The Issue Whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of physical handicap.
Findings Of Fact Brettell was hired by Morse in January 1998 as a licensed practical nurse. Sometime after she began working for Morse, she sustained a work-related injury. No evidence was presented to establish exactly what the injury was. Brettell claims that she was discriminated against based on a handicap, but very little evidence was presented concerning any handicap that she may have. She presented two Notices of Action/Change forms issued by the Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security, Division of Workers' Compensation, related to Brettell and issued on February 18 and April 4, 1999. The Notice of Action/Change issued on February 18, 1999, stated: Employee was placed at maximum medical improvement with a 6% permanent impairment rate effective 01/16/99. Impairment income benefits of $192.80 per week for 18 weeks, effective 01/016/99. The April 4, 1999, Notice of Action/Change, stated, "Stopping impairment income benefits. Claimant was put on temporary partial disability as of 3/15/99." Neither Notice of Action/Change indicated the nature of the impairment. At the final hearing in response to Morse's Motion to Dismiss, Brettell made the following statement: [I]t does limit me on a daily basis. I have been complaining since Day 1 almost that I am losing feeling in my hands and my arms and my fingers. I'm having problems with my knee, making it difficult for me to walk. I have cervical spine problems. Brettell did not establish that she had a disability or a handicap. On April 23, 1999, Brettell was to work as a Medication Treatment Nurse. The job duties of a Medication Treatment Nurse include pushing a medication cart and dispensing medications to the residents. When Brettell learned that she was to push the medications cart and give medications on April 23, 1999, she spoke to Leonie Whorms (Whorms), who supervised Brettell at various times, and told Whorms that it was her understanding that she had been placed on light duty and was not supposed to push the medications cart. Whorms told Brettell that she had a doctor's statement dated February 19, 1999, from Dr. Russo, one of Brettell's treating physicians, stating that Brettell could push the medications cart and pass out medications. Brettell asked for a copy of the doctor's statement, which Ms. Whorms provided. Brettell agreed the statement indicated that she could push the medication cart and dispense medications. Brettell told Whorms that she had discharged Dr. Russo within the last month and that she had a new physician, Dr. Linder. Whorms informed Brettell that she would need a notification from Dr. Linder regarding any limitations that Brettell may have. Brettell contacted Dr. Linder's office and had a report sent by facsimile transmission to Morse. Based on Whorms' understanding of the report from Dr. Linder, Brettell was not supposed to push the medication cart. After Dr. Linder's report was sent to Morse on April 23, 1999, Brettell was not required to push the medications cart. No evidence was presented to establish that between the time that Morse received the report from Dr. Russo and April 23, 1999, when the report from Dr. Linder was sent to Morse, that anyone at Morse knew Brettell had changed doctors and a new report had been issued. Brettell stated that Whorms was the only person who harrassed her on April 23, 1999. Whorms was not aware that a new doctor's report had been issued until she received Dr. Linder's report on April 23, 1999. Brettell testified that Whorms told her on April 23, 1999, that if Brettell wanted to do nothing that Morse could find her a job doing nothing. Whorms denies making the statement. Having judged the credibility of the witnesses, I find that Whorms did not make the alleged statement. Brettell claims that in November 1998, Whorms told her that if she was in so much pain that she should go on disability or retirement. Whorms claims that she told Brettell that if Brettell was in so much pain that Brettell should go to the nursing office and then clock off and go home. Having judged the credibility of the witnesses, I find that Whorms did not tell Brettell that she should go on disability or retirement. On May 5, 1999, Penny Martin (Martin), a Nursing Unit Coordinator at Morse, asked Brettell to participate in wound rounds, and Brettell agreed to do so. Wound rounds involve a medical team assessing wounds and determining treatment. The wound team, scheduled to arrive at 9:30 a.m., was late. Because the wound team was late, Brettell elected to take her break. Brettell left for her break at 9:40 a.m. While Brettell was on break, the wound team arrived to do rounds. Approximately five to ten minutes after 10:00 a.m., Brettell's supervisor, Terri Nichols (Nichols) asked where Brettell was since she was supposed to be on wound rounds. Martin told Nichols that Brettell had left for break at 9:40 a.m. and had not returned. Nichols had Brettell paged but got no response. Nichols went to look for Brettell and found her in the rose garden, where the page could not be heard. Nichols told Brettell that she was needed for wound rounds and that she was late coming back from her break. Brettell responded that she did not leave for break until 9:50 a.m. Nichols told Brettell that she was still late whether she left at 9:40 or 9:50 a.m. because she had exceeded her alloted 15-minute break. Brettell returned from her break at 10:17 a.m., taking a 37-minute break. After lunch on May 5, 1999, Nichols asked Brettell to come to Nichols' office to discuss the lengthy morning break. Brettell told Nichols that she would not go into Nichols' office alone to which Nichols replied that Whorms would also be in the office. Brettell sought to have a subordinate employee come into the office with her, and Nichols told Brettell that a subordinate employee could not accompany Brettell into the office for the conference. Brettell still would not enter the office and called a security guard. The security guard arrived. Nichols contacted Suzanne Richardson (Richardson), Vice President of Nursing Services at Morse, and Vicky Porter (Porter), Vice President of Human Resources at Morse. Richardson and Porter were in a meeting together when Richardson received the call. Nichols advised Richardson that she was having difficulty in having a conference with Brettell, because Brettell was refusing to come into her office. Nichols was advised to go to the Human Resources Department. Brettell, Nichols, and the security officer went to the Human Resources Department, where Porter asked Brettell to come into Porter's office to discuss why Brettell did not want to go into Nichols' office for a conference. Brettell refused to go into Porter's office unless the security guard accompanied her. Richardson and Porter told Brettell that the conference was not a security issue and the security officer would not be allowed in the conference. Porter explained that the Human Resources Department was supposed to be neutral ground