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 is whether Petitioner is eligible for services under the Home Care for Disabled Adults Program.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the following findings are made: Parties Petitioner is a 41-year-old retired State of Florida employee. She retired on disability in August 2002 as a result of "extreme" and "terminal" medical problems, the precise nature of which is not reflected in the record. At the time of her retirement, Petitioner was working for the Department. She had worked for the Department and its predecessor, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, for slightly more than ten years and she was a member of the Florida Retirement System (FRS). The Department is the state agency responsible for administering the Home Care for Disabled Adults Program ("HC/DA Program"). HC/DA Program The HC/DA Program is a state-funded program related to the federal supplemental security income (SSI) program. As such, the HC/DA Program is referred to as an "SSI-related program." The HC/DA Program is intended to provide an alternative to institutional or nursing home care for disabled adults. It does so by providing monthly support and maintenance payments for the care of eligible disabled adults in family-type living arrangements in private homes. The income threshold for the HC/DA Program is 300 percent of the SSI federal benefit rate, which is currently $552.00 per month. Accordingly, the income threshold for the HC/DA Program is $1,656.00 per month. An individual who has income in excess of $1,656.00 per month is ineligible for services under the HC/DA Program, no matter how significant his or her needs are. It is undisputed that Petitioner meets all of the other eligibility requirements for the HC/DA Program except the income threshold. Petitioner's Income and the Health Insurance Subsidy Petitioner does not receive SSI benefits. Her only sources of income are a disability benefit she receives from the federal Social Security Administration (SSA) and a pension benefit she receives from the FRS. Petitioner's SSA disability benefit is $983.00 per month. Petitioner's gross FRS pension benefit is $701.00 per month. Her net benefit is only $410.00 per month as a result of health insurance premiums which are paid to Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida (BC/BS) by Petitioner through "payroll deductions." Included in Petitioner's gross FRS pension benefit is a health insurance subsidy of $50.40 per month. The subsidy amount is based upon the number of years of creditable service that Petitioner had with the State. It is calculated at a rate of $5.00 for each year of service. The subsidy may only be used by Petitioner to purchase health insurance. The subsidy does not cover the entire cost of Petitioner's health insurance. Even with the subsidy, Petitioner pays approximately $240.00 per month to BC/BS for health insurance. The subsidy is "optional" in the sense that Petitioner was required to separately apply for it under the FRS. However, upon application, the subsidy is legally owed to Petitioner as a result of her ten years of service to the State. The subsidy is paid directly to Petitioner, although Petitioner never actually receives the money since she has chosen to have it (and the remainder of her insurance premium) transferred to BC/BS through a “payroll deduction” from her monthly FRS check. Petitioner's total income is $1,684.00 per month if the health insurance subsidy is included, and it is $1,633.60 per month if the subsidy is excluded. Department's Review of Petitioner's HC/DA Application and Determination of Ineligibility On March 5, 2003, Petitioner met with Tracy Seymour, an adult services counselor with the Department, to determine whether she might be eligible for services under the HC/DA Program. Ms. Seymour helped Petitioner complete the application for the HC/DA Program, and gathered general income information from Petitioner. Petitioner's application was then forwarded to the Department's economic self-sufficiency unit for review. That unit is responsible for determining income eligibility where, as here, the applicant is not receiving SSI benefits. To determine income eligibility, the economic self- sufficiency caseworker verifies the income and resource information provided by the applicant on the application. Pamela Bolen was the caseworker responsible for reviewing Petitioner's application. Ms. Bolen contacted the SSA and obtained a print-out detailing Petitioner's disability benefit. That print-out confirmed that Petitioner received an SSA benefit in the amount of $983.00 per month. Ms. Bolen next called the Division of Retirement (DOR) to obtain information related to Petitioner's FRS pension benefit. Ms. Bolen was told that Petitioner's benefit was $650.60 per month with an additional $50.40 per month being paid towards Petitioner’s health insurance by the State. Later, Ms. Bolen received a print-out from DOR which reflected Petitioner's gross FRS pension benefit as being $701.00. That figure is the sum of $650.60 and $50.40. Because Ms. Bolen had not previously done an income eligibility determination for the HC/DA Program, she was unsure as to whether the $50.40 insurance subsidy was to be included or excluded when determining Petitioner's income. As a result, she contacted the economic self-sufficiency "help desk" for guidance. Roger Menotti, an administrator with 18 years of experience in the economic self-sufficiency unit, responded to Ms Bolen's inquiry. Mr. Menotti researched those portions of the Department's policy manual that relate to the HC/DA Program. The policy manual is not adopted by rule, nor is it incorporated by reference in any Department rule. However, the policy manual is consistent with the Department rules governing the HC/DA Program as well as the federal SSI rules. Section 2640.0115.02 of the policy manual provides that "gross income is used to determine eligibility" for the HC/DA Program. Section 1840.0102 of the policy manual provides that "[s]ome deductions withheld from gross income must be included as income" and that section specifically lists health insurance premiums as an example of such a deduction. Section 1840.0118 of the policy manual provides: A vendor payment is a money payment made for SFU [sic] expenses by an individual or organization outside of the SFU [sic] from funds not legally owed to the SFU [sic]. Vendor payments are excluded as income. . . . * * * Direct payments to a creditor or vendor on behalf of an individual are vendor payments and are excluded as available income to the individual with exception. When a vendor payment results in the individual directly receiving income, the income is included. . . . (Emphasis supplied.) Section 1440.1400 of the policy manual provides that: Individuals must apply for and diligently pursue to conclusion an application for all other benefits for which they may be eligible as a condition of eligibility [for the HC/DA Program]. Need cannot be established nor eligibility determined upon failure to do so. Section 1440.1400 specifically identifies retirement benefits and health insurance payments as examples of the other benefits for which the applicant must apply. Based upon his review of the policy manual, and particularly the sections quoted above, Mr. Menotti concluded that the health insurance subsidy is not a "vendor payment" and that it must be included in Petitioner’s gross income. Mr. Menotti conveyed this conclusion to Ms. Bolen. Thereafter, Ms. Bolen updated her calculations to reflect Petitioner's total monthly income as $1,684.00, which exceeds the income threshold for the HC/DA Program. Ms. Bolen then returned the application to Ms. Seymour. Based upon the economic self-sufficiency unit's determination that Petitioner's income exceeded the threshold for the HC/DA Program, Ms. Seymour notified Petitioner in writing on March 20, 2003, that she was "financially ineligible" to receive home care services. Ms. Bolen knew Petitioner when she was a Department employee. She and Ms. Seymour are continuing to work with Petitioner to identify Department programs for which Petitioner may be eligible. As of the date of the hearing, those efforts had resulted in Petitioner being found eligible for the Department's Medical Needy Program. Upon learning that her income exceeded the threshold for the HC/DA Program, Petitioner considered giving up the health insurance subsidy in order to reduce her income below the threshold. Ms. Bolen advised her not to do so. Ms. Bolen's advice was based upon Section 1440.1400 of the policy manual which does not allow an applicant for services under the HC/DA program to turn down other benefits or assistance that they may be eligible for. Had Ms. Bolen not given Petitioner this advice, Petitioner would have given up the health insurance subsidy for no reason. In a final effort to determine whether there was any means by which Petitioner could be found eligible for services under the HC/DA Program, Petitioner’s case was referred to Lynn Raichelson, an adult services policy specialist with the Department's Tallahassee office, for review. Ms. Raichelson contacted DOR to obtain information regarding the operation of the health insurance subsidy. She also contacted the Atlanta office of the SSA, which is the federal agency responsible for administration of the SSI program. Based upon information that she received from those sources, Mr. Raichelson concluded that the subsidy must be included as income in determining eligibility for services under the HC/DA Program.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services issue a final order denying Petitioner's application for services under the Home Care for Disabled Adults Program because her income level exceeds the threshold for the program. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of July, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 30th day of July, 2003.
