The Issue The issue in this cause concerns whether the death of the Petitioner's husband arose out of and in the actual performance of duty required by his employment with the Florida Department of Transportation during regularly- scheduled working hours or irregular working hours, as required by his employer, thereby entitling him to "in-line-of-duty" death benefits, as allowed for in subsection 121.091(7)(c)(1), Florida statutes.
Findings Of Fact After having considered the recommended Findings of Fact Nos. 1 through 13 on pages 4 through 9 of the Recommended Order attached hereto as EXHIBIT "A", together with all matters of record reduced to writing, or in tangible form, as of March 9, 1990, the Division of Retirement hereby accepts, adopts, and incorporates by reference herein the recommended Findings of Fact Nos. 1 through 13 on pages 4 through 9 of the Recommended Order as a part of this Final Order, and, therefore, it is, ORDERED AND DIRECTED that the recommended Findings of Fact Nos. 1 through 13 on pages 4 through 9 of the said Hearing Officer's Recommended Order be and the same are hereby adopted in toto as part of this Final Order of the agency in this cause. RULINGS ON RECOMMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW After having considered the recommended Conclusions of Law on pages 9 through 14 of the Recommended Order attached hereto, the Division of Retirement hereby rejects those Conclusions of Law on the whole in that they attempt to equate Workers' Compensation rules with "in-line-of-duty" disability and death provisions under Chapter 121, Florida Statutes. The law is otherwise as set out in the following Conclusions of Law that are hereby adopted in lieu of the Hearings Officer's recommendations. The following constitute the Conclusions of Law of this Final Order.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Respondent agency awarding the Petitioner, Patricia D. Koch, the in-line-of-duty death benefits provided for by subsection 121.091(7)(c)(1), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of March, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of March, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-3201 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-14. Accepted. Rejected, as constituting a conclusion of law. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected, as to the first sentence, since it is a conclusion of law; the second sentence being accepted. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted, but not materially dispositive. Rejected, as contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact. Rejected, as being a conclusion of law and not a proposed finding of fact, and as contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence, and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Aletta L. Shutes, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Esq. General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Ronald W. Brooks, Esq. Brooks and LeBoeuf, P.A. 863 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, FL 32301 Burton Michaels, Esq. Department of Administration Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center Building C 2639 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1560 =================================================================
The Issue Is Petitioner, Cheryl Walker, entitled to an Option Two retirement benefit from the account of the deceased member, Mary Fowler (Fowler), in the Florida Retirement System (FRS)?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: On January 8, 1975, Fowler began employment with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, Florida (Clerk) as an Administrative Secretary. On January 8, 1975, Fowler enrolled in the retirement plan (Plan) that was being offered by the Clerk for her position. Fowler made regular payments to the Plan and remained current until the Clerk offered the Plan as a benefit package and paid the premiums on behalf of his employees. Fowler purchased her previous years employment with the Neighborhood Service Center for retirement purposes. On September 29, 1997, Fowler, due to a serious health condition took a medical leave of absence and went on no-pay status. While on no-pay status Fowler's salary was reported for creditable service in the FRS and the Clerk's office paid Fowler's life and health insurance premiums except for certain supplemental health and life insurance premiums. On October 31, 1997, Dr. Greenberg advised Fowler that she was suffering from terminal lung cancer and prescribed certain pain medication. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Fowler was eligible for retirement with the FRS. After Fowler was diagnosed as having terminal cancer, Petitioner moved in with Fowler and Petitioner became her caretaker. Petitioner's testimony that she held a durable-family power of attorney for Fowler and made all business decisions for Fowler after she was diagnosed with terminal cancer lacks credibility based on Petitioner's own testimony and the testimony of Grace Burmeister (Burmeister) and Victoria Spence (Spence), both of whom worked with Fowler before her illness and consulted with Fowler during her illness concerning her retirement. Likewise, there is insufficient evidence to show that Fowler advised the Clerk's office that Petitioner held a durable-family power of attorney for her and that Petitioner would be taking care of Fowler's business and business affairs. Fowler was never declared incompetent, and there is no evidence that she was incompetent to handle her own business affairs, notwithstanding that she was taking treatment for the cancer and taking pain medication. Sometime around November 3, 1997, Fowler notified the Clerk's office that she was terminally ill and would not be returning to work. At this time, Fowler was eligible for retirement under the FRS. On November 18, 1997, Petitioner talked to Burmeister concerning Fowler making a change of beneficiary for FRS and for life insurance benefits. Certain information concerning the rights of joint annuitants and beneficiaries was provided to Fowler by letter dated November 19, 1997. On November 19, 1997, Burmeister, Spence, and Neva Merckle, from the Clerk's office visited Fowler at her home and provided Fowler with certain forms to be completed for her retirement. Among those forms was a form to facilitate the change of beneficiary which Fowler completed and signed on November 19, 1997, naming Petitioner as beneficiary for her retirement benefits. Also among the forms provided to Fowler by Burmeister on November 19, 1997, was an Application for Service Retirement (Application). The Application was not completed by Fowler on November 19, 1997, as she apparently had not decided on the exact date for her retirement. In fact, Fowler, according to Spence, did not appear be interested in retiring on November 19, 1997, but agreed to consider retiring. Also at the meeting with Fowler at her residence on November 19, 1997, both Burmeister and Spence advised Fowler, among other things, that her date of retirement would occur on the first day of the month following her date of termination and that should her death occur before her date of retirement then there were serious consequences as far as the beneficiary was concerned. One of those consequences was that since Fowler did not have a joint annuitant, no one would receive the monthly benefit, except for monies Fowler had contributed to her retirement in the FRS. Both Burmeister and Spence advised Fowler to move forward immediately to set her date of termination so that her date of retirement would occur on December 1, 1997. Apparently, the comment expressed by Petitioner that the Clerk's office was attempting to push Fowler out the door had some impact on her decision not to fill out the retirement application until later. By letter dated December 2, 1997, Fowler gave the Clerk formal notice of her intent to resign December 31, 1997, for the primary purpose of retirement effective January 1, 1998. Although Burmeister could not remember going to Fowler's home but on one occasion, which was November 19, 1997, Spence was very clear in her testimony that she and Burmeister went to Fowler's home on two occasions to discuss Fowler's retirement. Although Spence could not remember the exact dates of their visits, apparently, the date of the second visit was on December 3, 1997, when Fowler completed and signed the Application in the presence of Burmeister, who notarized the Application, notwithstanding Petitioner's testimony to the contrary, which lacks credibility in that regard. Fowler selected Option 2, whereby she would receive a slightly reduced benefit payable monthly for her lifetime. However, should Fowler die before receiving 120 monthly payments, her designated beneficiary, Cheryl Walker, would receive the monthly benefit until the total number of monthly benefits paid to Fowler and to