial Hospital ("Jackson") in Dade County, Florida, as a ward clerk from 1970 through October 3, 1990. Mrs. Portee retired from her employment at Jackson effective December 1, 1990. 4/ Mrs. Portee was a member of the Florida Retirement System. Petitioner is the son of Mrs. Portee and Mrs. Portee's closest surviving relative. Mrs. Portee was diagnosed with terminal, gastric cancer sometime in August, 1990. Petitioner first learned of his mother's condition from the attending physician when Petitioner visited his mother in the hospital. Mrs. Portee was admitted to the hospital for approximately one week on three separate occasions between August, 1990, and December, 1990. She began taking medications for pain in November, 1990. Her pain medication included Percodan, Tylenol 3 with codeine, Demerol, and morphine. Mrs. Portee went on sick and annual leave, and eventually went on leave without pay. Mrs. Portee executed a power of attorney in favor of her son on October 25, 1990. On November 14, 1990, Mrs. Portee met for approximately an hour and a half with Luis Gonzalez, a compensation specialist in the Jackson Human Resources Division. One of Mr. Gonzalez's primary functions is counseling employees on retirement matters. Mrs. Portee completed a request for estimate of her retirement benefits ("FRS Form FR-9") and her application for retirement ("FRS Form FR-11"). A retiree may select one of four options for retirement benefits on the FRS Form FR-11. Mrs. Portee selected Option 1 on her Application For Service Retirement, Form FR-11. Option 1, Member Benefit Only, provides maximum monthly benefits for the retiree during his or her lifetime but provides no benefit for survivors of the retiree. Option 2, Ten Years Certain, provides benefits to the retiree during the retiree's lifetime and, in the event of the retiree's death within 10 years of the date of retirement, the same monthly amount is paid to the retiree's beneficiary for the balance of the 10 year period. The monthly benefit to the retiree under Option 2 is paid at an actuarial rate that is less than that paid under Option 1. Options 3 and 4 provide benefits to joint annuitants. 5/ Sometime before November 28 or 29, 1990, Petitioner and Mr. Gonzalez discussed the retirement status of Mrs. Portee. Petitioner asked Mr. Gonzalez for instructions on how to change the option selected by Mrs. Portee on her Application For Service Retirement, Form FR-11, from Option 1 to Option 2. Mr. Gonzalez explained that Mrs. Portee's selection of options could be changed in one of two ways. First, Mrs. Portee could come into Mr. Gonzalez's office, execute a new Form FR-11, and select Option 2. Second, Mrs. Portee could return the first retirement benefit warrant uncashed to the Division of Retirement and write on the warrant that she wished to change the benefits option from Option 1 to Option 2. Mrs. Portee was too ill to return to Mr. Gonzalez's office to execute a new retirement option. Petitioner decided to wait and return the first benefit warrant uncashed and request a change in the options selected. The first benefit warrant was dated December 31, 1990, Warrant No. 0580615. Mrs. Portee died on December 6, 1990, before receiving the first benefit warrant. The first benefit warrant was neither cashed nor returned to the Division of Retirement with written instructions to change the selection of benefit from Option 1 to Option 2. During his conversations with Mr. Gonzalez, Petitioner disclosed neither the seriousness of Mrs. Portee's medical condition nor that Petitioner had power of attorney for Mrs. Portee. If Mr. Gonzalez had known either fact, he would have proceeded more expeditiously to change Mrs. Portee's selection of Option 1 to Option 2. Petitioner and Mr. Gonzalez next spoke on December 8, 1990. Petitioner had telephoned Mr. Gonzalez on December 6, 1990, but Mr. Gonzalez was not in. When Mr. Gonzalez returned Petitioner's telephone call on December 8, 1990, Petitioner informed Mr. Gonzalez that Mrs. Portee had died two days earlier. A meeting between the two men was set for December 18, 1990. At the meeting on December 18, 1990, Petitioner inquired about changing his mother's retirement benefits from Option 1 to Option 2. Mr. Gonzalez telephoned the Division of Retirement in Tallahassee, Florida, and was advised that Mrs. Portee's retirement benefits option selection could not be changed after her death. A final meeting was conducted on December 24, 1990, between Petitioner, Mr. Gonzalez, and Mr. Brian Derer, a benefits specialist with Jackson. Petitioner had come into the office to complete certain documents concerning Mrs. Portee's life insurance. During this meeting, Petitioner informed Mr. Gonzalez and Mr. Derer for the first time that Petitioner had power of attorney from Mrs. Portee. Mr. Gonzalez informed Petitioner that there was nothing he could do to change Mrs. Portee's option selection after her death. Mr. Gonzalez explained that he was an employee of Jackson and that neither he nor Jackson was an agency of the Division of Retirement or the Florida Retirement System. Petitioner contacted the Division of Retirement on January 14, 1991, for assistance. Petitioner was advised by Stanley Colvin to write to the Division of Retirement. In response to Petitioner's written request, the Division of Retirement advised Petitioner that the only benefit to be paid was a return of contributions to the retirement plan.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent should enter a final order awarding Petitioner those benefits that are most favorable to Petitioner pursuant to Sections 121.091(6), (7)(b), and (8), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of July, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 22nd day of July, 1991.
The Issue Prior to the hearing a short pre-hearing conference was held. It was stipulated to by the parties that Hadden was a member of the Florida Retirement System, had over 17 years of creditable service, and that Hadden could no longer perform the duties of an automotive mechanic because of his physical limitations. Hadden had applied for regular disability retirement benefits. The Division controverted Hadden's eligibility for such benefits on the basis that while Hadden could not perform the duties of an automotive mechanic that his physical condition did not prevent him from rendering useful and efficient service to the State in some other capacity calling for less strenuous activity.
Findings Of Fact Hadden is a white male, 51 years old, who worked as an automotive mechanic for Polk County for over 17 years. Hadden had had no formal schooling and can read and write very little. From Hadden's testimony and observations at the hearing regarding Identification of documents, it was apparent Hadden is functionally illiterate. Evidence was received that the former employer had indicated that there were no positions available for which Hadden was qualified. Hadden testified that he did do yard work at his home, mowing the lawn with a riding mower and weeding flower beds. However, Hadden indicated that if he became hot he would suffer pains in his chest and have to take his medication and lay down and rest for several hours. It appeared that even light physical work was beyond his capacity to perform on a regular continuing basis. Doctors' reports supporting Hadden's retirement application indicate that Hadden's physical condition will not improve and will probably worsen. Doctors restrict his activity to "mild" activity which is not strenuous or continuous. This would be consistent with Hadden's testimony regarding yard work. It should be noted that medical reports indicate that Hadden's heart condition is complicated by a nervous condition which restricts his ability to perform tedious manual work.