The Issue Whether the Division properly denied Petitioner's request to change Petitioner's retirement in the Florida Retirement System from an early retirement service benefit to disability retirement.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is charged with managing, governing, and administering the Florida Retirement System ("FRS"). Royal worked for the Florida Department of Transportation ("DOT") over 28 years. As a prior employee of DOT, Royal is a member of the FRS. Royal was injured on his job on July 16, 2002. After being informed by the Social Security Administration that he was disabled, Royal started applying for line-of-duty disability retirement with the FRS. Since Royal's injury, Royal has gotten his neighbor, Levern Speights, to prepare his retirement applications and write letters to the Division on his behalf. Royal signs every submission. Royal first applied for disability retirement on December 19, 2003. About three months later, Royal applied for early service retirement benefits on or about March 9, 2004. Directly above Royal's signature, the application stated: I understand I must terminate all employment with FRS employers to receive a retirement benefit under Chapter 121, Florida Statutes. I also understand that I cannot add additional service, change options, or change my type of retirement (Regular, Disability, and Early) once my retirement becomes final. My retirement becomes final when any benefit payment is cashed or deposited. While the two applications were pending, Royal contacted the Division to check on the status of his disability retirement application. During the call, Royal found out that he could obtain retirement monies immediately if he wrote a letter requesting early retirement. On or about April 12, 2004, Royal submitted a letter to the Division that stated he "wish[ed] to apply for early service retirement." Upon receipt of the April 12, 2004, letter, the Division switched Royal's application from a disability application to early retirement application and Royal went on the Florida Retirement System payroll effective March 1, 2004. Royal has been receiving early service retirement checks and cashing or depositing them since March 2004. However, Royal still believes he is entitled to disability retirement benefits since he is disabled. Throughout the years, Royal has continuously contacted the Division periodically in an effort to still try and get disability retirement benefits. In January, April, and May 2006, the Division received three letters from Royal questioning his receipt of early service retirement benefits and requesting to apply for in-line- of-duty disability retirement benefits. On May 16, 2006, Royal applied for disability benefits again. On June 3, 2006, the Division responded to Royal's request by letter stating: The Division of Retirement has received your letter requesting that you receive disability benefits. Our records indicated you are receiving a service retirement benefit. According to Chapter 60S-4.002(4), Florida Administrative Code, you cannot change your option selection, purchase additional service, or change your type of retirement after you have cashed or deposited any benefit payment. Therefore the Division is unable to honor your request.[2] On December 24, 2008, Royal wrote the Division and requested that his "retirement be changed to disability retirement to reflect my current condition."3 On January 21, 2009, the Division informed Royal again by letter that "Florida law does not have provisions that allow the Division of Retirement to change a member's retirement type from service retirement to disability retirement. Therefore, your service retirement benefit is final and cannot be changed to disability retirement." Royal contacted the Division on several more occasions trying to get disability benefits. On or about June 25, 2011, Royal requested a hearing regarding the issue.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's request to change his early service retirement benefit to disability retirement. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of December 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. MCKINNEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of December, 2011.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner is entitled to receive Health Insurance Subsidy payments retroactive to July 1995, the month she began to receive retirement benefits from the Respondent as the surviving spouse of a member of the Florida Retirement System.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Division is, and was at the times material to this case, the state agency charged with the responsibility of administering the Florida retirement and pension systems. Section 121.025, Florida Statutes (1995). The Division is, and was at the times material to this case, also responsible for administering the Retiree Health Insurance Subsidy. Section 112.363(7), Florida Statutes (1995). Harold Mosser, the former husband of Mrs. Kirkley, retired from his job as a school principal in August 1979, and he was a member of the Florida Retirement System. Mr. Mosser received a monthly state retirement benefit, and, as a supplement to the retirement benefit, he received a monthly Health Insurance Subsidy. Mrs. Kirkley retired from her job as a schoolteacher in 1989, and she is a member of the Florida Retirement System. Since her retirement, Mrs. Kirkley has received a monthly state retirement benefit and a monthly Health Insurance Subsidy. Mr. Mosser died on April 28, 1995. Mrs. Kirkley did not advise the Division of Mr. Mosser's death. Rather, the Division learned of his death in July 1995, when conducting a routine check of the Bureau of Vital Statistics "death tape." As Mr. Mosser's surviving spouse and the person he named as his joint annuitant, Mrs. Kirkley was entitled to receive an "Option 3" monthly retirement benefit for the remainder of her lifetime, pursuant to Section 121.09, Florida Statutes (1995). Mrs. Kirkley was also eligible to receive a monthly Health Insurance Subsidy upon filing an application for the subsidy with the Division, and this benefit included payment of the subsidy from the date of Mr. Mosser's death or for the six months prior to the date the application was filed.1 In a Statement of Retirement Benefit Payments dated 1/31/95, the components of Mr. Mossers's monthly retirement benefit payments were identified. At the time of his death, Mr. Mosser received a gross monthly retirement benefit of $1,730.60, plus a Health Insurance Subsidy of $90.00, minus $250.00 withholding tax, for total net monthly benefits of $1,570.60. Because the Division did not learn of Mr. Mosser's death until July 1995, his monthly benefit check was issued in May and June 1995 and electronically deposited in NationsBank. When the Division learned of Mr. Mosser's death, a Division representative tried to reach Mrs. Kirkley by telephone but could not obtain her unlisted telephone number. The representative then sent Mrs. Kirkley a letter dated July 20, 1995, in which the representative advised Mrs. Kirkley that Mr. Mosser's estate was entitled to receive his benefits for the month of April 1995 in the net amount of $1,570.60 and that she must apply for a continuing monthly benefit as Mr. Mosser's designated beneficiary. The representative also advised Mrs. Kirkley to complete the Division Form FST-11b that was enclosed with the letter and to return it to the Division together with Mr. Mosser's death certificate. Mrs. Kirkley completed the form enclosed with the letter and mailed it to the Division as directed. The Division changed Mr. Mosser's account over to Mrs. Kirkley, and she began receiving a monthly retirement benefit check in October 1995.2 Mr. Mosser's Health Insurance Subsidy was terminated effective July 1995, and the net monthly benefit received by Mrs. Kirkley as Mr. Mosser's beneficiary did not include a Health Insurance Subsidy payment. It is the Division's practice to send each retiree added to the system a "retiree packet" that includes, among other things, an application for the Health Insurance Subsidy and an explanation of the subsidy, as well as a booklet containing an explanation of all of the benefits available to retirees and beneficiaries under the Florida Retirement System. The process of sending out the retiree packets is automated, so that a packet is sent to every retiree and beneficiary when they are first entered into the system. Pursuant to the Division's regular practice, Mrs. Kirkley would have been sent the retiree packet in October 1995, when she was added to the system as Mr. Mosser's beneficiary. The Division also sends retirees and beneficiaries an annual newsletter, and the Health Insurance Subsidy was discussed in the 1995 and 1996 newsletters. Mrs. Kirkley received a Statement of Retirement Benefit Payments, as Mr. Mosser's beneficiary, each July, December, and January. This statement includes a separate entry for the Health Insurance Subsidy, with the amount of the subsidy noted; Mrs. Kirkley would have been aware of this entry because the Statement of Retirement Benefit Payments that she had been receiving on her own account would have shown an amount paid as her Health Insurance Subsidy. Mrs. Kirkley received her first statement in December 1995, and it would have been apparent from the statement that no amount was included for the Health Insurance Subsidy. Mrs. Kirkley does not recall having any direct contact with the Division between the time she submitted her application for the retirement benefit as Mr. Mosser's beneficiary and late September 1997, when she called the Division to request that the monthly check be electronically deposited in her bank account. During the conversation in September 1997, the Division's representative advised Mrs. Kirkley that she was entitled to receive a monthly Health Insurance Subsidy as Mr. Mosser's surviving spouse, in addition to the monthly retirement benefit she received as Mr. Mosser's beneficiary. The representative told Mrs. Kirkley that she would send her an application for the Health Insurance Subsidy, which the representative did in September 1997. Mrs. Kirkley completed the application she