Cheryl Walker equaled 120. Fowler, either through documents furnished to her by the Division concerning retirement or information furnished by Burmeister during her visits on November 19, 1997, and December 3, 1997, had available to her sufficient information concerning retirement in order to make an intelligent decision concerning, among other things, her date of termination, date of retirement, and her Options. The FRS received Fowler's Application on December 9, 1997. However, an attempt to change the date of termination to November 30, 1997, and thereby change the date of retirement to December 1, 1997, was rejected by the FRS in that the FRS did not recognize retroactive terminations. Even though the Clerk's office was paying certain life and health insurance premiums, there is no evidence that this influenced Fowler's decision on retirement. Fowler died on December 14, 1997, and was an active member of the FRS at that time. Therefore, her termination date was established as the date of her death. Fowler also changed her life insurance and deferred compensation documents to name Cheryl Walker as the primary beneficiary. There is no provision in the FRS, nor is the FRS funded to provide a "death benefit" for the beneficiary of an active member who dies before the active member's effective retirement date, unless the beneficiary is a spouse or dependent beneficiary of the deceased member. By letter dated January 29, 1998, the Division notified Petitioner that since Fowler died before her retirement date, the only benefit available to her was a refund of retirement contributions paid by Fowler in the amount of $3,811.98. The Division also advised Petitioner that in order to receive the refund she would need to complete an application for beneficiary refund. Petitioner completed and filed the beneficiary refund application with the Division in February 1998. A warrant in the amount of $3,811.98 was mailed to Petitioner, which she cashed on April 8, 1998. Subsequently, Petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the Division's position and this proceeding ensued.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Division of Retirement enter a final order finding Petitioner, Cheryl Walker not eligible for an Option 2 benefit from the account of Mary Fowler. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of October, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of October, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Pobjecky, Esquire Post Office Drawer 7323 Winter Haven, Florida 33883-7323 Larry D. Scott, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Erin Sjostrom, Director Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Monesia Taylor Brown, Acting General Counsel Division of Retirement Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Petitioner is entitled to retirement service credit for the time period in which he was not employed with the State of Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Management Services (DMS) is responsible for the administration of the Florida Retirement System (FRS) under Chapter 121, Florida Statutes. The Department of Transportation (DOT) is an agency of the State of Florida whose employees qualify for membership in FRS. Petitioner Richard L. Duley is an honorably discharged veteran. He began employment with DOT in 1991. At the same time, he became a member of FRS. Prior to 2001, then-Governor Jeb Bush directed state agencies to reduce their workforce by 25 percent over a five- year period beginning in 2001. The directive was known as the "Service First Initiative." In response to the Governor’s directive, DOT developed an Agency Organizational Efficiency Plan. On January 18, 2005, Petitioner was notified that his position was designated to be deleted under the Agency’s Organizational Efficiency Plan; his position was abolished on June 30, 2005. As a result, Petitioner was dismissed from state employment and was no longer receiving retirement service credit for FRS. However, Petitioner did not receive a clear point of entry to challenge either his termination or whether he was entitled to a veteran's preference by DOT. After his dismissal, Petitioner was hired by a private firm who had contracted with the State to perform the functions that Mr. Duley had previously provided as an employee of the state. The contract terminated in June or July of 2007, and was not renewed. As such, Mr. Duley became unemployed. On July 30, 2007, Petitioner filed a complaint with the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA) alleging that DOT had denied him veteran’s preference in retention during the 2005 layoff. The DVA found that Petitioner's complaint had merit. On November 19, 2007, Petitioner filed a complaint with the Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC), which held an evidentiary hearing on the complaint. PERC is the administrative body that has jurisdiction to determine issues and remedies under the veteran's preference statute. In its Final Order issued April 8, 2007, PERC found that Petitioner was an honorably discharged veteran and was entitled to preferential treatment in employment. PERC also found that DOT violated the veteran’s preference law by not affording Petitioner special consideration in finding alternative employment after the layoff. As a remedy for its violation of the veteran's preference law, PERC ordered DOT to make Petitioner an offer of employment to an existing position comparable to that which he held prior to his layoff. PERC also awarded Petitioner attorneys’ fees and costs. However, and most importantly, PERC did not reinstate Petitioner to his former position because it had been abolished. Similarly, PERC did not rescind Petitioner's termination. Finally, PERC did not award back pay or benefits to Petitioner. As a consequence of the Final Order, neither Petitioner nor DOT paid contributions towards the Retirement Systems Trust Fund for the period that Petitioner was not employed with the State. Additionally, Petitioner was offered and hired into a new position by DOT and again began to accrue retirement service credit in FRS when he was hired by DOT in May of 2008. The PERC Final Order was not appealed and became res judicata on the issues litigated therein. Therefore, since Petitioner's termination was not rescinded and Petitioner was not reinstated by PERC and did not pay contributions into FRS, he is not entitled to receive credit for the time he was not employed by the State and this action should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, enter a Final Order dismissing this action. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of December, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard L. Duley 5432 Pinderton Way Tallahassee, Florida 32317 Larry D. Scott, Esquire Department of Management Services Division of Retirement 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Kristin M. Klein, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 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
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the surviving spouse of Huldah C. Roach. At the time of her death, Mrs. Roach was a retired member of the Florida Retirement System, and was receiving retirement benefits pursuant to Chapter 121, Florida Statutes. The Respondent, Division of Retirement, sent Mrs. Roach her retirement benefits for the month of June, 1977, at the end of that month. The warrant for the retirement benefit was received by the Petitioner on or about June 30, 1977, and was deposited by him in the joint account which he had shared with Mrs. Roach. On June 8, 1977, Mrs. Roach died. By letter dated July 4, 1977, the Petitioner advised the Respondent of his wife's death. He also advised the Respondent that he was holding the benefit warrant, but in a telephone conversation on August 22, 1977, he advised the Respondent that the warrant had been deposited in the joint account. By letter dated August 24, 1977, the Respondent advised the Petitioner that Mrs. Roach was entitled to retirement benefits only up to the date of her death, and that $330.81 of the June payment thus represented an overpayment. The letter included a demand for repayment of the asserted overpayment. The Respondent made no effort to collect the asserted overpayment between August 24, 1977, and December 5, 1979, when the Respondent, through counsel, forwarded a demand letter to the Petitioner. The petitioner was not able to identify what expenses he paid from the June, 1977, retirement benefit. Mrs. Roach received retirement benefits in excess of her total contributions to the Florida Retirement System, and under the retirement option that she selected, she was entitled to no additional benefits after the day of her death. The Respondent has consistently interpreted provisions of the Florida Retirement Law as allowing payment of retirement benefits only through the date of a retiree's death.
