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 Shortly thereafter, he sought to have his retirement request rescinded or withdrawn; however, that request was denied.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
The Issue The sole issue in this cause is whether or not the payments received from Gadsden County by Petitioner, as set forth on pages 4 through 8 of her Amended Petition, for services rendered as Official Court Reporter pursuant to Chapter 29, Florida Statutes, constitute "compensation" within the meaning of that term in Chapter 121, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On April 27 and May 1, 1992, respectively, the Respondent and the Petitioner submitted to the Hearing Officer their Proposed Recommended Orders including proposed Findings of Fact. In the Appendix to Recommended Order, the Hearing Officer submitted recommended rulings thereon. The following constitutes the rulings in this Final Order on those proposed Findings of Fact. The Petitioner's and Respondent's proposed Findings of Fact Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, are hereby accepted and adopted in that they track the stipulated facts contained in the PREHEARING STIPULATION dated and filed March 30, 1992. The Petitioner's proposed Findings of Fact Nos. 8, 9, 10, and 11, are hereby rejected in that they are conclusions of law and were not contained within the stipulated facts contained within the PREHEARING STIPULATION, and are, therefore, not based upon competent substantial evidence. The actual employment position held by the Petitioner as an employee of the judicial branch of the State of Florida is clearly identified on Florida Retirement System Form FR-11, which was executed by the Petitioner on January 24, 1990, and certified by the Chief Judge of the Second Judicial Circuit (Exhibit 6 attached to the PREHEARING STIPULATION), whereon the "Title of Position held" is stated to have been "Official Court Reporter, Second Judicial Circuit of Florida assigned to Gadsden County." The supplemental salary that was paid to the Petitioner by the County required paper work identifying her as a county employee for payroll purposes only; but, as a matter of law, she held her State position as an official court reporter solely at the pleasure of the Judges of the Second Judicial Circuit pursuant to Section 29.01, Florida Statutes. In the Conclusions of Law in this Final Order, this issue shall be fully analyzed. RULINGS ON HEARING OFFICER'S RECOMMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Recommended Conclusion of Law No. 1 is hereby accepted as a proper statement of applicable law. Recommended Conclusion of Law No. 2 is hereby accepted as a correct statement of applicable law. Recommended Conclusion of Law No. 3 is hereby rejected in that it erroneously concludes that the Petitioner's salary and fees were authorized and set by statute, when, they had to have been authorized and set pursuant to Rule 2.070, Florida Rules of Judicial Administration. The conclusion of the Hearing Officer is incorrect because under Rule 2.070, Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, the compensation of, and the fees in question to be charged by, court reporters are authorized and set by such judicial rule. Rule 2.070, Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, adopted generally by reference the annual salary for court reporters set forth in Section 29.04, Florida Statutes, for a 60-hour work month. That judicial rule then goes on to provide for overtime at the rate of $10.00 per hour. That Rule 2.070, Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, also provides that the fees in question (for transcripts and depositions) to be charged by court reporters should be set in each circuit by administrative order, and, in the absence of such order, as provided by law. Such court reporters' fees, therefore, are set pursuant to said judicial Rule 2.070, which authorizes the charging of such fees in accordance with a circuit administrative order, and, in its absence, as provided by law. The setting of such fees and the authorization to charge same arise from said judicial Rule 2.070, and not from Chapter 29, Florida Statutes. The fee schedule set forth in Chapter 29, Florida Statutes, derives its legal efficacy not from its legislative enactment alone, but from its judicial approval in said Rule 2.070 in the event that a local circuit administrative order setting such fees has not been entered. In such instance, the fees are not set by statute, but by judicial approval of a statutory fee schedule. The judicial branch has set such fees, not the legislative. Thus, any such fees were not set by statute. The citations by the Hearing Officer in recommended Conclusion of Law No. 4 of Rules 22B-1.004(4)(b)1., and 22B-6.001(49), Florida Administrative Code, are rejected as being inapplicable to the proceeding at bar inasmuch as the Petitioner as an Official Court Reporter appointed pursuant to Section 29.01, Florida Statutes, was an employee of the State of Florida and was not an employee of Gadsden County. Under said Section 29.01 all official court reporters are appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the Chief Judge and a majority of the Judges of the Court in which the reporter is serving. Provision is made in Section 29.04, Florida Statutes, for the respective counties to provide funds necessary to pay the cost of reporting in criminal cases as necessary to provide competent reporters in such proceedings, but any such monies paid to such official court reporters would be paid to state employees. The judicial branch of government in Florida is a State court system. Official Court Reporters are hired and retained by the State Judges in a Circuit, and their employment is not determined or continued to any extent whatsoever by any Board of County Commissioners. Under Section 29.04(3), Florida Statutes, provision is made for the counties to supplement the funds necessary to pay the cost of reporting in criminal cases as necessary to provide competent reporters in such proceedings. The counties are a source of funding, and are not employers of the Official Court Reporters. In the case of Matter of Compensation of Hunter, 635 P.2d 1371 (Or. App. 1981), the Court of Appeals of Oregon held that where court reporters are appointed and hold their offices at the pleasure of the Judges, and are officers of the Court subject to the direction and control of the Judges, those court reporters are employees of the State of Oregon and not of the counties. At page 1373 of 635 P.2d the Court held: "The right to control is also important from a policy standpoint. The judges of the State of Oregon benefit directly from the services of the court reporters. They not only perform reporting duties in court, but are also the judges' official secretaries. See ORS 8.330. The State benefits most directly from court reporters' services, and it should be responsible for providing their workers' compensation insurance." Recommended Conclusion of Law of No. 5 is hereby rejected as a conclusion of law in that is a recitation of the relative positions of the parties and is not of any recommended holding or ruling by the Hearing Officer. Upon the reasoning and authorities set forth in Paragraph No. (3), above, recommended Conclusion of Law No. 6 is hereby rejected in that the fees in question were not authorized or set by legislative statute but were, in fact, authorized and set pursuant to judicial Rule 2.070, Florida Rules of Judicial Administration. The first three sentences of recommended Conclusion of Law No. 7 are hereby rejected in that they misconstrue the first sentence of Section 121.021(22), Florida Statutes, that states: "`Compensation', means the monthly salary paid a member, including overtime payments paid from a salary fund, as reported by the employer on the wage and tax statement (Internal Revenue Service form W-2) or any similar form." [Emphasis supplied] A form 1099 is not a form on which an employer reports salary paid from a salary fund to an employee, but, rather is a form utilized to report payments of income to an independent contractor. The "similar form" in that statute refers to an employer's wage and tax statement, which may be a form W-2, which is not the equivalent to a form 1099. As hereinafter discussed in Conclusions of Law Nos. (11), (12), and (13) of this Final Order, Official Court Reporters are "professional persons" within the meaning of that term in Section 121.021(22), Florida Statutes. The recommended Conclusion of Law of the Hearing Officer that the transcribing of criminal proceedings do not constitute "special or particular services" does not comport with either judicial Rule 2.070, Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, or a 1957 Opinion of the Attorney General of Florida. Under said judicial Rule 2.070 the basic salary for a court reporter is set in subsection (g) together with provision for the payment of overtime for hours in excess of 60 worked per month. In subsection (e) of Rule 2.070, provision is made for fees for what would constitute special or particular services by a court reporter, and the fees that may be charged for same. In a 1957 Opinion of the Attorney General of Florida (1957 0p. Att'y. Gen. Fla. 057- 109 (April 26, 1957)), the Attorney