received from the Division and sent it to the Division with a cover letter dated October 17, 1997. The application required certification of health insurance coverage, which Mrs. Kirkley satisfied by attaching a copy of her Medicare Health Insurance card. Mrs. Kirkley did not hear anything from the Division for quite a long time. She contacted the Division and was told that they had not received her application for the Health Insurance Subsidy. The Division sent her another application form, which she completed and sent to the Division in January 1998, and she began receiving a monthly Health Insurance Subsidy as Mr. Mosser's surviving spouse; she also received retroactive benefits effective July 1997 through December 1997, a period of six months prior to January 1998. The Division eventually located Mrs. Kirkley's October 1997 application, and it advised her in a letter dated April 6, 1998, that she would receive retroactive Health Insurance Subsidy payments for an additional three months, moving the effective date of her entitlement to the benefits back to April 1997. Including the retroactive benefits she received, Mrs. Kirkley has been receiving a Health Insurance Subsidy as Mr. Mosser's surviving spouse since April 1997. She also had the benefit of Mr. Mosser's May and June 1995 Health Insurance Subsidy, which were paid by the Division because it was not aware that Mr. Mosser was deceased. Mrs. Kirkley seeks to recover an additional $1890.00 in retroactive Health Insurance Subsidy payments as Mr. Mosser's surviving spouse, which is the difference between the total Health Insurance Subsidy payments she has received and the total Health Insurance Subsidy payments she would have received had the benefits been paid to her retroactive to Mr. Mosser's death (21 months x $90.00 per month = $1890.00). Summary The evidence presented by Mrs. Kirkley is insufficient to establish her entitlement to retroactive Health Insurance Subsidy payments from July 1995 to March 1997. It is uncontroverted that she submitted her application for the Health Insurance Subsidy with her certification of health insurance coverage in October 1997 and that the Division paid retroactive Health Insurance Subsidy payments for the six months prior to the date it received the application. In addition, Mrs. Kirkley has not presented sufficient evidence to establish that the Division should be required to pay her the additional retroactive Health Insurance Subsidy payments because it failed to send her an application until September 1997. The Division did not make any specific representations to her regarding her entitlement to the Health Insurance Subsidy payments until September 1997, and she failed to establish by the greater weight of the credible evidence that she did not receive any general information from the Division that included information regarding the Health Insurance Subsidy. In addition, Mrs. Kirkley knew or should have known in December 1995 that she was not receiving a Health Insurance Subsidy as Mr. Mosser's surviving spouse, when she received her first statement detailing the components of her gross monthly benefit as Mr. Mosser's beneficiary, and she could have made inquiry of the Division at that time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Review of Final Agency Action filed by Mary J. Mosser, now known as Mary J. Kirkley. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of November, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 20th day of November, 2001.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is Burley Clayton, a resident of Polk County, Florida. On or about June 11, 1975 Mr. Clayton was convicted of a second degree murder charge in Lake County, Florida. Pending a pre-sentence investigation, a finding of incompetency was made on September 12, 1975, pursuant to Rule 3.740, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Pursuant to that order the Petitioner was committed to the Division of Mental Health, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, at Chattahoochee, Florida. The Petitioner remained in the custody of the Department at the Florida State Hospital in Chattahoochee until about July 20, 1979, at which time he was discharged and remanded to the custody of the Sheriff of Lake County for further disposition. Shortly thereafter he was sentenced to ten years probation on November 5, 1979. During the time that Mr. Clayton was confined in the Florida State Hospital, and on or about May 21, 1976, the cashier at the hospital inquired of Ms. Willie Mac Lewis, Mr. Clayton's daughter, regarding the financial status of the patient, and whether she was receiving his Social Security benefits. The cashier sent a form to Ms. Lewis upon which it was requested that she supply information regarding the Petitioner's financial status. Ms. Lewis was in fact receiving the Petitioner's Social Security and railroad retirement benefits during his confinement at the Florida State Hospital. She collected the Social Security old age and retirement benefits in the amount of $190.00 per month, and railroad retirement benefits in the amount of $29.00 per month. After the subject financial status form was filed by Ms. Lewis on behalf of the Petitioner, the cashier at the Florida State Hospital, on June 21, 1976, wrote Ms. Lewis declaring that the Petitioner owed $1,535.76 for his care and maintenance at that facility up to that date and would thereafter owe payments for his care and maintenance in the amount of $146.00 per month. Ms. Lewis thereupon inquired regarding whether Medicare would provide the cost of her father's institutionalization. She was informed that Medicare was not available to assist patients at the hospital who were confined there under criminal charges. Ms. Lewis thereupon sent in the payment requested by the cashier believing she was obligated to do so, and ultimately remitted a total of $1,973.67 of Mr. Clayton's Social Security benefits as payment on the hospital's assessment of Mr. Clayton's care and maintenance costs during the time she continued to receive her father's benefits as representative payee. She did not pay the benefits voluntarily, but because she felt she was legally compelled to do so. At some time after the hospital's receipt of the total amount of $1,973.66 Mr. Clayton's Social Security benefits were no longer sent to his daughter, but sent directly to him at Chattahoochee. He refused to use these monies to pay for his assessed care despite the hospital's request. No payments have been received by the hospital either from Mr. Clayton or Ms. Lewis, since 1976 although several statements have been issued requesting payment. The last payment made by Ms. Lewis, which was the last one received by the hospital, was made in September, 1976 and the charges continued to be assessed until July, 1979. Mr. Clayton's checks came to him at the hospital for nine months and then reverted to his other designated address (his guardian). Thus, from the viewpoint of the hospital, the payments were in arrears beginning in October, 1976 until July, 1979. Although several letters were written requesting payment, no substantial collection efforts were made by the hospital or the Department until October, 1979, approximately nine minutes after the Petitioner's discharge when the Department filed a lien against the Petitioner for 55,041.42 representing the outstanding bill unpaid after deducting the above amount paid by Ms. Lewis. No explanation 1.705 offered for the Department's failure to secure collection and payment of the benefits to it at an earlier date when the disputed amount was less.
Recommendation Having considered the competent, substantial evidence in the record, the candor and demeanor of tide witnesses, the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and pleadings and arguments of counsel, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, Burley Clayton, be reimbursed the sum of $1,973.67 previously paid to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, and that he be released from the statutory lien of $5,041.42 previously filed by the Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of December, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Jeffrey A. Miller, Esq. Polk County Legal Aid Society, Inc. 232 N. Tennessee Avenue Lakeland, Florida 33001 John L. Pierce, Esq. District II Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2639 North Monroe Street Suite 200A Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue Whether Petitioner, John Hasko ("Petitioner"), is entitled, pursuant to the City of Dania Beach Code of Ordinances ("Code") section 18-49(4), to be paid retirement pension benefits under the City of Dania Beach Police and Firefighters Retirement System's ("Respondent" or "System") "100 Percent Joint and Last Survivor Annuity" ("Last Survivor Annuity") or the "Modified Cash Refund Annuity" ("Life Annuity").