The Issue The primary issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to receive an early retirement benefit pursuant to Sections 121.091(3)(b) and 121.091(7)(b), Florida Statutes, based on an effective retirement date of February 1, 1996.
Findings Of Fact Historical Facts When he passed away on January 26, 1996, at the age of 56, Roy Hoffman, Jr., was a fully vested participant in the Florida Retirement System ("FRS"), having worked as a professor at Florida Atlantic University for nearly 27 years. Professor Hoffman's named beneficiary and joint annuitant was his wife, Petitioner Jeanne Hoffman ("Hoffman"). As such, Hoffman became entitled, upon her husband's death, to receive a lifetime retirement benefit from the FRS. By letter dated March 8, 1996, Respondent Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement ("Division"), which administers the FRS, first notified Hoffman of her eligibility to receive a benefit. The letter provided in pertinent part as follows: As the designated beneficiary and joint annuitant, you are entitled to the Option 3 monthly retirement benefit. The Option 3 monthly benefit is payable for your lifetime and is estimated to be $1,812.58 effective February 1, 1996. To receive this benefit, you need to [submit an application and provide certain information.] If we may be of further assistance, please call us at (904)488-5207. After receiving this letter, Hoffman was uncertain about whether she should accept the benefit immediately or, alternatively, postpone the benefit commencement date until nearer her own retirement, so she called the Division for assistance. Following a telephone conversation with an FRS counselor, Hoffman was left with the impression that she would be better off waiting until she reached the age of 59.5 years to begin receiving the monthly benefit, for the benefit, she believed, would then be higher.1 The Division sent a second letter to Hoffman, which was dated April 26, 1996, and provided: Please refer to our letter dated March 8, 1996. Before we can finalize [your] account, we need [to receive] the following [items and information from you.] Hoffman did not respond to this letter. Four months later, the Division sent a third letter to Hoffman regarding her benefit eligibility. Dated August 28, 1996, this letter provided in relevant part as follows: We have not received a response from our letters dated March 8, 1996 and April 26, 1996. If we have not heard from you within thirty days of the date of this letter, the file will be placed on inactive status. It will then be your responsibility to contact us to apply for a monthly benefit. The benefit will be effective the first of the month following contact from you. By this "warning letter," the Division intended to communicate its decision that, unless Hoffman submitted an application for benefits on or before September 27, 1996, she would forfeit the right to receive an "early retirement-death benefit"2 based on an effective date of retirement ("EDR") closely tied to her husband's date of death and be deemed to have elected a "deferred monthly benefit"3 based on a post-mortem EDR tied to the Division's receipt of her application for benefits. (EDR is a critical date because that is when the benefit accrues. See § 121.021(41), Fla. Stat.4) The parties dispute whether, in fact, the warning letter reasonably notified Hoffman of the Division's decision; the issue will be taken up below. Hoffman did not take the warning letter to mean what the Division had intended to convey. Thus she had no idea that she was in jeopardy of forfeiting the right to an early retirement-death benefit. Further, she did not deliberately elect to forego receipt of an early retirement-death benefit in favor of a deferred monthly benefit. Rather, being unfamiliar with the details regarding benefits payable under the FRS, Hoffman believed that, without any present action on her part, the benefit to which she was entitled had begun upon her husband's death to accrue for her use and benefit and would continue to accumulate until she was ready to begin receiving the benefit in monthly installments. Consequently, Hoffman made no reply to the warning letter, and at some point after September 27, 1996, the Division placed her file on inactive status. For the next eight-and-a-half years, nothing relevant to this case occurred. Then, in January 2005, Hoffman met with a financial planner for advice concerning her retirement. She was 57 at the time and told the planner about the benefit she expected to receive in a couple of years as her late husband's joint annuitant. The financial planner recommended that she contact the Division straightaway. On January 31, 2005, Hoffman called the Division and was informed that, having failed to apply for an early retirement-death benefit by September 27, 1996, in accordance with the warning letter dated August 28, 1996, she had forfeited nine years' worth of retirement income, and that her only remaining option was to request a deferred monthly benefit based on an EDR of February 1, 2005, at the earliest. The Division followed this telephone conversation with a letter dated February 16, 2005, which made clear that the only benefit for which Hoffman could apply would commence no earlier than February 1, 2005. Being given no choice, Hoffman applied as instructed, with the result that the FRS began paying Hoffman approximately $2,011 per month, which it was continuing to do as of the final hearing. Thereafter, by letter dated March 1, 2005, Hoffman petitioned the Division to pay her a retirement benefit "retroactive" to February 1, 1996, the date which, had she applied for an early retirement-death benefit on or before September 27, 1996, would have been her husband's EDR, without controversy.5 The Division denied Hoffman's request, by letter dated March 15, 2005. Relying on Section 121.091, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 60S-4.0035, which will be examined below, the Division determined that it could not "pay benefits retroactive to 1996 because [Hoffman had] not compl[ied] with the Rule requiring that the application be filed timely." Hoffman requested a hearing on this determination, giving rise to DOAH Case No. 05-3200. Hoffman also petitioned the Division, pursuant to Section 120.542, Florida Statutes, to waive——or grant her a variance from——the provisions of Florida Administrative Code Rule 60S-4.0035(3)(c) upon which the Division intended to rely in rejecting her claim for an early retirement-death benefit. The Division denied Hoffman's petition for waiver or variance in an order dated August 15, 2005. Thereafter, Hoffman timely requested a hearing on the matter, which led to the commencement of DOAH Case No. 05-3679. Factual Analysis The parties sharply disagree about whether the Division reasonably notified Hoffman of the important decision (see paragraph 6, supra) that it made in late August 1996 respecting her eligibility to receive a benefit, which decision the Division intended to communicate to Hoffman via the warning letter. To recapitulate, the warning letter told Hoffman that if she failed to contact the Division by September 27, 1996, then (1) her file would become "inactive"; (2) it would be her responsibility to initiate further contact with the Division; and (3) her "benefit" would be "effective" starting the month after she contacted the Division. Yet, in fact, the Division had decided that if Hoffman did not contact the Division by September 27, 1996, then (1) she would forfeit the right to receive an early retirement-death benefit based on an EDR closely proximate to her husband's date of death; (2) the Division would treat her inaction as an affirmative election to receive a deferred monthly benefit; and (3) her benefit would be based on an EDR related to the Division's receipt of her application for benefits. It is striking, in reading the warning letter