General of Florida analyzed Section 122.02, Florida Statutes, the predecessor to Section 121.021(22), Florida Statutes, as to what constituted compensation under the State and County Officers and Employees Retirement System (SCOERS). The opinion of the Attorney General was that hourly wages plus overtime would be included within the monthly compensation. But, at the end of that opinion the Attorney General concluded: "We conclude that in the case mentioned in the question the employing authority has prescribed the formula for fixing the monthly compensation or salary. It may vary depending upon the hours employed in discharging the routine work of the employment but the formula is fixed and applicable mathematically. This is not a situation where fees are paid for special or particular services. It is a regular retainer made depending upon the actual hours engaged in performing the month by month routine duties as School Board Attorney. It has no reference to fees for handing special items such as bond validation or other litigation." Under Rule 2.070, Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, official court reporters are paid their basic salary and overtime for their court appearances in reporting the proceedings. But, if they are to furnish transcripts of proceedings or depositions, which work would be done after their regular working hours, then the fees for such special or particular services are to be set by local circuit administrative order, or in the absence of same, as provided by law. These special or particular services that the court reporters are performing for such additional fees are not performed during their regular working hours, which by said Rule 2.070, is limited to 60 hours per month. And the last sentence of Recommended Conclusion of Law No. 7 that the Petitioner was a county employee is hereby rejected upon the grounds and reasoning set forth in Paragraph No. (4) above. The Hearing Officer's Recommended Conclusion of Law No. 8 (misnumbered as "7") is hereby rejected upon the grounds and for the reasons set forth in Paragraph Nos. (3) through (7) set forth above.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that respondent enter a final order approving petitioner's request for additional retirement benefits by including in the calculation of average final compensation those fees received by petitioner between January 1973 and February 1990 as set forth on pages 4 through 8 of her amended petition. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of June, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this day of June, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-3168 Petitioner: Accepted in finding of fact 1. Accepted in finding of fact 2. 3-4. Accepted in finding of fact 3. 5-6. Accepted in finding of fact 4. 7. Accepted in finding of fact 5. 8-11. Accepted in finding of fact 3. Respondent: Accepted in finding of fact 1. Covered in preliminary statement and in finding of fact 2. 3-4. Accepted in finding of fact 3. 5-6. Accepted in finding of fact 4. 7. Accepted in finding of fact 5. COPIES FURNISHED: A. J. McMullian, III, Director Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1560 John A. Pieno, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1500 Edgar Lee Elzie, Esquire P. O. Box 82 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Burton M. Michaels, Esquire Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2630 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1560
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Labor and Employment Security, Division of Unemployment Compensation (Division), administers the State Unemployment Compensation Program, which includes the payment of benefits to unemployed individuals and the collection of taxes or reimbursement payments from employers to finance these benefits. By law petitioner is authorized to seek reimbursement from political subdivisions for a pro-rata portion of benefits paid to their employees. If a subdivision fails to timely reimburse the State, the Division may certify the delinquent amount to the Department of Banking and Finance, and request the Comptroller to transfer funds otherwise due that entity to the Unemployment Compensation Trust Fund (Trust Fund). If a subdivision contends an employee is not entitled to unemployment benefits, it may contest a claim for benefits with a claim examiner employed by the Division. That decision may be reviewed by an appeals referee, and if either side is still aggrieved, a final administrative appeal may be heard by the full Unemployment Compensation Commission. Those decisions are then reviewed only by the First District Court of Appeal. Respondent, Board of County Commissioners of Flagler County (Board), is a political subdivision of the state, and is required by law to reimburse the Trust Fund for its pro-rate share of benefits paid to former employees. On July 10, 1984, petitioner issued to respondent a notice of intent to certify delinquency wherein it claimed that between October 1, 1979 and December 31, 1983 respondent incurred a liability to the State totaling $6,409.71. This amount included $5,704.92 in benefits paid to former employees and $703.79 for 6 percent interest on overdue payments. That precipitated the instant controversy. The amount due was later reduced to $5,204.79 by the issuance of an amended notice of intent to certify delinquency on January 11, 1985. At hearing respondent conceded it owed all claimed monies except those due for two individuals: Emma Worthington and Margaret Prather. This resolved more than 60 percent of the Division's claim leaving only around $600 in dispute. Emma Worthington was a former employee of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Flagler County (Clerk) and was never employed by the Board of County Commissioners of Flagler County. Nonetheless, for some reason, the Clerk reported Worthington's wages to the Division under the Employer Identification Number assigned to respondent. Because of this, the Division assumed respondent was Worthington's employer. When Worthington was terminated by the Clerk's office, she requested unemployment benefits. The Clerk filed an appeal with a claims examiner contesting the payment of such benefits. The examiner ruled that such benefits were due, and this decision was affirmed by both an appeals referee and the full commission. As required by law, on an undisclosed date the Division forwarded a reimbursement notice to respondent advising that certain monies were due because of unemployment compensation payments made to Worthington. The Board did not respond to this notice but simply referred it to the Clerk's office. There is no evidence that the Division was ever formally notified by the Board that the employee was actually a Clerk employee, that the bill was forwarded to another party, or that the wrong Employer Identification number had been used. The bill was never paid. Margaret Prather was an employee of the Flagler County Supervisor of Elections (Supervisor) when she was terminated from employment. Before that, she was a Board employee. While employed by the Supervisor of Elections, Prather's wages were erroneously reported to the Division under the Employer Identification number of respondent. Because of this, the Division assumed Prather was a Board employee. After she was terminated by the Supervisor, Prather received unemployment benefits. Whether the Supervisor contested these benefits is not known. In any event, the Division sent the Board a Reimbursement Invoice on an undisclosed date requesting reimbursement for benefits paid to Prather. The Board did not respond to the Invoice but simply forwarded it to the Supervisor. Again, there is no evidence that the Board advised the Division of the erroneous use of its Employer Identification number, that the bill had been forwarded to another party, or that Prather was not an employee. To date, the bill has not been paid.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent reimburse petitioner for benefits paid to employees Worthington and Prather as set forth in the amended notice of intent to certify delinquency within thirty days from date of final order. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of April, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 23rd day of April, 1985.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Willie Mae Miles is entitled to retirement credit for the period beginning March 1952 through August 1976 when she was employed at the Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami, Florida (the "Hospital"). There is no dispute that Willie Mae Miles was employed at the Hospital during that time period. However, the Department of Administration (the "Department") contends that Ms. Miles received a refund of her employee retirement contributions of $5,475.39 in May 1977. Therefore, the Department contends that Respondent is not entitled to credit for that period of service. Ms. Miles claims that she did not apply for or receive a refund of retirement contributions. She also claims that she would only have accepted a lump sum refund if it included her contributions and the county and state contributions with interest. Since no such sum was received, she claims she is entitled to retirement credit for her employment at the hospital.