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is a retired police officer who was employed by the City of Dania Beach Police Department ("Police Department") and who has qualified for, and is receiving, retirement pension benefits under the System. Pursuant to chapter 18, article IV of the Code, Respondent is the retirement pension system provided for the benefit of firefighters and police officers, including Petitioner, who are or previously were employed by the City of Dania Beach. Evidence Adduced at Final Hearing Background Petitioner was hired by the Police Department on December 18, 1980, and, upon being employed, began accruing credit toward a pension under the System. Petitioner was employed by the Police Department for 20 years. On October 1, 1988, the City of Dania Beach Police Department merged with the Broward County Sheriff's Office ("BCSO"). At that time, Petitioner was given the option whether to remain in the System or to retrieve his contributions and become enrolled in the Florida Retirement System ("FRS"), which was and is the retirement program in which BSCO employees are eligible to enroll. At that time, Petitioner elected to remain enrolled in the System rather than enrolling in the FRS. On August 28, 2000, Petitioner executed a retirement benefits election form to select the type of pension under which he would receive pension benefits from the System starting on January 1, 2001. Petitioner retired from the Police Department effective December 31, 2000. In April 2001, Petitioner began receiving monthly pension payments under the System, and also received back payments for January through March 2001. Immediately upon retiring from the Police Department, Petitioner began working with the BCSO. At that time, he enrolled in the FRS and began accruing credit under a life annuity plan provided through the FRS. Petitioner was employed by the BCSO for slightly over 14 years. As the result of a series of work-related injuries, attendant surgeries, and permanent restrictions on his activities, Petitioner retired from the BCSO on April 14, 2014. In the 2006-to-2007 timeframe, Petitioner was diagnosed with a cardiac condition that ultimately necessitated placement of a stent in 2012. Petitioner remains under the regular care of a cardiologist and is on medication to treat his cardiac condition. He credibly testified that since 2012, his condition has remained stable. In June 2014, Petitioner applied for pension benefits under the FRS. Petitioner testified, credibly, that he had four options from which to choose,1/ and that he selected the Ten Year Certain option. Under this plan, Petitioner receives monthly payments for the rest of his life. If Petitioner were to predecease his beneficiary——in this case, his wife——before the 120-month period ends, she would continue to receive payments through the end of the 120-month period; however, if Petitioner were to predecease his wife after the end of the 120-month period, she would not receive any further payments. Petitioner testified that, based on his belief that he had enrolled in the Last Survivor Annuity under the System, he selected the FRS Ten- Year Certain Option so that if he predeceased his wife, she would receive benefits payments from two sources for the remainder of her life——the Last Survivor Annuity and Social Security. Petitioner receives benefit payments through the FRS to date. Petitioner has received monthly retirement benefit payments through the System since April 2001, including back payments for January through March 2001. He continues to receive monthly retirement benefit payments from the System to date. Evidence Regarding Petitioner's Election of Benefits Under the System The City of Dania Beach Police and Firefighters Retirement System Summary Plan Description ("SPD") summarizes the System's available pension plan options. The section titled "Forms of Benefits Payment," on page 16 of the SPD, states under the "Normal Form of Benefit Payment" subsection: "[u]nless you elect otherwise before your retirement, your pension is payable as a Single Life Annuity with a guaranteed refund of your contributions. This is a series of monthly payments for your life." This provision effectively makes the "Normal Form" the "default" form of benefits payments if the employee does not elect another form of benefit payments before retiring. The "Election of Optional Forms of Benefit Payments" subsection of the SPD states: "You have the right at any time before your retirement date to elect not to have your retirement benefit paid in the Normal Form." This subsection identifies other forms of benefit payments available that the employee may choose as an alternative to the Normal Form. These forms are the Joint and Last Survivor Annuity, the Ten Year Certain and Life Thereafter Annuity, and another optional form actuarially equivalent to the Normal Form. Petitioner decided to retire from City of Dania Beach Police Department at the end of 2000. On August 28, 2000, he met with Sonia Brown, then the plan administrator for the System, to fill out an application for retirement benefits. He completed a form titled "City of Dania Beach Police and Firefighters' Retirement System Application for Benefits" ("Application Form"). Section 1 of the Application Form, titled "For Retirement or DROP Benefits," contained a section to identify the beneficiary for the Joint and Survivor and Ten Year Certain options. Petitioner completed this portion of the form, naming his wife as his beneficiary and providing pertinent information about her. He also completed section 4 of the form, designating his wife as his beneficiary for all purposes under the System. He signed and dated the Application Form. Petitioner testified that he met with Brown again in early December 2000, to finalize his election of his benefits that he would be paid under the System. According to Petitioner, at that time, he told Brown that he chose the Last Survivor Annuity option. He testified that Brown gave him paperwork to fill out, that he completed the paperwork, and that she told him that he would receive benefit payments of between $2,400 and $2,500 per month based on his chosen option. Petitioner testified that Brown did not give him the "City of Dania Beach Police and Firefighters Retirement System Notification of Benefits Payable as a Result of Retirement" form ("Notification of Benefits Form") to complete at the December 2000 meeting. Petitioner testified that he did not specifically remember what documents he completed that day, and that he did not receive a copy of those documents. Respondent's file regarding Petitioner's benefits election does not contain either the original or a copy of the documents that Petitioner claims he signed in December 2000. In short, there is no physical evidence substantiating the existence of these documents. Petitioner testified that based on the December 2000 meeting with Brown, he believed he had selected the Last Survivor Annuity and that the payments under that option would start in January 2001. After Petitioner retired from the Police Department, he did not receive his benefit payments under the System for January, February, and March 2001. He testified that he assumed that this delay was due to the time involved in processing the paperwork he claims to have completed in December 2000. On January 23, 2001, Brown sent correspondence to the System's actuarial services firm requesting that Petitioner's early retirement benefit be calculated according to the various benefits options available to police plan participants who are eligible for early retirement with 20 years of service. Petitioner is shown as having been copied on this letter, and he acknowledges having received the letter. By letter dated February 19, 2001, Respondent sent Petitioner "several forms to be completed by you and returned to this office for further processing of your early retirement benefit." The letter identified these forms as the Notification of Benefits Form, a W-4P form for specifying the amount to be withheld from the benefit payments for federal income tax, and a form to authorize direct deposit of the benefit payments into Petitioner's bank account. Petitioner claims that he did not receive this letter. Petitioner testified that in March 2001, Brown contacted him to complete a "verification of beneficiary form." On March 8, 2001, Petitioner went to Brown's office, where she presented him with what he characterized as a "verification of beneficiary form." According to Petitioner, Brown "asked him to make sure my beneficiary information was correct" and to sign and date the form where she had placed check marks. The "verification of beneficiary form" Petitioner signed actually consists of the second page of the Notification of Benefits Form. The second page of the Notification of Benefits Form that Petitioner executed contains a table that identifies Petitioner's wife (whose name is redacted) as his beneficiary. Portions of the table consist of spaces in which to state information regarding the amount of the nontaxable portion of monthly benefits for the various annuity options, which are identified by number and listed on the first page of the form. There are no amounts listed in those spaces on the form that Petitioner signed; those spaces have been left blank. A paragraph below the table states: "[t]he Survivor Annuity benefit amounts shown above are based on the beneficiary named above and are payable only to this beneficiary. Should you wish to change your beneficiary before your payments begin, new amounts have to be calculated."2/ Near the bottom of the form is the sentence "I accept the terms above, including my choice of annuity form, and confirm the information shown above to be correct."3/ Immediately below the above-referenced sentence is a "Participant's Signature" line. Petitioner signed the form on this line and dated it "3/08/01." Petitioner testified that at the time he signed this form, the spaces for the signature by the Board of Trustees representative and the date of signature were blank. The form subsequently was executed by the Board of Trustees, through Eugene H. Jewell, on March 13, 2001. Petitioner testified that in November 2015, he became aware, through checking his various beneficiary designations as the result of a bank error,4/ that the System was paying his retirement benefits pursuant to the Life Annuity rather than the Last Survivor Annuity. Petitioner testified that on November 6, 2015, he went to the System office to verify that his wife was correctly designated as his retirement pension beneficiary. He met with Cathy David,5/ the current system plan administrator, to review the documents in his retirement pension file. Petitioner testified that, he saw, for the first time, the first page of the Notification of Benefits Form contained in his file. This page had a check mark next to the "Modified Cash Refund"——i.e., the Life Annuity——option. He testified that he did not make the check mark next to the "Modified Cash Refund" option on the form. Petitioner obtained documents contained in the Salem Trust ("Salem")6/ file regarding his retirement pension. Among these documents was a letter dated March 13, 2001, from Brown to Livia Nixon, with Petitioner shown as copied, transmitting