from the standpoint of a reasonable recipient, that no mention was made therein of the different types of benefits available to a surviving spouse, no explanation regarding the distinction between an early retirement-death benefit and a deferred monthly benefit was given, and no information concerning a beneficiary's right to elect the latter as an alternative to the former——much less why one might do so——was imparted. (The same can also be said of the two letters that preceded the warning letter.) It is striking, too, that neither the warning letter nor the two earlier ones mentioned EDR or its significance. Instead, the warning letter spoke of an effective date of "benefit," which, at least without more information than was contained in the letter, could be understood to refer to the date on which the benefit payments would commence as opposed to when benefits would start to accrue. The undersigned finds, therefore, that, as a matter of fact, the warning letter itself did not reasonably communicate that Hoffman was at risk of forfeiting the early retirement- death benefit and being deemed to have elected a deferred monthly benefit based on a future EDR to be determined. Put another way, although the warning letter clearly established a deadline (September 27, 1996) for making contact with the Division, its description of the consequences of letting the deadline pass without contacting the Division did not fairly match the consequences the Division actually had decided would follow such inaction. Of course, as the Division points out, the warning letter was not the only source of information about retirement benefits available to Hoffman. There were, in addition, the governing statutes and rules. Hoffman did not actually avail herself of these references, but, as the Division argues, she is presumed to know the contents of the applicable laws.6 Perhaps, armed with such knowledge, she would have——and hence should have——understood what the Division was trying to tell her in the warning letter. If Hoffman had consulted the relevant statutes, she would have learned that she was entitled to receive an early retirement benefit pursuant to Section 121.091(3), Florida Statutes, which provides as follows: EARLY RETIREMENT BENEFIT.--Upon retirement on his or her early retirement date, the member shall receive an immediate monthly benefit that shall begin to accrue on the first day of the month of the retirement date and be payable on the last day of that month and each month thereafter during his or her lifetime. Such benefit shall be calculated as follows: * * * (b) If the employment of a member is terminated by reason of death subsequent to the completion of 20 years of creditable service, the monthly benefit payable to the member's beneficiary shall be calculated in accordance with subsection (1), but shall be based on average monthly compensation and creditable service as of the date of death. The benefit so computed shall be reduced by five-twelfths of 1 percent for each complete month by which death precedes the normal retirement date specified above or the date on which the member would have attained 30 years of creditable service had he or she survived and continued his or her employment, whichever provides a higher benefit. There is no dispute that Hoffman was entitled to an early retirement benefit under Section 121.091(3)(b) when her husband's employment was terminated by reason of death after completing nearly 27 years of creditable service. The parties agree as well that, by the clear and unambiguous terms of the statute, the benefit would have been reduced by five percent per year for each of the approximately three years by which Professor Hoffman's death preceded the date on which he would have attained 30 years of creditable service. See also Fla. Admin. Code R. 60S-4.005(2)(c)(describing benefits payable upon early retirement brought about by death). If Hoffman had read Section 121.091(7)(b), Florida Statutes, she would have learned the following: If the employment of an active member who may or may not have applied for retirement is terminated by reason of his or her death subsequent to becoming vested and prior to his or her effective date of retirement, if established, it shall be assumed that the member retired as of the date of death in accordance with subsection (1) if eligible for normal retirement benefits, subsection (2) if eligible for benefits payable for dual normal retirement, or subsection (3) if eligible for early retirement benefits. Benefits payable to the designated beneficiary shall be as follows: 1. For a beneficiary who qualifies as a joint annuitant, the optional form of payment provided in accordance with [option 3] shall be paid for the joint annuitant's lifetime. Clearly, under the plain language of Section 121.091(7)(b), Hoffman was entitled to receive death benefits in the form of an early retirement benefit, for which latter her husband was eligible at the time of his death. As just mentioned, however, Professor Hoffman satisfied the conditions set forth in Section 121.091(3)(b) for an early retirement benefit, payable to his beneficiary, without reference to Section 121.091(7)(b). Moreover, because Professor Hoffman was, at the time of his death, closer to attaining 30 years' service than reaching age 62, Hoffman's early retirement benefit would be highest if calculated under Section 121.091(3)(b). Nevertheless, as Section 121.091(7)(b) is not inconsistent with Section 121.091(3)(b), there is no reason to treat them as mutually exclusive. Thus, bowing to the interrelatedness of these statutes——Section 121.091(3)(b)(early retirement benefits upon termination of employment by death) and Section 121.091(7)(b)(death benefits)——the undersigned has chosen to use the term "early retirement-death benefit" to refer to that benefit, available thereunder, which is based on an EDR in close proximity to the member's death. As an alternative to the early retirement-death benefit, Section 121.091(7) makes available to beneficiaries such as Hoffman another option, namely the "deferred monthly benefit." Had Hoffman studied the statute, she would have discovered that [t]he designated beneficiary who is the surviving spouse or other dependent of a member whose employment is terminated by death subsequent to becoming vested, but prior to actual retirement, may elect to receive a deferred monthly benefit as if the member had lived and had elected a deferred monthly benefit, as provided in paragraph (5)(b), calculated on the basis of the average final compensation and creditable service of the member at his or her death and the age the member would have attained on the commencement date of the deferred benefit elected by the beneficiary, paid in accordance with option 3 of paragraph (6)(a). § 121.091(7)(h); see also Fla. Admin. Code. R. 60S-4.008(2)(b). The deferred monthly benefit allows a surviving spouse to postpone the deceased member's EDR, thereby reducing or eliminating the early retirement penalty of five percent per annum for each year the EDR precedes the member's normal retirement date.7 Postponing the EDR would make sense, most obviously, when, because of the number of years between the member's date of death and his or her normal retirement date, the survivor's early retirement-death benefit would be substantially consumed by the penalty. Because Professor Hoffman met the criteria for an early retirement benefit under Section 121.091(3)(b), however, his wife's benefit was subject to a relatively light penalty. Thus, it is unlikely that Hoffman intentionally would have made an election under Section 121.091(7)(h) for a deferred monthly benefit, had she been aware of the statute. The Division has promulgated a rule that specifies how the EDR will be determined in certain circumstances. Rule 60S- 4.0035(3)(c) was available to inform Hoffman as follows: For a member who dies prior to an