Findings Of Fact While Mrs. Miles has handled her case up to and including the hearing since she dispensed with the services of her attorney, her testimony and the nature of the exhibits indicate that she did not fully comprehend the meaning and intent of the documents that she signed requesting a refund of her retirement contributions and mistakenly believed that she still had funds in the Retirement Trust Fund from which a retirement benefit would be paid later upon her retirement. Her belief was erroneous. Under the State and County Officers and Employees' Retirement System (SCOERS), an employee and the employing agency each paid retirement contributions into the Retirement Trust Fund, and these contributions were credited to the employee's retirement account. Eventually, when the employee retired, the retirement benefit was paid from the total contributions paid into the Trust Fund, including investment earnings of the Fund. However, if the employee terminated employment before retirement, he could legally receive only a return of his personal contributions paid in and not the retirement contributions paid in by his employing agency. Mrs. Miles believed she was due and had a right to her own paid-in contributions, as well as the contributions paid in for her by her employing agency, and since she had received a refund of only a portion (her portion) of her retirement contributions, there were monies (retirement contributions made by her employer) still on deposit with the Division of Retirement that would provide for her retirement. Mrs. Miles did not understand that the return of her personal contributions would end any entitlement or vested right on her part to a future retirement benefit under the SCOERS. It is also evident from her testimony that no one with her employing agency advised her of this fact and that none of the information received from the Division of Retirement made this clear to her. The "Request for Refund" card stated the effect of a refund of personal contributions, but Mrs. Miles did not understand the instructions on the refund card. In April, 1989, the Division received an inquiry from Mrs. Miles advising that she was applying for her retirement benefits. This is further evidence that she believed she still had an active retirement account with the State of Florida. It is concluded that Mrs. Miles never had any actual intent to relinquish her right to apply for and receive a retirement benefit under the SCOERS.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner not be credited with any creditable service under the provisions of Chapter 121, Florida Statutes, for the period from March 1952 to May 1977. DONE and ORDERED this 30 day of March 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 30 day of March 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER 89-4834 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent in this case. Petitioner's submittal was a mixture of argument, conclusions and facts which have been carefully considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order. However, specific ruling on proposed findings of fact by the Petitioner is not possible given the format of her proposal. Rulings on Respondent's Findings of Fact Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 3. The first sentence is adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. The remainder of the proposal is rejected as unnecessary. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 7. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 8 and 10. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 11 and 12. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 14 and 16. COPIES FURNISHED: Willie Mae Miles 10220 S.W. 170th Terrace Miami, Florida 33157 Larry Scott, Esquire Division Attorney Office of General Counsel Department of Administration Room 440 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Stanley M. Danek, Esquire Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Aletta Shutes, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Petitioners, as named beneficiaries of William Wenz, deceased, are entitled to a refund of the Teachers Retirement System account balance of Mr. Wenz, or whether the widow, Joanne Metzler Wenz, is entitled to receive a monthly retirement.
Findings Of Fact William Wenz was an active member of the Teachers Retirement System (TRS) when he passed away on March 27, 2002, having become a member in 1964 when he was employed as a teacher. William Wenz had approximately 35 years of creditable service in the TRS at the time of his death. Throughout his more than 30 years as a teacher, William Wenz made contributions to the TRS. When William Wenz died, his TRS account consisted of $166,285.44 in contributions and interest. William Wenz and Joanne Metzler were married on August 14, 1998. On November 9, 1998, William Wenz filed a personal history and beneficiary designation with the Division of Retirement. On that form, William Wenz designated Joanne Metzler Wenz as primary beneficiary and their children as contingent beneficiaries. On May 4, 2000, William Wenz filed a new beneficiary designation with the Division of Retirement and named his brother, Henry Wenz; his daughter, Wendy Gasior; and his son, William Kurt Wenz, as his beneficiaries. Henry Wenz and Wendy Gasior are Petitioners in this proceeding. Petitioners contend that by virtue of his executing the May 4, 2000, beneficiary form described above, William Wenz clearly intended that his retirement benefits or TRS accumulated contributions would go to his children and brother and not to his wife. In March of 2002, Joanne Metzler Wenz filed for a divorce from William Wenz. Shortly thereafter, on March 27, 2002, William Wenz died. At the time of his death, the divorce action was still pending and had not been finalized. After the death of William Wenz, Petitioner Wendy Gasior sought a refund of William Wenz's TRS accumulated contributions. The Division denied this request by letter dated June 26, 2002. In the denial letter, the Division of Retirement stated that, "under TRS law, the right of a spouse to the lifetime Option 3 benefit supercedes the beneficiary's right to a refund of contributions."