the completed forms to enable Salem to process Petitioner's retirement pension, and requesting that Salem expeditiously issue retroactive checks to Petitioner for January through March 2001. Petitioner testified that he had not previously received a copy of the March 13, 2001, letter or the attached forms, and that he did not see them until he obtained the documents in the Salem file. Petitioner also testified that he did not receive a December 6, 2001, letter from Respondent notifying him that the System's auditors, S. Davis & Associates, P.A. ("SDA"), were conducting an annual audit of Respondent's financial statements.7/ This letter contained information regarding Petitioner's pension ——including information expressly identifying the type of benefit Petitioner was receiving as the "Life Annuity." The letter requested that Petitioner review the information contained in the letter and correct any errors by providing the correct information to SDA. Petitioner testified that he first saw this letter during his November 6, 2015, review of the documents in the System's file, so he did not respond to SDA in 2001. In sum, Petitioner claims that at a December 2000 meeting with Brown, he selected the Last Survivor Annuity as the form in which he would be paid retirement pension benefits under the System. He claims that he did not select the Life Annuity, and that he did not make the check mark by the "Modified Cash Refund" option on the first page of the Notification of Benefits form that was contained in the System file. In sum, Petitioner also claims that he did not receive or otherwise was not provided the following documents: (1) the unidentified "paperwork" that he claims he completed at a meeting with Brown in December 2000, at which he selected the Last Survivor Annuity; (2) the letter dated February 19, 2001, from Brown to Petitioner, transmitting forms——including the entire Notification of Benefits Form——that Petitioner needed to complete to enable processing of his early retirement benefit; (3) the first page of the Notification of Benefits Form on March 8, 2001, when he completed the second page of that form confirming his wife as his beneficiary; (4) the March 13, 2001, letter from Brown to Livia Nixon of Salem, transmitting Petitioner's retirement pension forms completed on March 8, 2001, to Salem for processing; and (5) the December 6, 2001, letter to Petitioner from Respondent's outside auditor, SDA, requesting him to verify the accuracy of the information regarding his pension and to correct any errors in that information. Petitioner acknowledges that he did receive a letter from Cathy David dated July 1, 2012, regarding a change in Florida law that could affect retirees. That letter expressly stated "[y]ou chose the life annuity when you retired on January 1, 2001." Petitioner claims that he did not read this letter in its entirety, so he did not see the statement in the letter regarding having chosen the life annuity. Findings of Ultimate Fact Upon careful consideration of the evidence in the record, it is determined that Petitioner did not show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he selected the Last Survivor Annuity, rather than the Life Annuity, so that, pursuant to section 18-49(4) of the Code, he should be reclassified as being enrolled in the Last Survivor Annuity. First, the undersigned finds implausible Petitioner's testimony that he signed unspecified "paperwork" selecting the Last Survivor Annuity——clearly, a very important decision on his part——but that he does not "remember specifically" what that paperwork was and that he did not receive a copy of that paperwork. Compounding that implausibility is that neither the original nor any copies of that "paperwork" were found in Respondent's file or in Salem's file. Simply stated, there is no physical evidence establishing the existence of this "paperwork" ——which Petitioner claims is the instrument through which he elected the Last Survivor Annuity.8/ Second, the first page of the Notification of Benefits Form that was contained in Respondent's file on Petitioner's retirement pension shows the "Modified Cash Annuity" option—— i.e., the Life Option——as having been selected by the placement of a check mark next to that option. It is undisputed that Petitioner executed the second page of the form. This complete Notification of Benefits Form contained in Respondent's file constitutes the complete, most credible evidence in the record that Petitioner selected the Life Annuity when he executed the form on March 8, 2001. To this point, Petitioner offered no credible evidence to support his assertion that someone——unknown to him and having unknown motives——must have placed the first page of the Notification of Benefits Form, having the check mark next to the "Modified Cash Refund" option, in Respondent's file without his knowledge. The undersigned does not find credible or persuasive Petitioner's testimony that he was not given the first page of the Notification of Benefits Form on March 8, 2001,9/ and that based on the language in the paragraph below the table, quoted in paragraph 29 above, he reasonably believed that the second page of that form constituted a "verification of beneficiary" that simply confirmed his beneficiary for his previous selection of the "survivor annuity." However, in order for the clause "the Survivor Annuity benefit amounts shown above" in that paragraph to make sense, it must be read in conjunction with the table above the paragraph. As discussed above, in the table on page 2 of the Notification of Benefits Form that was executed by Petitioner, no amounts of nontaxable portion of monthly benefit for any of the survivor annuity options have been filled in, even though the paragraph below the table expressly refers to the "Survivor Annuity benefit amounts shown above." The absence in the table of any "Survivor Annuity benefit amounts shown above" is inconsistent with Petitioner having chosen a survivor annuity option. Thus, the paragraph below the table can only be reasonably read to mean that to the extent the employee has selected one of the different survivor annuity options on the first page of the form, the survivor annuity benefits amounts shown in the table apply to the particular beneficiary identified in the table. Accordingly, if no survivor annuity benefit amounts are "shown above"——i.e., set forth in the table ——that would indicate, and only be consistent with, the selection of a retirement option other than a survivor annuity. The undersigned also does not find plausible Petitioner's testimony that he did not receive or otherwise was not given copies of five crucial retirement-related documents—— four of which clearly informed him that he was enrolled in the life annuity——so that he was not timely informed of the need to correct a mistake in his retirement pension enrollment. That these documents were transmitted by different senders—— Respondent, Salem, and SDA——compounds that implausibility.10/ For these reasons, it is determined that Petitioner has not sustained his burden in this proceeding to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he has been erroneously classified as being enrolled in the Life Annuity, and that, pursuant to section 18-49(4) of the Code, he should be reclassified as being enrolled in the Last Survivor Annuity.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order denying Petitioner's request for reclassification of pension enrollment from Life Annuity to Last Survivor Annuity. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of September, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of September, 2018.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Dr. Juan C. Costa, is a physician who is currently retired because of a physical disability involving emphysema and arthritis. Before retiring, he- worked for a period of time as a physician at the Department of Corrections' Marion Correctional Institution near Ocala, Florida. His last day of actual work was December 15, 1984, but he remained on the payroll after that time because of vacation and sick leave time accrued. His actual termfnation date was some time in January, 1985. Dr. Costa is disabled. His disability is classified as a regular disability - not "in line of duty." Feeling that the provisions of the disability and survivor benefit program of the Florida Retirement System applied to him, on March 5, 1985, he applied to the State of Florida for disability retirement. Submitted with his application were statements from his employer and two physician reports indicating that he was, in fact, disabled. His application and the supporting documents submitted therewith were prepared in accordance with the terms of a letter Dr. Costa received from the State of Florida, Division of Retirement, which told him what must be submitted. In addition to the above, he also submitted a copy of a form submitted to the Social Security Administration for completion by that agency and return to the Division of Retirement which was a "Report of Confidential Social Security Benefit Information." This form, when filled out, was submitted to the Division of Retirement as support for Petitioner's application for retirement benefits. In addition to the above, Dr. Costa also submitted a letter which he received from Teresa Bender, Medical Examiner for Respondent's Disability Determination Section which indicates that it is unable to process his application because of an insufficiency of information regarding his social security credits. Dr. Costa was born on May 12, 1912. When he terminated his service with the Department of Corrections, he was 72 years old. He had been receiving Social Security Retirement benefits since age 70. However, he never applied for nor received Social Security Disability Benefits and would not have been awarded them had he applied for them after attaining age 65. Once an individual has reached age 65, he is no longer eligible for disability retirement benefits under the Social Security program. He may continue to earn money without limit at age 