effective retirement date established pursuant to paragraph (a) or (b), the effective retirement date shall be the first day of the month following the month in which the member died, provided the joint annuitant makes timely application for benefits; or, for a deferred monthly benefit, the first day of the month following the month in which the Division receives the joint annuitant's application for benefits, or the first day of a later month specified by the joint annuitant. Significantly, the Division has not established by rule a method of determining whether an application is "timely" for purposes of Rule 60S-4.0035(3)(c). Rather, it determines timeliness on a case-by-case basis. Had Hoffman been aware of Rule 60S-4.0035(3)(c), she might have surmised, upon reading the warning letter, that the Division had decided that her application for benefits would be "timely," for purposes of the Rule, only if received on or before September 27, 1996. She might also have reasoned that if her application were untimely, then the applicable EDR might not be February 1, 1996 (i.e. the first day of the month following the month in which her husband had died). At that point, she might have concluded that unless her application were received by September 27, 1996, she would forfeit the early retirement- death benefit, as the Division would deem her delay an election to receive a deferred monthly benefit. Maybe Hoffman would have connected all these dots. The undersigned finds, however, as a matter of fact, that a reasonable person could not have figured out what the Division had decided and what it intended to do, even if armed with the statutes and rules, because ascertaining the true nature of the Division's determination entails more analytical, indeed legal, reasoning than an ordinary layperson should be expected to employ. In fact, it is determined, the warning letter was inadequate to put even a well-informed person, cognizant of the applicable laws, on notice of the Division's decision regarding Hoffman's potential forfeiture of the early-retirement death benefit and "deemed election" of the deferred monthly benefit. While the warning letter was deficient in that it failed reasonably to tell Hoffman what the Division actually had determined with regard to her substantial interests, it was defective in yet another consequential way: the warning letter failed to notify Hoffman of her right to request a hearing to determine the substantial interests affected by the Division's establishment of an application deadline and the consequences of noncompliance therewith. The warning letter, in other words, did not afford Hoffman a clear point of entry into an adversarial proceeding, where the Division would be required to substantiate its determination with competent substantial evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division enter a final order determining that Hoffman shall receive an early retirement-death benefit based on an EDR of February 1, 1996, and establishing the form in which Hoffman shall be paid the benefits that have accrued, but not been paid, from the EDR to the present, as well as the benefit going forward.10 In the event that one or more factual disputes arise over the amount of the unpaid accrued benefits or the method of paying them, the amount or form of the benefit going forward, or some combination of these, then Hoffman should be afforded the right to request a hearing to determine the disputed issue(s).11 DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of January, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of January, 2006.
Findings Of Fact Leroy Jenkins was an employee of Dade County and a member of Florida Retirement System with 12.41 years of service credit. Jenkins is 57 years old, married, and has two grown children living at home with he and his wife. Jenkins completed the second grade and can read and write. Jenkins' work experience is limited to heavy manual labor. In August, 1974 Jenkins was determined to have diabetes millitus, a condition which increases the likelihood of cardiovascular disease and heart attacks. On November 7, 1974 Jenkins suffered a myocardial infarction or heart attack. Subsequent to the initial attack, some blood clots which had formed blocked a cerebral blood vessel causing a cerebral vascular accident or stroke. This resulted in a pronounced speech impediment and tremors. Because of his heart attack and subsequent stroke, Jenkins was hospitalized for 14 days. Since that time he has remained under the care of his physician for diabetes mellitis and angina pectoris, symptoms of which he subsequently developed. Jenkins takes Diabinese, 250 mg., for his diabetes which is controlled at this time. Jenkins also takes nitroglycerin for his angina pains which he suffers when he is under physical or mental stress or anxiety. Jenkins cannot perform any hard work and his physician would limit him to light work. His physician would not recommend a night watchman's job because of the constant stress and strain. Jenkins has difficulty cleaning his house, mowing his lawn, or walking around the block. He must often stop his activity to sit down and rest. He must sometimes take nitroglycerin tablets to relieve the shortness of breath he experiences. Section 121.091(4) F.S. provides that a member who has completed five years of credible service is entitled to disability benefits if the member can no longer render useful and efficient service by virtue of a medically determinable physical impairment. Considering the expert testimony presented in Dr. Sisodia's deposition, and the member's testimony, the Hearing Officer finds that: The member has a severely debilitating physical impairment resulting from his heart attack, subsequent stroke, and angina pectoris; Jenkins has more than 5 years of creditable service as a member of Florida Retirement System; and In light of his limited education and vocational experience Jenkins can no longer render useful and efficient service.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the application of Leroy Jenkins for disability retirement be approved with benefits payable retroactive to the date of his application. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of May, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Marilyn Nelson, the surviving spouse of Melton Nelson, is entitled to in-the-line-of-duty death benefits.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Marilyn Nelson, is the surviving spouse of Melton Nelson, who died on May 7, 1998. Petitioner and Melton Nelson had been married since June 15, 1997. At the time of his death, Mr. Nelson was employed by Nassau County as the Assistant Road and Bridge Superintendent. He had been so employed for about 3 years. Donald B. Twiggs, M.D., was Mr. Nelson's treating physician. Dr. Twiggs, completed Mr. Nelson's Death Certificate, which states that Mr. Nelson died from cardiopulmonary arrest and coronary artery disease. There was no autopsy to determine the cause of death. During the course of his employment, Mr. Nelson was absent due to colds and other minor illnesses. His absences were not excessive and he had not complained either to his supervisor or to the personnel office of stress on the job. Further, Mr. Nelson did not advise his employer that his job was affecting his health or request accommodations based upon his physical condition. Marilyn Nelson was not aware that Mr. Nelson had heart problems. Mr. Nelson was being treated by Dr. Twiggs for adult onset diabetes, hypertension, and anxiety. As Assistant Road and Bridge Superintendent, Mr. Nelson's job was demanding and he often was on call due to road and bridge repairs. He supervised and assigned crews, but was not required customarily to do physically demanding work. Mr. Nelson was a "laid-back" supervisor who did not confront or correct his staff. He had the backing of management to discipline