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 finding that (1) Petitioners are ineligible for a refund of accumulated contributions on the account of William Wenz; and (2) Intervenor Joanne Metzler Wenz is eligible for a monthly retirement benefit. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of August, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 7th day of August, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Derek F. Johnson, Esquire 1970 Michigan Avenue, Building D Cocoa, Florida 32922 Henry A. Wenz 658 Whitemarsh Avenue Deltona, Florida 32725 Allan P. Whitehead, Esquire Frese, Nash & Hansen, P.A. 930 South Harbor City Boulevard Suite 505 Melbourne, Florida 32901 Thomas E. Wright, Esquire Division of Retirement Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Erin Sjostrom, Director Division of Retirement Department of Management Services 2639 North Monroe Street, Building C Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Monesia Taylor Brown, Acting General Counsel Division of Retirement Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Raul A. Correa, M.D. (Dr. Correa), failed to provide workers' compensation coverage, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing section 440.107, Florida Statutes (2013). That section mandates, in relevant part, that employers in Florida secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage for their employees. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. At all times relevant, Dr. Correa was a Florida small business engaged in the practice of medicine, with his principal office located at 2505 Manatee Avenue West, Bradenton, Florida. Dr. Correa is not incorporated. On February 12, 2014, Ms. Green conducted an on-site workers’ compensation compliance investigation (compliance investigation) of Dr. Correa’s office. After identifying herself to the receptionist, Ms. Green met Dr. Correa and explained the reason for her presence, a compliance investigation. Dr. Correa telephoned his wife who handles his office management from their residence. Mrs. Correa immediately faxed a copy of the liability insurance policy to the office. However, that liability policy did not include workers’ compensation coverage. After a telephonic consultation with her supervisor, Ms. Green served a Request for Production of Business Records (Request) on Dr. Correa at 11:50 a.m. on February 12, 2014. This Request encompassed records from October 1, 2013, through February 12, 2014, for all of Dr. Correa’s payroll documents, account documents, disbursements, and workers’ compensation coverage policies. Ms. Green consulted the Department’s Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) database to determine whether Dr. Correa had secured workers’ compensation coverage or an exemption from the requirements for coverage for his employees. CCAS is a database Ms. Green consults during the course of her investigations. Ms. Green determined from CCAS that Dr. Correa did not have any current workers’ compensation coverage for his employees and he did not have an exemption from such coverage from the Department. The records reflected that Dr. Correa’s last active workers’ compensation coverage was in 2004. Dr. Correa obtained workers’ compensation coverage on February 20, 2014. Approximately one month later, Ms. Green served a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation on Dr. Correa. Dr. Correa produced the requested records. These records were given to Lynne Murcia, one of the Department’s penalty auditors, to calculate the penalty. Ms. Murcia determined that the appropriate classification code for Dr. Correa’s employees was 8832, which incorporates physicians and clerical workers. This code was derived from the Scopes Manual, which lists all of the various jobs that may be performed in the context of workers’ compensation. The manual is produced by the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc., the nation’s most authoritative data collecting and disseminating organization for workers’ compensation. Dr. Correa listed seven employees on the Florida Department of Revenue Unemployment Compensation Tax (UCT-6) form for the time period of the non-compliance. The UCT-6 form lists those employees who are subject to Florida’s Unemployment Compensation Law. Ms. Murcia reasonably relied upon the UCT-6 filings for the relevant time period to calculate Dr. Correa’s gross payroll in Florida. Using Dr. Correa’s payroll chart, the UCT reports, and the classification codes for each employee, Ms. Murcia calculated the penalty assessment for the three-year penalty period preceding the investigation. This three-year period is the allocated time for reviewing coverage for those who do not have the appropriate workers’ compensation coverage. On April 9, 2014, Ms. Murcia determined the penalty to be $4,287.12. However, upon receipt of additional information regarding a former employee of Dr. Correa, an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment of $3,898.77 was issued on July 28, 2014. Dr. Correa’s position is that his practice is a small “mom and pop” operation. He employs members of his family to run the business side of his practice. His daughter, Antonia, works as Dr. Correa’s “doctor’s assistant.” She works at the various nursing homes that Dr. Correa services. Antonia believed that the nursing homes’ liability insurance would cover her, and she was not subject to workers’ compensation coverage. However, she was, in fact, paid by Dr. Correa. Dr. Correa’s daughter-in-law, Valeria, works from her home computer completing the medical billing for her father-in- law. She has been working in this capacity for approximately 14- 16 years, and it never occurred to her that she needed workers’ compensation coverage. She was paid by Dr. Correa. Dr. Correa’s brother-in-law, Mr. Collado, runs all the errands for the practice. He may go to the bank, take care of car maintenance, buy office supplies or fix things, all in support of Dr. Correa’s practice. Mr. Collado receives regular pay checks from Dr. Correa. Dr. Correa testified that his wife is his office manager and has been since he opened the practice in 1978. Mrs. Correa works from their home, in a small home office. She does all the paper work related to the practice. Dr. Correa firmly believed that he did not require workers’ compensation coverage because some of his employees were “independent contractors” or never worked in his office, but at other locations (individual homes, nursing homes, or just outside the office). Dr. Correa believed his insurance agent who did not think Dr. Correa needed the workers’ compensation coverage. Based upon the testimony and exhibits, the amended penalty assessment in the amount of $3,898.77 is accurate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, issue a final order upholding the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and assessing a penalty in the amount of $3,898.77. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of September, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of September, 2014.
The Issue Whether Petitioner was overpaid $961.87 in 1975 when he received a refund of his retirement contributions, and, if so, whether Petitioner is required to refund that amount to the Division of Retirement before receiving any retirement benefits.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the following findings are made: Petitioner is a law enforcement officer employed by the Florida Highway Patrol (FHP). Petitioner was first hired by FHP in August 1968. He left FHP on October 15, 1975, to pursue a private venture. Petitioner rejoined FHP in July 1981, and he is currently a member of the troop that patrols the Florida Turnpike. Between September 1968 and December 1974, Petitioner made monthly contributions to the FHP pension fund which, at the time, was administered by FHP. In 1970, when the Florida Retirement System (FRS) was created, Respondent took over the administration of the FHP pension fund, and Petitioner elected to participate in the FRS. The FRS was, and still is, administered by Respondent pursuant to Chapter 121, Florida Statutes. Prior to January 1, 1975, the FHP pension fund and the FRS were "contributory," meaning that the employee was required to contribute a percentage of his or her salary to the fund, and contributions were also made by the employer. Starting on January 1, 1975, the FRS became "non-contributory," meaning that the employer made all of the contributions. Petitioner's contributions to his FHP pension fund account were recorded on a four-column ledger sheet which showed the old balance, date of contribution, amount of the contribution, and the total balance. The ledger sheet was not computerized. The entries were manually typed onto the ledger sheet. Petitioner's account showed a total balance of $4,656.71 on December 31, 1974, and because the FRS was "non- contributory" after that date, the account had the same balance on October 15, 1975, when Petitioner left FHP. The total balance shown for Petitioner's account was incorrect as a result of a calculation error made when Petitioner's December 1968 contribution was entered onto the ledger sheet. Prior to that contribution, the old balance reflected on the ledger sheet was $108.89. Petitioner's December 1968 contribution was $37.45, so the total balance should have been $146.34. However, a calculation error was made and the total balance entered on the ledger sheet was $1,108.21. The effect of this error was that the balance shown in Petitioner's account was $961.87 (i.e., $1,108.21 minus $146.34) more than Petitioner had actually contributed. The error was carried forward to the following month when $1,108.21 was entered as the old balance, and all subsequent entries to Petitioner's account reflected the error. As a result, Petitioner's actual contributions as of December 31, 1974 (and, hence October 15, 1975, when he left FHP) were $3,694.84, not $4,656.71. The error was not discovered in October 1975 when Petitioner left FHP and requested a refund of his contributions. Apparently, the account was not audited prior to payment of the refund to Petitioner. In October 1975, Petitioner signed a card requesting a refund of his contributions. The address listed on the card corresponded to Petitioner's address at that time. The pertinent information from the card (i.e., the payee and the amount) was provided to the Comptroller by Respondent when a warrant was requested. The Comptroller prepared a warrant in the requested amount and returned it to Respondent along with a computer- printed label that contained Petitioner's name and social security number, the refunded amount ($4,656.71), warrant number (173213), and the date of the warrant (November 4, 1975). The label was affixed to the refund request card, and the warrant was mailed to Petitioner. The Comptroller's records show that warrant number 173213 was paid on November 21, 1975. The records do not show the payee of the warrant. Nor do the records show whether the warrant was deposited into a bank account or cashed. The cancelled warrant no longer exists. Petitioner did not recall receiving a warrant in the amount of $4,656.71. Petitioner and his wife both testified that they recalled receiving only $2,500.00. Petitioner produced a deposit slip dated November 15, 1975, showing a $2,500.00 deposit as well as bank records which showed that deposit as the only large deposit into Petitioner's account between November 1975 and February 1976. The source of the $2,500.00 check is not shown on the deposit slip. The Comptroller's records show no FRS warrants in that amount during the period of November 15, 1975, through November 21, 1975, when such a warrant would likely have been paid. Moreover, Petitioner conceded that he may have had another bank account at the time, although he could not locate any records for such an account. Petitioner received a statement of account from Respondent in June 1974 showing the balance of his account to be $4,220.47 at that time. Despite having that information and despite his financial circumstances being "tight" at the time, Petitioner did not make any inquiry to Respondent as to why he received only $2,500.00. This suggests that the $2,500.00 check was not the FRS warrant. The overpayment was first discovered in 2000 when Respondent conducted an audit of Petitioner's FRS account as part of its preparation of the member annual statement required by Section 121.136, Florida Statutes. Petitioner was first informed of the error and the 1975 overpayment in August 2001 when he received an unsolicited telephone call from Brenda Shiver, an employee of the Respondent, regarding his retirement plans and the cost of "buying back" his prior service with the FHP between 1968 and 1975. Petitioner has no current plans to retire. Nor does Petitioner have a current desire to "buy back" his prior service which would cost over $21,000, not including the amount at issue in this proceeding. The cost of the prior service is not at issue in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Retirement issue a final order that increases the cost for Petitioner to "buy back" his prior service by $961.87 to reflect the 1975 refund overpayment, but eliminates the mandate that Petitioner pay that amount as a condition of receiving retirement benefits related to his current service. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of June, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 24th day of June, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard W. Holland 17964 Lookout Hill Road Winter Garden, Florida 34787 Thomas E. Wright, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Erin Sjostrom, Director Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Monesia Taylor Brown, Acting General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560
The Issue The issue for determination is whether the Florida Retirement System's retirement benefit option selected by Petitioner's deceased son should be changed from Option 1 to Option 2.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Kerr is the mother of the late Mr. Kerr. Mr. Kerr was employed by the Broward County Sheriff's Office (BSO) from January 2, 1990 through September 28, 2004. Mr. Kerr was a detective, hereinafter referred to as Det. Kerr. As a result of being an employee of the BSO, Det. Kerr was a member of the Florida Retirement System (FRS). During his employment, BSO, not Det. Kerr, made contributions to the FRS for his benefit. Retirement is the agency charged with the responsibility of administering the FRS. In complying with its duties, FRS publishes and provides an informational handbook and forms regarding retirement issues to its FRS members. FRS' staff also provide counseling to FRS members who inquire about FRS issues. A website is also maintained by FRS for its members to inquire about FRS issues and obtain information about retirement. On July 29, 2004, Det. Kerr completed an Application for Disability Retirement (Application), which was signed and notarized. The Application indicated, among other things, that he was applying for regular disability benefits and that Dr. Garry Friedberg was one of his treating physicians. Det. Kerr designated Ms. Kerr as his primary beneficiary on the Application. On August 2, 2004, Retirement received the completed application. Det. Kerr had over 16 years of creditable service, and he was, therefore, vested as a Special Risk member of the FRS and eligible for retirement benefits. Retirement acknowledged receipt of the documents needed to make a determination on Det. Kerr's disability retirement application. Also, Retirement advised him that, if his disability retirement application was approved, further documents would be required before he could be placed on the retirement payroll. One of the additional documents requested by Retirement was Form FRS-11o, which was FRS' Option Selection Form for its members. FRS-11o must be completed before retirement benefits can be paid. FRS-11o notices the member of four different options for payment of retirement benefits and contains a narrative describing the effect of the selection of each of the four options. Option 1 yields the maximum monthly benefit, but when the retiree dies there is no survivor benefit. Option 2 yields a reduced monthly benefit for 10 years, but, if the retiree dies before the end of the 10 years, the benefit is paid to the surviving beneficiary for the balance of the 10 years. Option 3 provides a reduced benefit for the joint lifetimes of the retiree and beneficiary. Option 4 provides a reduced benefit for the lifetime of the retiree and beneficiary, which benefit is reduced by 33 1/3 percent upon the death of either. By letter dated August 19, 2004, Retirement advised Det. Kerr that his application for disability retirement was approved. The letter further advised him, among other things, of other documents that he had to submit, including a completed FRS-11o, before he could be placed on the retirement payroll. By letter dated August 23, 2004, Retirement advised Det. Kerr of his estimated monthly disability retirement benefits under Option 1 ($2,364.84) and Option 2 ($2,189.13). Insufficient information was available to Retirement to calculate the estimated monthly disability retirement benefits under Options 3 and 4, so none were provided. The letter further advised Det. Kerr as to what was required for Retirement to calculate monthly estimates for Options 3 and 4. Additionally, the August 23rd letter, enclosed a blank FRS-11o for Det. Kerr to complete and return. Furthermore, the letter included an informational document, entitled "What Retirement Option Should You Choose?," regarding making his option selection. This informational document is a standard document