70, regardless of whether he is disabled or not. The issue of disability goes not to the issue of earnings but to the issue of the ability to work. If an individual under the age of 65, who is retired on disability benefits, goes back to work, those disability benefits may be lost. However, an individual who is disabled, but is age 70 or beyond, would not lose benefits because benefits after age 65 are based not on disability but on retirement and at age 70, the limitation on amount earned is removed. His Social Security Retirement Benefits checks began arriving in January, 1983. Because of his age, he continued to work without penalty after his benefits began. By deposition, Waymen D. Sewell, the District Manager for the Social Security Administration in Tallahassee, Florida indicated that the benefits received by an individual on the basis of disability will, upon that individual's reaching the age of "retirement," age 65, be converted automatically from disability benefits to retirement benefits. There will be no reduction in the amount of benefit received. The only change will be that the money forming the source of the payment will stop coming from the Disability Trust Fund and start coming from the Retirement Trust Fund. As far as the recipient is concerned, nothing changes. There is an additional qualification for disability retirement. An individual, in order to claim and receive disability retirement under social security, in addition to being fully insured, must have 20 quarters of work credit out of the 10 year period up to the quarter in which the onset of disability was established. Here, Petitioner is retired and receiving retirement benefits from Social Security. He initially filed for retirement benefits in January of 1981 and was paid retroactively to April, 1980. At the time, he had 24 quarters of credit. Since based on his birth date, he needed 24 quarters of enrollment, he had exactly what he needed and retired at the earliest possible time. Had Dr. Costa been under 65 at the time he retired, he would have needed 20 quarters within the last 10 year period prior to retirement in order to qualify for disability. According to the records on Petitioner, he did not have 20 quarters of credit during that period. The 24 quarters he had was over a period greater than 10 years and a part of it was earned after he became age 65. The quarters he earned after age 65 did not count toward the 20 quarter retirement because once an applicant turns 65, he is paid strictly on the basis of retirement and not disability. In substance, Dr. Costa was never eligible for disability retirement under Social Security until after he became age 65 at which point he became eligible for retirement benefits which would eliminate any entitlement to disability benefits. According to David Ragsdale, who works with Division of Retirement, under the Florida Retirement System statute there are two types of disability retirement (1) "in line of duty," and (2) "regular" retirement." "In line of duty" does not require more than one day service. "Regular" retirement initially required five years service prior to July 1, 1980. However, in July, 1980, the law was amended to add an alternative 10 year total service criteria as well as an exception from these criteria for those not drawing or eligible to draw Social Security disability. It is the policy of the Division of Retirement, as to the Social Security exception, that if an individual can get a Social Security benefit, he cannot secure retirement benefits from the State under the Social Security exemption. This is interpreted by the Division of Retirement to mean either Social Security type benefit - either retirement or disability and the receipt of either one disqualifies an individual from State disability retirement eligibility under the Social Security exception. Though some people receive State disability retirement while drawing Social Security benefits, they were not qualified for their State retirement under the Social Security exception. They had either worked more than five years as of July 1, 1980 or had 10 years total service. Dr. Costa's application was received by the Division of Retirement, but no determination as to his qualification for disability retirement from a medical standpoint was made. His application was not accepted because, on the face of it, he did not meet the service requirement in that he had neither 5 years service by July 1, 1980, nor 10 years service overall. He was also disqualified because he was receiving a Social Security benefit, albeit the benefit was the retirement benefit and not the disability benefit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Department of Administration, Division of Retirement, accept and process Petitioner's application for regular disability retirement benefits. RECOMMENDED this 1st day of November,1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of November,1985. COPIES FURNISHED: James M. Donohoe, Jr., Esq. P. O. Box 906 Gainesville, FL 32602 Stanley M. Danek, Esq. Assistant Division Attorney Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center 2639 N. Monroe Street Suite 207 - Building C Tallahassee, FL 32303 Gilda Lambert Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32301 ================================================================ =
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner based on marital status in determining his monthly retirement benefits in violation of the provisions of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Kenneth Fritz (Petitioner or Mr. Fritz) has been a firefighter with the City of Pembroke Pines (Respondent or the City) since 1991. His date of birth is June 6, 1948, and he entered the Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP) on December 1, 2006, at age 58.5 years old. As Respondent's employee, Mr. Fritz participated in the City's Pension Plan for Firefighters and Police Officers (the Plan). The DROP option that Mr. Fritz chose allowed him to name a joint annuitant and contingent survivors. Mr. Fritz, who has been divorced since 1986, chose his daughter who on December 1, 2006, was 32.25 years old, and his son who was 29.333 years old, as his surviving beneficiaries. Each will receive a 50 percent share of the retirement income upon his death payable for the remainder of their lives. Mr. Fritz alleged that the pension fund benefit system discriminates against him based on marital status. There is no factual dispute that his benefits, with a 32-year-old daughter are $3,938.12 a month, as compared to $4,366.59 a month if he had a 32-year-old wife. The benefits are not affected by his having named his son as an additional beneficiary. Mr. Fritz brought his concerns to the attention of Patricia Shoemaker, the Benefits Administrator for Municipal Police Officers' and Firefighters' Retirement Funds for the State of Florida Department of Management Services. On January 29, 2008, March 17, 2008, July 9, 2008, and September 25, 2008, Ms. Shoemaker sent letters to Mr. Anthony Napolitano, Chairman of the Pembroke Pines Firefighter's Pension Plan, requesting an explanation of the apparent violation of the following statutory provisions: § 175.333. Discrimination in benefit formula prohibited; restrictions regarding designation of joint annuitants. For any municipality, special fire control district, chapter plan, local law municipality, local law special fire control district, or local law plan under this chapter: and (1) No plan shall discriminate in its benefit formula based on color, national origin, sex, or marital status. § 175.071(2) Any and all acts and decisions shall be effectuated by vote of a majority of the members of the board; however, no trustee shall take part in any action in connection with the trustee's own participation in the fund, and no unfair discrimination shall be shown to any individual firefighter participating in the fund. (Emphasis added.) In her letter of September 25, 2008, Ms. Shoemaker noted that she had received no responses to her previous letters and that "[W]hile state premium tax moneys were released this year based on our understanding that the Board was researching this matter, future state tax moneys will not be released unless the plan is determined to be in compliance with Chapters (sic) 175, F.S." On October 15, 2008, Deputy City Attorney Julie F. Klahr finally responded to Ms. Shoemaker as follows: Your letter to the Pembroke Pines Police and Fire Retirement Plan has been referred to this office for reply. The issue is whether a spouse only benefit is discriminatory on the basis of marital status. For the reasons which follow, the benefit is fully in compliance with Florida law. Section 175.333(2)(a), Florida Statutes, clearly recognizes the propriety of a plan offering a spouse only survivorship benefit that alone should resolve this issue. The benefit at issue in Pembroke Pines is a spouse-only benefit, which not only exceeds the minimums required by Chapter 175, but also pre-dates the enactment of Ch. 99-1, Laws of Florida (1999). The complaining employee sought to designate a child as a beneficiary but without an age appropriate actuarial reduction. Nothing in Chapter 175, or any other law, mandates a retirement plan to provide a costly, generation skipping benefit without providing for actuarial equivalence. To the extent that your view is that the plan provision must be altered, it is a "minimum benefit" which is required, only if unencumbered Chapter 175 insurance premium tax rebates are present to pay the full cost as provided in §175.351. The City does not concede this is a correct interpretation, nor does any such Chapter money exist. Any required action to the contrary is an improper unfunded mandate. Moreover, the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code and corresponding regulations of the Department of the Treasury mandated the use of the actuarial factors at issue. Nothing in Chapter 175, Florida Statutes, directs a plan to violate tax provisions necessary to maintain qualification. It is the City's position that according