his subordinates. The employer was satisfied with Mr. Nelson's work performance. There were no confrontations or arguments between Mr. Nelson and his supervisor, and he was never "dressed-down" or threatened with loss of his job. Mr. Nelson reported to work about 7:00 a.m. on May 7, 1998. After a brief conversation with fellow workers and some of his subordinates, he walked back to his truck and collapsed. William Johnson, one of his subordinates, observed that Mr. Nelson "did not look good" and was "kinda red in the face." However, there had been no altercation, argument or confrontation, and Mr. Nelson did not appear upset. The Respondent denied Marilyn Nelson's application for in-line-of-duty (ILOD) death benefits, advising that, although Mr. Nelson suffered a heart attack while on the job, which resulted in his death, the heart attack was not caused by any job-related accident or injury. Marilyn Nelson's claim for death benefits was also denied by Workers' Compensation, which found that the injury was personal in nature and not job related. Marilyn Nelson presented no expert medical testimony to support her claim that Mr. Nelson's death arose out of the performance of his job duties.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement holding that Petitioner's application for ILOD death benefits from the account of her late husband, Melton Nelson be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of August, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of August, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Emily Moore, Esquire Division of Retirement Cedar Executive Center, Building D 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Gary Baker, Esquire Post Office Box 1177 Callahan, Florida 32011 Ron Poppell, Interim Director Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Bruce Hoffmann, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether Petitioner is entitled to receive benefits under the retirement plan of his deceased mother, Violet Portee, pursuant to the Florida Retirement System, Chapter 121, Florida Statutes. 1/
Findings Of Fact Violet Portee was employed by Jackson Memorial Hospital ("Jackson") in Dade County, Florida, as a ward clerk from 1970 through October 3, 1990. Mrs. Portee retired from her employment at Jackson effective December 1, 1990. 4/ Mrs. Portee was a member of the Florida Retirement System. Petitioner is the son of Mrs. Portee and Mrs. Portee's closest surviving relative. Mrs. Portee was diagnosed with terminal, gastric cancer sometime in August, 1990. Petitioner first learned of his mother's condition from the attending physician when Petitioner visited his mother in the hospital. Mrs. Portee was admitted to the hospital for approximately one week on three separate occasions between August, 1990, and December, 1990. She began taking medications for pain in November, 1990. Her pain medication included Percodan, Tylenol 3 with codeine, Demerol, and morphine. Mrs. Portee went on sick and annual leave, and eventually went on leave without pay. Mrs. Portee executed a power of attorney in favor of her son on October 25, 1990. On November 14, 1990, Mrs. Portee met for approximately an hour and a half with Luis Gonzalez, a compensation specialist in the Jackson Human Resources Division. One of Mr. Gonzalez's primary functions is counseling employees on retirement matters. Mrs. Portee completed a request for estimate of her retirement benefits ("FRS Form FR-9") and her application for retirement ("FRS Form FR-11"). A retiree may select one of four options for retirement benefits on the FRS Form FR-11. Mrs. Portee selected Option 1 on her Application For Service Retirement, Form FR-11. Option 1, Member Benefit Only, provides maximum monthly benefits for the retiree during his or her lifetime but provides no benefit for survivors of the retiree. Option 2, Ten Years Certain, provides benefits to the retiree during the retiree's lifetime and, in the event of the retiree's death within 10 years of the date of retirement, the same monthly amount is paid to the retiree's beneficiary for the balance of the 10 year period. The monthly benefit to the retiree under Option 2 is paid at an actuarial rate that is less than that paid under Option 1. Options 3 and 4 provide benefits to joint annuitants. 5/ Sometime before November 28 or 29, 1990, Petitioner and Mr. Gonzalez discussed the retirement status of Mrs. Portee. Petitioner asked Mr. Gonzalez for instructions on how to change the option selected by Mrs. Portee on her Application For Service Retirement, Form FR-11, from Option 1 to Option 2. Mr. Gonzalez explained that Mrs. Portee's selection of options could be changed in one of two ways. First, Mrs. Portee could come into Mr. Gonzalez's office, execute a new Form FR-11, and select Option 2. Second, Mrs. Portee could return the first retirement benefit warrant uncashed to the Division of Retirement and write on the warrant that she wished to change the benefits option from Option 1 to Option 2. Mrs. Portee was too ill to return to Mr. Gonzalez's office to execute a new retirement option. Petitioner decided to wait and return the first benefit warrant uncashed and request a change in the options selected. The first benefit warrant was dated December 31, 1990, Warrant No. 0580615. Mrs. Portee died on December 6, 1990, before receiving the first benefit warrant. The first benefit warrant was neither cashed nor returned to the Division of Retirement with written instructions to change the selection of benefit from Option 1 to Option 2. During his conversations with Mr. Gonzalez, Petitioner disclosed neither the seriousness of Mrs. Portee's medical condition nor that Petitioner had power of attorney for Mrs. Portee. If Mr. Gonzalez had known either fact, he would have proceeded more expeditiously to change Mrs. Portee's selection of Option 1 to Option 2. Petitioner and Mr. Gonzalez next spoke on December 8, 1990. Petitioner had telephoned Mr. Gonzalez on December 6, 1990, but Mr. Gonzalez was not in. When Mr. Gonzalez returned Petitioner's telephone call on December 8, 1990, Petitioner informed Mr. Gonzalez that Mrs. Portee had died two days earlier. A meeting between the two men was set for December 18, 1990. At the meeting on December 18, 1990, Petitioner inquired about changing his mother's retirement benefits from Option 1 to Option 2. Mr. Gonzalez telephoned the Division of Retirement in Tallahassee, Florida, and was advised that Mrs. Portee's retirement benefits option selection could not be changed after her death. A final meeting was conducted on December 24, 1990, between Petitioner, Mr. Gonzalez, and Mr. Brian Derer, a benefits specialist with Jackson. Petitioner had come into the office to complete certain documents concerning Mrs. Portee's life insurance. During this meeting, Petitioner informed Mr. Gonzalez and Mr. Derer for the first time that Petitioner had power of attorney from Mrs. Portee. Mr. Gonzalez informed Petitioner that there was nothing he could do to change Mrs. Portee's option selection after her death. Mr. Gonzalez explained that he was an employee of Jackson and that neither he nor Jackson was an agency of the Division of Retirement or the Florida Retirement System. Petitioner contacted the Division of Retirement on January 14, 1991, for assistance. Petitioner was advised by Stanley Colvin to write to the Division of Retirement. In response to Petitioner's written request, the Division of Retirement advised Petitioner that the only benefit to be paid was a return of contributions to the retirement plan.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent should enter a final order awarding Petitioner those benefits that are most favorable to Petitioner pursuant to Sections 121.091(6), (7)(b), and (8), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of July, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of July, 1991.