included by Retirement, with Retirement's estimates of disability retirement benefits. As to changing an option choice, the document provides in pertinent part: Once you cash or deposit a benefit payment, or begin the Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP), your [option] selection cannot be changed. Therefore, it is important to carefully study your personal circumstances before [your] decision. Regarding Option 2, the document provided in pertinent part: [T]his option would be particularly appropriate if you are in ill health and your future physical condition is uncertain at the time of retirement since independent children, other heirs, charities, organizations, or your estate or trust can be designated as beneficiaries for Option 2. The document invites FRS members to contact Retirement with any questions. No evidence was presented to demonstrate the Det. Kerr contacted Retirement regarding questions as to the options. On August 27, 2004, Det. Kerr completed and had notarized FRS-11o. FRS-11o reflected, among other things, the following: the selection of Option 1 by an "X" and being circled; and his marital status as being not married. The language describing Option 1 next to the selection was as follows: A monthly benefit payable for my lifetime. Upon my death, the monthly benefit will stop and my beneficiary will receive only a refund of any contributions I have paid which are in excess of the amount I have received in benefits. This option does not provide a continuing benefit to my beneficiary. Also, on FRS-11o was Option 2. The language describing Option 2 next to the selection was as follows: A reduced monthly benefit payable for my lifetime. If I die before receiving 120 monthly payments, my designated beneficiary will receive a monthly benefit in the same amount as I was receiving until the monthly benefit payments to both of us equal 120 monthly payments. No further benefits are then payable. On September 1, 2004, Retirement received Det. Kerr's FRS-11o, on which Option 1 was selected and which was properly completed, signed, and notarized. It is undisputed that Det. Kerr's FRS-11o met all requirements as to being in a status of completion. Typically, FRS-11o is the only indication as to a member's wishes regarding his or her option selection. According to Retirement, usually, the disability retirement application is completed prior to receiving an estimate of benefits, and, therefore, it is not uncommon for an FRS member to designate a primary beneficiary and later select Option 1 after reviewing his or her estimate of benefits. According to Retirement, only a member or someone acting on his or her behalf, such as a legal guardian or attorney-in-fact, can make a retirement option selection for the member. No evidence was presented that Det. Kerr, himself, requested a change to his selection of Option 1. On September 28, Det. Kerr resigned from the BSO. October 1, 2004, was established as Det. Kerr's effective disability retirement date. Det. Kerr died on October 20, 2004, less than a month after resigning, without receiving his first disability retirement benefit payment. At the time of his death, Det. Kerr was not married and had no children. Further, no parent was his legal guardian or dependent upon him for support. Det. Kerr's circumstances surrounding his option selection do not place his situation in the usual or typical category of FRS members referred to above by Retirement. Det. Kerr was suffering from AIDS. His symptoms first appeared in 1995. He was being treated by Garry Friedberg, M.D., a physician whose specialty was infectious diseases. As Det. Kerr's treating physician, on July 26, 2004, (approximately three months before Det. Kerr's death) Dr. Friedberg completed a "Disability Insurance - Attending Physician's Statement" form, regarding Det. Kerr's medical condition. The form contained several questions, including those as to diagnosis, prognosis, and mental and cognitive limitations. Dr. Friedberg diagnosed Det. Kerr with the end- stage of AIDS, which included wasting, assistance with activities of daily living, 12 to 15 loose stools per day, and pain in his stomach. Dr. Friedberg determined Det. Kerr's prognosis as terminal. Dr. Friedberg described Det. Kerr's mental and cognitive limitations as poor memory, difficulty concentrating, and inattentiveness. Question 5.c. of the form asked whether Det. Kerr was competent to endorse checks and direct the use of proceeds, to which Dr. Friedberg checked the yes box. It is undisputed that Det. Kerry had a close, loving- relationship with his mother and nephews. Det. Kerr's mother testified as to her son's desires and wishes for his retirement benefits. The undersigned finds her testimony credible. As her son's health deteriorated, Det. Kerr made her co-owner of his home in order for the home to become hers at his death. Det. Kerr had a loving relationship with his nephews and he wanted to make sure that their education would be paid-for through his retirement benefits. Det. Kerr informed his mother that he designated her as the beneficiary of his disability retirement plan so that she could keep his house and pay for the education of his nephews. In a letter dated May 18, 2005, Det. Kerr's healthcare providers gave insight into his medical condition and his intent regarding his disability benefits. The undersigned finds the letter persuasive. Among other things, they indicate that they were Det. Kerr's healthcare providers for several years and that, throughout 2004, Det. Kerr was administered opium to help control his chronic wasting diarrhea and administered opioid- based analgesics for chronic pain. Det. Kerr made it clear to his healthcare providers that his intent was to provide financially for his family at the event of his death. Without question, they insist that the narcotic regimen in Det. Kerr's treatment, caused him to mistakenly mark Option 1, which was the opposite of and completely contrary to the whole intent of what he wanted to do with his disability benefits. Furthermore, they indicate that Det. Kerr intended to check Option 2 in that it would provide for Det. Kerr's family as Det. Kerr had intended. One of Dr. Friedberg's clerical employees, John Carriere, notarized the option selection form at Dr. Friedberg's office for Det. Kerr on August 27, 2004. At that time, the employee had known Det. Kerr for approximately five years and knew what Det. Kerr's intentions were towards his (Det. Kerr's) family, concurring that Det. Kerr wanted his disability retirement benefits to provide for his (Det. Kerr's) mother and nephews. The employee observed that on that day Det. Kerr had lost considerable weight, was sweating, and was not looking well. The undersigned finds the clerical employee's testimony persuasive. Det. Kerr was friends with Robert Brown for 16 years. Mr. Brown is a certified financial planner but was not Det. Kerr's financial planner. The undersigned finds Mr. Brown's testimony credible. Mr. Brown was well aware that Det. Kerr wanted to make sure that his (Det. Kerr's) mother and nephews were taken care of with his disability retirement benefits. Det. Kerr sought advice from his friend regarding the disability retirement benefits. Mr. Brown and Det. Kerr met with the BSO's human resource counselor to discuss the different options available. Det. Kerr knew that he was dying, and he decided upon Option 2 because only it provided the benefits that he wanted for his mother and nephews upon his death. On August 27, 2004, Det. Kerr was at Dr. Friedberg's office and was completing FRS-11o (the option selection form), and he called Mr. Brown, who was busy at work. Det. Kerr requested Mr. Brown to remind him which option number to select. Mr. Brown requested Det. Kerr to call him after working-hours, but Det. Kerr insisted that Mr. Brown talk with him then and provide the requested information. Mr. Brown, not recalling the option number that had been previously determined to be selected but recalling only what the selection provided, informed Det. Kerr that the option decided upon was the one that left the money to his (Det. Kerr's) mother for ten years. Det. Kerr yelled back that he knew what the selection provided that he wanted, but now he only wanted the option number. Mr. Brown requested Det. Kerr to wait a few hours and call him back; but Det. Kerr did not. Later, when Mr. Brown and Det. Kerr were together, Mr. Brown asked Det. Kerr whether he needed any assistance with the retirement paperwork. Det. Kerr responded in the negative, indicating that he had finished the paperwork by himself and convincingly stating that the family was protected. Mr. Brown asked to review the form, but Det. Kerr did not have the form with him. With Det. Kerr so convincingly expressing himself that the family was protected, Mr. Brown did not think of the retirement paperwork again. A finding of fact is made