a benefit to a spouse of a deceased member, provided the plan otherwise exceeds minimum benefits under Chapter 175, is a matter reserved to the City under its home rule powers in the Florida Constitution and Chapter 166, Florida Statutes. If any member feels aggrieved by the structure of the Ordinance Code, that person may seek remedies under Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. It should be observed, however, that the status at issue is that of the purported survivor and not the member. As a result, no violation of Florida's civil rights law is presented. See, Donato v. AT & T, 767 So.2d 1146 (Fla. 2000). Further §760.10(8)(b), Florida Statutes, exempts bona fide retirement plans from coverage under this law. The first provision cited as support for the City's position is as follows: § 175.333(2)(a) If a plan offers a joint annuitant option and the member selects such option, or if a plan specifies that the member's spouse is to receive the benefits that continue to be payable upon the death of the member, then, in both of these cases, after retirement benefits have commenced, a retired member may change his or her designation of joint annuitant or beneficiary only twice. Although the Deputy City Attorney asserted that this section alone should resolve the matter, Mr. Fritz observed the subsection does not authorize discrimination based on marital status but only limits the number of times that a joint annuitant or beneficiary may be changed. The City also relied on the fact that the Plan predates Chapter 99-1, Laws of Florida, but the statement of legislative intent indicates that the law is applicable to existing plans, and reads as follows: Legislative declaration. It is hereby declared by the Legislature that firefighters, as hereinafter defined, perform state and municipal functions; . . . and that their activities are vital to the public safety. It is further declared that firefighters employed by special fire control districts serve under the same circumstances and perform the same duties as firefighters employed by municipalities and should therefore be entitled to the benefits available under this chapter. Therefore, the Legislature declares that it is a proper and legitimate state purpose to provide a uniform retirement system for the benefit of firefighters as hereinafter defined and intends, in implementing the provisions of s. 14, Art. X of the State Constitution as they relate to municipal and special district firefighters' pension trust fund systems and plans, that such retirement systems or plans be managed, administered, operated, and funded in such manner as to maximize the protection of the firefighters' pension trust funds . . . This chapter hereby establishes, for all municipal and special district pension plans existing now or hereafter under this chapter, including chapter plans and local law plans, minimum benefits and minimum standards for the operation and funding of such plans, hereinafter referred to as firefighters' pension trust funds. The minimum benefits and minimum standards set forth in this chapter may not be diminished by local charter, ordinance, or resolution or by special act of the Legislature, nor may the minimum benefits or minimum standards be reduced or offset by any other local, state, or federal law that may include firefighters in its operation, except as provided under s. 112.65. (Emphasis added.) The City claimed, but Ms. Shoemaker's reference in her letter to the release of state premium tax moneys appears to contradict its claim, that it does not have to pay minimum benefits required by Chapter 175, although not conceding its applicability, because it has no unencumbered insurance premium tax money, a prerequisite the imposition of the following requirement: § 175.351. Municipalities and special fire control districts having their own pension plans for firefighters. For any municipality, special fire control district, local law municipality, local law special fire control district, or local law plan under this chapter, in order for municipalities and special fire control districts with their own pension plans for firefighters, or for firefighters and police officers, where included, to participate in the distribution of the tax fund established pursuant to s. 175.101, local law plans must meet the minimum benefits and minimum standards set forth in this chapter. * * * However, local law plans in effect on October 1, 1998, shall be required to comply with the minimum benefit provisions of this chapter only to the extent that additional premium tax revenues become available to incrementally fund the cost of such compliance as provided in s. 175.162(2)(a). (Emphasis added.) Apparently, not satisfied with the answer, on January 20, 2009, Ms. Shoemaker wrote again, this time to Ms Klahr, as follows: Dear Ms. Klahr This is to acknowledge receipt of your October 15, 2008 letter in response to my July 9, 2008 letter to the Board of the Firefighters' Pension Plan. While we appreciate your response regarding the propriety of a plan offering a spousal benefit and the appropriateness of an age appropriate actuarial reduction, our question for the Board was a different one relating to the plan's compliance with the provisions of ss. 175.333(1) and 175.071(2), F. S. as they relate to discrimination based on marital status. Based on our understanding of the issue relating to the calculation of the member's benefits, Mr. Fritz does not have a spouse, but wishes to designate his daughter as his beneficiary. He understands and agrees that it is appropriate to actuarialty [sic] adjust his benefit based on the age of his daughter. The actuary provided two calculations, one based on a spouse that was his daughter's age and one based on a beneficiary that was his daughter's age. His benefit when calculated with a young age spouse was greater than his benefit when calculated with the same young age beneficiary. It appears that the only difference in the two calculations is the marital status of the member and not the age of the joint annuitant. If our understanding of the facts relating to this issue are incorrect, please let me know. We have asked that the Board review the plan provisions with their plan attorney and actuary and provide an explanation as to how the plan meets the statutory provisions, specifically ss. 175.333(1) and 175.071 (2), F. S. Mr. Fritz pointed out that, in addition to the statutory provisions cited in Ms. Shoemaker's letter and various others that he cited, the City's Employee Handbook also includes a statement that the City does not discriminate based on marital status. The City's actuary noted that, however outdated, the additional benefit is based on the assumption that a firefighter's spouse is more dependent on the employee's income and pension then any other adult relative. In addition, the deputy city attorney testified that the Plan was adopted in the firefighters' collective bargaining agreement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED that the FCHR issue a final order finding that Respondent did not commit an unlawful employment practice. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of September, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELEANOR M. HUNTER 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 1st day of September, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: James A. Cherof, Esquire Goren, Cherof, Doody & Ezrol, P.A. 3099 East Commercial Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Kenneth R. Fritz 16389 Malibu Drive Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33326 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner has enough creditable service in the Florida Retirement System (FRS), within the meaning of Subsection 121.021(17)(a), Florida Statutes (2009),1 to be "vested" and, therefore, eligible for a retirement benefit.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is not currently an employee of any FRS employer. Petitioner was an employee of several different FRS employers during the 1970's and 1980's. Petitioner proved that he had creditable earnings from three FRS employers. The creditable earnings were from Hillsborough County from October 1977 through April 1978, Pasco County from August 1987 through December 1987, and Hernando County from March 1988 through August 1989. Petitioner has 3.09 years of creditable service in the FRS. The creditable service is not sufficient to vest Petitioner and does not entitle Petitioner to retirement benefits. Petitioner was employed with the City of Largo, Florida, for some time. However, that municipality was not an FRS participating employer during the period of employment. Petitioner worked for the U.S. Postal Service for some time. That agency is not an FRS participating employer. Petitioner was a student on work study at both the University of Florida and Florida State University. Paid student positions at state universities were not positions which were included in the FRS during that time. Petitioner also seeks to purchase his military time of approximately 22 months. Members of the FRS are allowed to purchase certain military service after they vest in the FRS. A preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding that Petitioner has sufficient years of service to vest in the FRS and then purchase military service. Petitioner was employed in some state positions prior to 1975. Until 1975, the FRS was a "contributory" system. Employers withheld contributions to the retirement system from the wages of participating members and forwarded the withheld amounts to the Division. It is undisputed from Petitioner's testimony that no retirement contributions were ever withheld from his wages during the period that FRS was a contributory system.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division enter a final order denying Petitioner's request for retirement benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of April, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 5th day of April, 2010.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to disability retirement benefits calculated as if she had reached the age of 65, irrespective of her true age.