The Issue The ultimate issue to be resolved in this proceeding is whether the Petitioner is eligible to receive in-line-of-duty death benefits in accordance with Section 121.091(7)(c), Florida Statutes. Petitioner contends that her husband was a member of the Florida Retirement System and that his death arose out of the performance of duties required by his employment. Petitioner specifically contends that her husband suffered a fatal myocardial infarction, or heart attack, as a result of physically and emotionally stressful duties that he was required to perform at work. The Respondent contends that there is no causal connection between any stressful work conditions that existed and the death of Petitioner's husband.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the widow of Nicholas Orlando. The deceased Nicholas Orlando was employed at the time of his death by the Broward County Board of County Commissioners as a maintenance supervisor at the County's sanitary landfill. The deceased was an excellent employee. He was charged with responsibilities for maintaining heavy equipment that was required to process trash at the landfill. He served as a "working supervisor." Generally, his job would require that he explain tasks that needed to be accomplished to mechanics and laborers who worked under him. If the job demanded it, the deceased would perform labor along with the men that he supervised. He was a member of the Florida Retirement System. During the week preceding March 6, 1980, the deceased was confronted with a heavy and difficult workload. There were ongoing maintenance problems with a tire shredding machine, and the chain and track on a large bulldozer needed to be changed. The maintenance personnel had not previously been called upon to change the chains on this large bulldozer, and they did not have the proper tools. Removing the old chain turned out to be a very physically demanding task. The Respondent, together with his workers, had to use a heavy sledgehammer to remove pins from the chain and welding equipment to remove bolts. The decedent worked along with his crew in removing the chain. The decedent suffered symptoms of a cold in the days prior to March 6, 1980. He had a cough. He stayed home from work on March 5, 1980, because of these symptoms. He returned to work on March 6 and put in a full workday. The evidence is inconclusive as to what specific duties the decedent performed on March 6. It is not clear from the evidence whether the difficulties with the bulldozer chain occurred on that day or a week earlier. It does appear that the decedent worked hard on March 6. When he arrived home, his wife observed him as being dirtier than he had ever been and extremely tired. The decedent arrived home from work at approximately 4:45 p.m. on March 6, 1980. In addition to being dirty and tired, he was feeling ill. He was not interested in eating. He became more ill; and late that night, he was taken to the emergency room at Plantation General Hospital in Plantation, Florida. He was admitted to the hospital shortly before midnight. Doctors at the hospital diagnosed the decedent as having suffered an acute myocardial infarction. It was determined that he was suffering from a coronary arteriosclerotic heart disease. His condition continued to deteriorate while he was in the hospital, and he died on March 9, 1980. Death resulted from the myocardial infarction. Many factors can bring on coronary artery diseases. The conditions can be inherited and can result from smoking, diabetes, and hypertension. The decedent was a smoker, and he suffered from diabetes. Myocardial infarction can be brought about as a result of heavy physical activity or emotional strain. If a person is suffering from a heart disease, any activities which markedly increase the heart rate can result in infarction. While it is possible that the decedent's myocardial infarction was brought about by strenuous physical activity at his job, the evidence is insufficient to support a finding of fact to that effect. The fact that the decedent was a smoker and a diabetic could have brought on the infarction if the decedent had been sedentary. While the evidence does support a finding that the decedent was working hard in the days prior to his death, a conclusion that the hard work resulted in his death can rest only on speculation. The evidence does not establish it.