that Det. Kerr at all times had decided on Option 2 and at all times had intended to check Option 2. A finding of fact is made that the medical evidence is sufficient to demonstrate that, due to Det. Kerr's terminal illness and the medications given to him, his mental capacity to make an informed choice at the time that he selected Option 1 was affected; and that he mistakenly checked Option 1, whereas Option 2 would have protected his family as he had intended, which intent had never wavered or changed. By letter dated December 6, 2004, Retirement advised Det. Kerr's family that his estate was entitled to the disability retirement benefits due for the month of October 2004. Additionally, included with the letter was a "Joint Annuitant Information" document, and the family was advised that, if Det. Kerr had a survivor who qualified as a joint annuitant, a monthly benefit may be payable to such person. A joint annuitant was mentioned in several of the letters from Retirement to Det. Kerr, prior to his death, regarding his disability retirement. In a letter dated July 30, 2004, related to completing FRS-11o, a joint annuitant is mentioned only in relationship to Options 3 and 4 and calculations therefor; in the Application, a joint annuitant is again mentioned only in relationship to Options 3 and 4 and calculations therefor; in a letter dated August 10, 2004, again, a joint annuitant is mentioned only in relationship to Options 3 and 4 and calculations therefor; in two letters dated August 19, 2004, a joint annuitant is again mentioned only in relationship to Options 3 and 4 and calculations therefor; in the Estimate of Retirement Benefit document, a joint annuitant is mentioned only as it relates to Options 3 and 4; in an Estimate of Disability Retirement Benefits document, dated August 23, 2004, a joint annuitant is mentioned only as to Options 3 and 4 and calculations therefor; in a document provided to Det. Kerr by Retirement, entitled "What Retirement Option Should You Choose?" a joint annuitant is mentioned as it relates to all of the available options; in FRS-11o, a joint annuitant is mentioned only for Options 3 and 4; and in a letter dated December 6, 2004, after Det. Kerr's death, Retirement refers to a joint annuitant and includes information regarding a joint annuitant. No information was received by Retirement as to a joint annuitant. Further, at hearing no assertion of Ms. Kerr being a joint annuitant was made. Ms. Kerr is the personal representative of her son’s, Det. Kerr's, estate. On September 26, 2005, Retirement received a letter from Ms. Kerr's counsel requesting Retirement to change Det. Kerr's option selection from Option 1 to Option 2, explaining, among other things, Det. Kerr's intent but that his medical condition prevented him from following through with his intent. No mention was made in the letter of a survivor who qualified as a joint annuitant. Retirement contends that an option selection can only be changed in the event the designated beneficiary qualifies as a joint annuitant. On October 14, 2005, Retirement, by final agency action letter, denied the request to change Det. Kerr's option selection but erroneously cited Section 121.091(6)(h), Florida Statutes, as the statutory basis for the decision to deny the request, which stated as follows: (h) The option selected or determined for payment of benefits as provided in this section shall be final and irrevocable at the time a benefit payment is cashed or deposited or credited to the Deferred Retirement Option Program as provided in Subsection (13). Retirement admits that the basis for the denial stated in the final agency action letter is incorrect. No benefit payment had been issued, cashed or deposited. Retirement has never amended or sought to amend its denial-letter.
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 granting the request of Rosalie J. Kerr and changing the retirement option selection of her deceased son, Robert R. Kerr, from Option 1 to Option 2. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of July, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of July, 2006.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner, as a surviving spouse, is entitled to a continuing benefit from the Florida Retirement System (FRS) based on the retirement account of her deceased husband, George S. Bohler. More specifically, it must be determined whether the forgery of the spousal acknowledgement form renders the member's election of the "Option 1" retirement benefit payment, which precludes a survivor's benefit for his spouse, invalid and void.
Findings Of Fact George Bohler, the FRS member at issue, was employed, at times pertinent, as a Professor of Economics at Florida Community College in Jacksonville. The College is an FRS employer and Mr. Bohler was a member of the FRS retirement system. The Division of Retirement is an administrative agency charged with regulation and operation of the Florida retirement system, including calculation of and determination of entitlement to retirement benefits, under various options and member circumstances. On March 22, 1999, Mr. Bohler filed a completed Florida Retirement System Application for service retirement and the Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP). This was accomplished through his filing of "Form DP-11." The Form provides a retiree with information pertaining to four options by which his retirement benefits may be paid. One full page of that form provides an explanation of each option. Mr. Bohler selected Option 1, a retirement benefit pay-out plan which provides the highest monthly benefit. The Option 1 selection provides that this highest monthly benefit is payable for the lifetime of the retiree only. Upon his death, the benefit would stop and his beneficiary, here his spouse, the Petitioner, would receive only a refund of any contributions the member might have paid into the FRS which exceeds the amount he had received in benefits. Option 1 provides no continuing or survivor benefit to a beneficiary or surviving spouse. The DP-11 Form filed with the retirement application contained an apparent spousal acknowledgement purportedly signed by Deborah T. Bohler, the spouse of member George Bohler. It appears to acknowledge that the member had elected either Option 1 or Option 2, which provide no survivor/spouse benefit. The DP-11 Form indicated to the Division that the member was married. The parties have stipulated, however, that the Petitioner's signature on the FRS application for service retirement and the DROP program was actually forged. George Bohler, the member, was an FRS member from August 19, 1968, to March 31, 2005. He received FRS retirement benefits based upon the above-referenced application from the Division from April 1, 2000, to October 31, 2007. The Form DP-11 contained a statement to the effect that the retiree member understood that he could not add additional service, change options, or change his type of retirement once his retirement became final. Mr. Bohler began participation in the DROP program on April 1, 2000. Thereafter, his last date of employment was March 31, 2005, and he passed away on October 18, 2007. He received FRS benefits from April 1, 2000, until October 31, 2007. For 28 years, until his death on that date, Mr. Bohler was legally married to the Petitioner, Deborah Bohler, during which time they were never separated or divorced. On March 10, 1999, Mr. Bohler executed the FRS Application for Service Retirement and the DROP program. He had his signature notarized as required for that form. Joint Exhibit 1, in evidence. Mr. Bohler designated the Petitioner as his primary beneficiary on the DROP Application. He elected to begin participation in the DROP program as of April 1, 2000, and to retire from state employment effective March 31, 2005, which he did. There are four options which an FRS member may select for his or her retirement benefits to be paid to the member or to the survivors/beneficiaries. Mr. Bohler selected "Option 1" on his DROP Application form. This results in a significantly higher retirement monthly benefit than does Options 3 or 4, which have survivorship rights. The acknowledgement section on the DROP Application form requires that a member's spouse be notified and must acknowledge a member's selection of Option 1 or Option 2 by signing that DROP Application form, so that the FRS is thus informed that the spouse made a knowing, intelligent waiver of survivorship rights to benefits. The spousal acknowledgement provision or section does not require that the member's spouse's signature be notarized. The form also does not require a member to swear under oath that the spouse was notified. The parties have stipulated that the Petitioner's apparent signature shown on Mr. Bohler's retirement application form was forged. The Petitioner had no knowledge that her name had been placed on the