Findings Of Fact From April 1969 until March 1996, Petitioner, Bobbie Jones Scott, was employed as a school teacher by the Okaloosa County School Board. She served 27 years as an elementary school teacher, teaching at the same Okaloosa County elementary school for her entire tenure. Prior to commencing her teaching career, Petitioner served as a library aide in Okaloosa County for the full 9-month term of that position in the 1967-1968 school year. Petitioner is a member of the TRS. The TRS was closed to new members on December 1, 1970. Since closure, teachers have been enrolled in the Florida Retirement System (FRS). At some point, Petitioner purchased retirement credits in TRS for the school year during which Petitioner served as a library aide. Early retirees under both TRS and FRS, retiring without disability, have their retirement benefits actuarially reduced by five percent per year or five-twelfths percent per month for each year or fraction of year that the retiree is under the age of 62. See, Section 121.021(30), Florida Statutes and Rule 6S-7.003, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner first inquired about retirement in 1993, when her husband, also a teacher, retired. She requested and obtained from the Division an estimate of early retirement benefits. In 1993, the early retirement penalty reduced Petitioner's retirement benefit to 67.9 percent of her normal retirement benefit. The reduction was so great that Petitioner elected to keep teaching. On October 16, 1994, Petitioner severely injured her arm when she slipped on a freshly waxed floor at the elementary school. Several surgical procedures were required over the next two years as a result of this accident. Despite extensive physical therapy, Petitioner did not regain full range of motion and full use of her dominant right arm. Petitioner could not raise her arm above shoulder level and could not raise it high enough to write on a blackboard. The injury clearly interfered significantly with Petitioner's ability to teach. In December 1994, because of her injury, Petitioner requested an estimate of retirement benefits. Again, the early retirement penalty reduced the retirement benefit to 77.9 percent of normal benefits. The reduction was so great that Petitioner could not afford to retire. Approximately three months after her accident on January 17, 1995, the Petitioner returned to teaching. Her physical therapy and surgical treatment continued. In June 1995, while recuperating from the third operation on her arm, Petitioner called the Division of Retirement to request information on disability retirement. She specifically told the person she spoke with that she was a member of TRS. Petitioner was sent an application form and instructions for retirement under FRS instead of an application and instructions for TRS. At that time, the Petitioner did not submit the application because a decision on the application would not be reached before the start of the 1995-1996 school year. Petitioner wished to avoid commencing the school year, only to leave teaching several weeks into the school year, necessitating finding and hiring a replacement teacher and disrupting the students’ course of studies. In November 1995, Petitioner was diagnosed with diabetes. Teaching was becoming detrimental to Petitioner's health. At the urging of her physician she elected to pursue disability retirement. The Petitioner reviewed a booklet sent to her by Respondent entitled "Florida Retirement System Disability Benefits." The Petitioner relied on the statement on page 27 of the booklet which states, "Disability benefits are not reduced for early retirement." Based on that statement Petitioner applied for disability retirement and submitted the disability retirement application which she had received earlier along with the requisite supporting documentation on January 10, 1996. Neither the FRS disability retirement application form nor the FRS Disability Retirement Handbook informed Petitioner that there would be an early retirement penalty for disability retirees. However, the FRS literature also indicates that employees who are members of other retirement systems may be governed by different rules and should look to those other retirement systems. Unfortunately, Petitioner had been given the wrong information by the Division of Retirement even though she had specified she was a member of TRS. On February 9, 1996, after receiving Petitioner's application, the Division of Retirement sent a letter to Petitioner advising her that the incorrect disability retirement application form had been used. A TRS Disability Retirement Application form was enclosed with the letter. Only the title of the application was changed. In essence, the TRS application was the same as the FRS application. No booklet or pamphlet explaining the TRS system was provided. On February 14, 1996, immediately upon her receipt of the February 9, letter and the TRS Disability Retirement Application form, Petitioner telephoned the Division of Retirement and spoke with Mark Sadler, a retirement administrator in the disability determination section within the Division of Retirement. The Petitioner explained that she had used the disability retirement forms provided to her by the Division. She inquired as to whether an additional 30 days would be needed to process her application. She also indicated that the reason she was still working and had not retired previously is that she could not afford to be assessed the early retirement penalty. Mr. Sadler informed the Petitioner that she would need to submit the correct TRS Disability Retirement application. However, Mr. Sadler agreed to accept the physician’s report of disability already submitted with the FRS form and to expedite her request for disability retirement since the medical information which Petitioner had submitted met the TRS requirements for disability documentation. On or about March 7, 1996, Petitioner received notification from the Division of Retirement that her application for disability retirement had been approved. The next day, Petitioner met with Virginia Bowles, a benefits specialist with the Okaloosa County School Board, to obtain an estimate of her retirement benefits under Plan E of the TRS system. Mrs. Bowles prepared an estimate of Petitioner’s benefits. The estimate did not show any reduction of benefits for early retirement. The form Ms. Bowles prepared was clearly labeled "estimate" and provided, inter alia, that Petitioner would receive a calculation of her retirement benefits from the Division of Retirement in approximately three weeks. While in Mrs. Bowles’ office, Petitioner insisted on confirmation from the Division of Retirement that an early retirement penalty would not be imposed on her benefits. In the Petitioner’s presence, Mrs. Bowles called the Division of Retirement to verify that there was no early retirement penalty for disability retirees. Mrs. Bowles was assured that there was no such penalty. Mrs. Bowles immediately relayed that information to Petitioner. Based on this representation, Petitioner immediately resigned her position on March 8, to be effective March 13, 1996.1 Had Petitioner known there would be a reduction in her disability retirement benefits and had she not received incorrect information from both the Division of Retirement and the Okaloosa County School Board, she would have found some way to continue working to avoid the early retirement penalty even though continued employment would have been detrimental to her health.2 At the time of her retirement, Petitioner had attained the age of 58 years and 4 months, 44 months short of the normal retirement of age 62. The estimate prepared by Ms. Bowles reflected that Petitioner's monthly retirement benefit would fall between $1,458.20 and $1,512.41. At the time of her resignation, Petitioner was earning over $39,000 per year as an experienced teacher. Once Petitioner resigned her position, she could not immediately return to work. Board policy required her to wait one year before re-employment and then she could be rehired at a starting teacher’s salary of about $21,000. A couple of weeks after resigning her position, Petitioner received a calculation of her retirement benefits from the Division of Retirement. The benefits were significantly lower than the estimate of benefits prepared by Mrs. Bowles. Retirement benefits under Plan E are calculated by, first, determining an "average final compensation," or AFC, for an employee by averaging the 10 highest years of salary in the employee’s last 15 years of employment. The employee’s compensation percentage, or "comp percent," is then determined by assigning a 2 percent value for every year of creditable service. The AFC is then multiplied by the comp percent to arrive at a retirement benefits figure. In Petitioner’s case, the Division calculated AFC as $32,601.10. The Division, based on 27.9 years of service, arrived at a comp percent of .558, resulting in a normal retirement allowance of $18,191.41 per year or $1,515.95 per month.3 However, because Ms. Scott fell into the early retirement category under TRS her benefits were reduced. In calculating Petitioner’s disability benefits, the Division of Retirement reduced the otherwise normal retirement benefit calculation by 18.33 percent to 81.667 percent of her normal benefit. The reduction resulted in a monthly retirement benefit of $1,238.03. The reduction is the result of a five- twelfths of one percent reduction for each month that Petitioner was short of age 62 and is the correct benefit calculation under TRS. See Rule 6S-7.003, Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it RECOMMENDED: That the Division of Retirement calculated Petitioner’s benefits correctly and is not estopped from reducing Petitioner’s benefits based on her status as a disability retiree. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of July, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of July, 1997.