The Issue The central issue is whether the Petitioner is entitled to modify her deceased husband's retirement benefit option.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following findings of fact. Petitioner is the surviving spouse of Lamar W. Whaley, Jr., deceased. From 1972 to 1990, Mr. Whaley was employed by the Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners (Board) and as such was a member of the Florida Retirement System. Mr. Whaley retired from his position as a minibus driver with the Board on June 29, 1990. In anticipation of his retirement, Mr. Whaley filed an FR-9 Form with the Division of Retirement (Division). The FR-9 Form, entitled "Request for Audit," was signed by Mr. Whaley and dated November 6, 1989. The FR-9 Form is used by members of the Florida Retirement System who want estimates of the monthly payments which they will receive after they retire. The FR-9 Form provided a space where Mr. Whaley could list the name and birthdate of a joint annuitant. On the FR-9 Form, Mr. Whaley named the Petitioner and the Petitioner's birthdate in these spaces. On the line immediately after the spaces provided for name and birthdate of the joint annuitant, the FR-9 expressly states that "This is not an official beneficiary designation." By listing a joint annuitant and that individual's birthday on the FR-9 Form, the Division is able to calculate the monthly benefits that would be payable to a member under each of the four retirement options available. In response to Mr. Whaley's audit request, the Division calculated the amount of the monthly payments he and/or his survivor would receive under the four retirement options available. On or about November 22, 1989, the Division sent Mr. Whaley information which reflected an estimate of the monthly benefits he and/or his survivor would receive under each of the four retirement options from which he was eligible to select. Included with the estimate of retirement benefits sent to Mr. Whaley, was a document entitled, "What Retirement Option Should I Choose?". This information sheet listed sent to Mr. Whaley listed and described the four different options. In 1990, members of the Retirement System contemplating retirement were provided a Division Form FR-11, Florida Retirement System Application for Service Retirement (Application). The application listed the four different options and provided a brief description of each. Next to Option 1 was the following: "Benefit for the Member Only." A further notation on the application read, "SEE THE REVERSE SIDE FOR AN EXPLANATION OF THESE OPTIONS." The Application adequately described the consequences of the election of each option. The explanation read as follows: Option 1: A monthly benefit payable to you for your lifetime. This option does not provide continuing benefit to a beneficiary. Upon your death, the monthly benefit will stop and you beneficiary will receive only a refund of any contributions you paid which are in excess of the amount you received in benefits. If you wish to provide a beneficiary with a continued monthly benefit after your death, you should consider selecting one of the other three options. The option 1 benefit is the maximum form of lifetime payment and all other optional payments are derived by applying actuarial factors to the option 1 benefit. Option 2: A reduced monthly benefit payable to you for your lifetime. If you die before receiving 120 monthly benefit payments, your designated beneficiary will receive a monthly benefit payment in the same amount as you were receiving until the total monthly benefit payments to both you and your beneficiary equal 120 monthly payments. No further benefits are then payable. Option 3: A reduced monthly benefit payable to you for your lifetime. Upon your death, your joint annuitant (spouse or financial dependent), if living, will receive a lifetime monthly benefit payment in the same amount as you were receiving. No further benefits are payable after both you and your joint annuitant are deceased. Option 4: An adjusted monthly benefit payable to you while both you and your joint annuitant (spouse or financial dependent) are living. Upon the death of either you or your joint annuitant, the monthly benefit payable to the survivor is reduced to two- thirds of the monthly benefit you were receiving when both were living. No further benefits are payable after both you and your joint annuitant are deceased. (Emphasis in original text.) On January 12, 1990, Mr. Whaley executed an Application. The Application listed the Petitioner as beneficiary and indicated that the retirement option selected was Option 1. In selecting Option 1, Mr. Whaley rejected all other options. The fact that Petitioner was listed on the application as a beneficiary is of no consequence given that Mr. Whaley chose Option 1. An explanation on the back of the retirement application expressly states, "This option does not provide continuing benefit to a beneficiary." Because Mr. Whaley chose Option 1, Petitioner, as his beneficiary, would have been entitled only to a refund of Mr. Whaley's contributions in the event that Mr. Whaley's contribution exceeded the amount of monthly benefits paid to him before prior to his death. Petitioner did not assert, nor did the evidence establish that the refund provision in Option 1 applies in the instant case. Petitioner stated that Mr. Whaley could read and was not mentally impaired at the time he completed the retirement application, yet Petitioner testified that the agency did not explain to Mr. Whaley the benefits of the plan which he selected. According to the testimony of Stanley Colvin, administrator and supervisor of the Division's Survivor Benefits Section, staff members are available to provide counseling to members who come in or call with questions relative to their retirement. There is no record that Mr. Whaley ever contacted the Division with questions regarding the various options. The pastor of the church which Petitioner is a member testified that Mr. Whaley may have needed help to understand the ramifications of legal documents. Mr. Whaley's daughter also testified that her father may not have understood the retirement option he chose. Both the pastor and Mr. Whaley's daughter testified further that in conversations with Mr. Whaley, he had indicated to them that he had taken care of the legal work necessary to ensure that his was family was taken care of in the event of his death. Notwithstanding the testimony of Petitioner and others, there is no evidence that at the time Mr. Whaley selected Option 1 he did not fully understand the nature and effect of his selection. Neither does the evidence support the claim that the selection of Option 1 by Mr. Whaley was inconsistent with his desire or intention at the time the choice was made. At the time of Mr. Whaley's retirement, he was in good health. Given this fact it is not unusual that he selected the option that would provide him with the maximum monthly benefit. Statements by Mr. Whaley that he had taken care of matters and that "things were in order" do not provide substantial evidence that the selection of Option 1 by Mr. Whaley was made only because he did not fully understand the consequences of his choice. The testimony revealed that upon Mr. Whaley's death, the Petitioner was the beneficiary of his life insurance policy and also the recipient of benefits under his social security. Under these circumstances, Mr. Whaley's selection of Option 1 was not necessarily inconsistent with his statement that things "were in order" or his listing Petitioner as beneficiary on the Application. On several documents provided to and/or completed by Mr. Whaley, it was clearly stated that once a member begins to receive his benefit, the option selection cannot be changed. The information sheet, "What Retirement Option Should You Choose?," mailed to Mr. Whaley on or about November 22, 1989, contained the following provision: Option Choice Cannot Be Changed Once you begin to receive your benefit your option selection cannot be changed. Therefore, it is important to carefully study your personal circumstances before making your decision . . . . The Application submitted to the Division by Mr. Whaley on or about January 25, 1990, contained a statement that "[o]nce you retire, you cannot add additional service nor change options." Finally, the Acknowledgment of Retirement Application sent to Mr. Whaley by the Division on or about February 8, 1990, provided in relevant part the following: ONCE YOU RETIRE, YOU CANNOT ADD ADDITIONAL SERVICE OR CHANGE OPTIONS. RETIREMENT BECOMES FINAL WHEN ANY BENEFIT CHECK IS CASHED OR DEPOSITED! Mr. Whaley received his first retirement check on or about the last working day in July 1990. Petitioner testified that Mr. Whaley cashed this check in July or August of that same year. By cashing that check, Mr. Whaley was precluded from thereafter changing his retirement option. By selecting Option 1, Mr. Whaley received the maximum benefits payable to him during his lifetime. However, under the provisions of retirement Option 1, upon Mr. Whaley's death, his beneficiary, the Petitioner is not entitled to receive any benefits.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Division of Retirement enter a final order denying the request of Petitioner to modify the retirement benefits elected by Mr. Whaley, the deceased husband of Petitioner. RECOMMENDED this 1st day of August, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of August, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-0059 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1a-1c. Rejected as not being supported by competent and substantial evidence. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1-6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7-8. Accepted. 9-11. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Gladys Whaley 3807 East Norfolk Street Tampa, Florida 33604 Robert B.Button, Esquire Division of Retirement Legal Office Cedars Executive Center-Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee Florida 32399-1560 A. J. McMullian, III, Director Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Paul A. Rowell, Esquire General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 265 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