form by some other person, nor did she have any knowledge that Mr. Bohler had selected Option 1 prior to his death. The Petitioner first learned that her husband had selected Option 1 when she contacted the Respondent, after his death, to request that his retirement benefits now be paid to her. She believed that she was entitled to survivorship benefits. Her husband never informed her that he had selected a retirement option which would not pay her survivorship benefits, nor had they discussed the matter before or since his retirement. In their marital and family relationship, the Bohlers had divided certain duties in such a way that Mr. Bohler, the FRS member at issue, handled all financial matters himself. The Petitioner, Mrs. Bohler, dealt with any tax issues or filings the couple was required to make during the years of their marriage. The Petitioner is a certified public accountant. The Petitioner was simply aware that her husband received retirement benefits, and knew the amount of them, but did not know that they represented benefits for Option 1 rather than Option 3 or 4. The Petitioner's signature on the spousal acknowledgment section of the DROP Application form is stipulated to have been forged. The fact of the forgery, and the Petitioner's un-refuted testimony, establishes that she was never notified, nor did she ever acknowledge that her husband had selected Option 1. She was not aware that an attempt to waive or extinguish her survivor's benefits had been made. She believed, during his lifetime, that she was to be accorded survivor benefits. Testimony presented by the Respondent shows that the Respondent Division will not accept a retirement application form, or process it, if a member fails to complete the spousal acknowledgement section or, alternatively, to submit a signed statement explaining why that section is left blank, or the signature of the spouse has not been obtained. The fact that the Division will not accept a retirement or DROP Application form or process the related benefits if the acknowledgement section is unsigned or blank establishes the mandatory nature of the requirement that a spouse acknowledge a member's election to receive benefits under an option which would preclude a spouse's survivorship benefits. The acknowledgement is thus not an optional requirement. In fact, the legislature clearly placed that requirement in the statute, Section 121.091(6)(a), Florida Statutes, as a mandatory requirement so a spouse would know of any such attempt to waive the spouse's survivorship rights and benefits. It is an acknowledgement that the spouse has a vested or property right in such benefits, which must be knowingly and intelligently waived. The Statute says, in fact, that the spouse of any member "shall be notified of and shall acknowledge any such election." Therefore, obtaining a spouse's signature is not the only desired result set forth by the legislature (and under the rule adopted pursuant thereto) because it requires actual notification of the spouse, not merely the obtaining of a spouse's signature, whether genuine or forged. Actual notification is what must be accomplished. The required notification and indeed the obtaining of the Petitioner's signature was not accomplished in the facts of this case. In light of these facts, the act of declaring and accomplishing retired status, and selection of the related benefit option, was never completed. The Option selection was obviously a nullity and void ab initio because the mandatory condition precedent never was accomplished by the member.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the State of Florida, Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, awarding the Petitioner retirement benefits based upon her status as a surviving spouse and joint annuitant, in the manner described above, adjusted to reflect re-calculation and recoupment of overpayment based upon the amount of benefits already paid from the subject retirement account pursuant to Option 1. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of November, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of November, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth Regina Stevens, Esquire Department of Management Services Office of the General Counsel 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32327 T. A. Delegal, Esquire Delegal Law Offices, P.A. 424 East Monroe Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Sarabeth Snuggs, Director Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Post Office Box 9000 Tallahassee, Florida 32315-9000 John Brenneis, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue The issue in this matter is whether Petitioner is entitled to retroactive disability retirement benefits from June 1, 1999, through April 30, 2001.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was a bus driver employed by the Lee County School Board. He has a tenth-grade education and is of normal intelligence. Petitioner had worked for Lee County Schools for over eight years when he had a work related injury in March 1997. Upon settlement of his claim for workers' compensation, he resigned his position with Lee County Schools on June 22, 1999. On April 20, 2001, Petitioner, for the first time, sought information regarding disability retirement benefits from his personnel office and met with Griffin for that purpose. At that time, Petitioner had 8.33 years of creditable service. After meeting with Petitioner, Griffin sent an e-mail to Mark Sadler (Sadler), who at that time served as the Disability Administrator for the Division. During the e-mail exchange, in-line-of-duty disability benefits were not mentioned. Regular disability benefits under the FRS require that a member be "vested." In this case, that required a member, including Petitioner, to have ten years of creditable service (it has since been changed by the Legislature to six years). In-line-of-duty disability benefits, on the other hand, were available from the first day of employment. On August 1, 2001, Petitioner contacted the Division to inquire about benefits. As a result of the call, the Division sent a disability handbook and application to Petitioner on August 14, 2001. The disability handbook contains a description of all disability benefits available to members, as well as requirements for obtaining those benefits. On January 25, 2002, the Division received an application for in-line-of-duty disability benefits from Petitioner. After receiving and reviewing the relevant materials, the Division approved his application for benefits and added him to the retired payroll effective February 1, 2002. Shortly after being approved, Petitioner requested the Division to re-establish his effective date of retirement to April 1, 2001, based on the e-mail exchange between Griffin and Sadler. After reviewing Petitioner's file, the Division determined that he had attempted to apply on April 20, 2001, and accordingly re-established his effective retirement date as May 1, 2001, the first day of the following month. Shortly after the Division changed his effective retirement date to May 1, 2001, Petitioner then requested the Division to re-establish it as June 1, 1999, to correspond with his resignation. Howell again reviewed his file. Since there was no evidence of any earlier attempt to apply for benefits, the Division correctly determined that Petitioner's May 1, 2001, effective date was accurate. On July 23, 2003, the Division issued the Final Agency Action denying his request for a June 1, 1999, effective retirement date, and Petitioner timely appealed. According to the rules adopted by the Division, when a member applies for retirement benefits more than 30 days after his or her termination, the effective retirement date is established as the first day of the month following receipt of the application by the Division. The Lee County School System does not routinely provide termination or worker's compensation information to the Division, unless it is in connection with an application for benefits. Since Petitioner made no application for benefits, the Division was not aware that Petitioner's employment was terminated as of June 22, 1999, until the e-mail exchange in April 2001.
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 Petitioner's request for an effective retirement date of June 1, 1999. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM R. PFEIFFER 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 29th day of March, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: William C. Strickland 8230 Ebson Drive North Fort Myers, Florida 33917 Thomas E. Wright, Esquire Department of Management Services Division of Retirement 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Alberto Dominguez, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Sarabeth Snuggs, Interim Director Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560