where employees could voice their concerns and that the security officer needed to return to his assigned duties. Porter again asked Brettell to come into her office, but Brettell refused, stating that she would not go into an office in the Human Resources Department without a security guard. Having a security guard present was not an available option. Brettell asked for a few minutes to think about whether she was going to go into the office. Everyone agreed to give Brettell a few minutes to think about the situation. Brettell left the Human Resources Department and went to a nursing unit in the Edwards Building to call her attorney. Her attorney was on the telephone with another client, so Brettell had to hold the line and wait for her lawyer to become available to speak with her. Approximately 30 minutes passed, and Brettell had not returned to the Human Resources Department or notified either Richardson or Porter of her decision. Nichols went to look for Brettell and found her in the Edwards Building using the company telephone to call her attorney. Nichols told Brettell to come back to the Human Resources Department, but Nichols refused, stating that she was on the telephone holding for her lawyer. Nichols called Richardson and told her that Brettell was refusing to hang up the telephone and come back to the Human Resources Department. Richardson and Porter came to the Edwards Building. Richardson asked Brettell if she was on a break and whether the call was for company business or personal. Brettell responded that she was not on break and that the call to her attorney was personal. Richardson told Brettell to get off the telephone, because Brettell was not authorized to use the telephone at the nursing unit for personal calls when she was not on a break. Brettell did not hang up the telephone. Richardson went to Porter and told her that Brettell was still on the telephone. Porter went to Brettell and told her that is was inappropriate for her to be using the telephone and that she was to clock out and go home. Richardson recommended that Brettell be terminated for violation of the company's policies. Brettell was terminated for insubordination and using the company telephone for personal business when not on a break, and not because of any handicap or disability.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing Joyce Brittell's charge of discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of December, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 December, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Joyce Brettell 3743-4 Silver Lace Lane Boynton Beach, Florida 33436 Lynn G. Hawkins, Esquire Fitzgerald, Hawkins, Mayans & Cook, P.A. 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 900 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Dana A. Baird, General Counsel Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road, Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Sharon Moultry, Agency Clerk Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road, Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner properly issued a Stop-Work Order and Second Amended Penalty Assessment against Respondent for failing to obtain workers' compensation insurance that meets the requirements of chapter 440, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Division is a component of the Department of Financial Services. It is responsible for enforcing the workers' compensation coverage requirements pursuant to section 440.107, Florida Statutes. Children's Academy is a corporation operating child care centers in Miami, Florida. Children's Academy was incorporated in 1994 and has been operating with an active status since its inception. Patrick Adeleke ("Adeleke") is the sole shareholder and president of Children's Academy. Children's Academy has seven locations. Each of the seven day care centers has its own state license and occupational license. On October 5, 2011, Petitioner's investigator, Cheryl Powell ("Powell"), visited the Children's Academy location at 151 Northwest 162 Street, Miami, Florida. At the business site, Petitioner's investigator spoke to Laquisha Lewis ("Lewis") regarding the business. Lewis provided Powell a business card during the meeting that contained the seven day care centers under Children's Academy. Subsequently, Powell visited the headquarters. Adeleke was not at the business site when Powell visited the Children's Academy headquarters. The headquarters had a marquee that indicated it was Children's Academy Preschool, Incorporated. It had children, playground equipment, and was the same colors: red, yellow, and blue as the original business site Powell had visited earlier. Powell returned to the original business site and input information about Children's Academy into the Department of Financial Services' Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS). She found that Respondent lacked insurance for the payment of workers' compensation coverage. Powell discovered Children's Academy's last known coverage was canceled May 19, 2003. Additionally, Petitioner's investigator verified through the CCAS that no exemptions from workers' compensation had been issued in connection with Children's Academy. Eventually, Powell spoke to Adeleke by telephone. Adeleke informed Powell that he had 27 employees working for Children's Academy and that there was no workers' compensation insurance in place. Each of the 27 employees are employed by Children's Academy under one tax ID number. Two of the seven day care center locations (Children's Academy #1 and #3) have four or more employees and the other five day care center locations (Children's Academy #2, #4, #5, #6, and #7) have three or fewer employees. Upon confirmation that Respondent lacked workers' compensation coverage and that no exemptions were in effect, the Department issued Children's Academy a Stop-Work Order ("SWO") and served a Request of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation to Children's Academy ("Request"). On October 7, 2011, Respondent obtained a certificate of insurance for workers' compensation coverage. Respondent also responded to the Request and provided the Department with some of the requested records. These business records included corporate tax returns, quarterly federal tax returns, quarterly state employer's tax returns and payroll journals. The records were forwarded to Anita Proana, Penalty Auditor for the Division for review. The records listed one employer, Children's Academy, for all the business records supplied for each of the seven day care centers. All 27 employees were being paid under one corporation, with one federal employer ID number for Children's Academy. Additionally, the amounts on the payroll journals for the 27 employees matched the amount claimed as wages on the federal tax returns for Children's Academy. After Proano reviewed the records provided, she properly calculated the worker's compensation amount Children's Academy owed in workers compensation insurance for the period of October 6, 2008, through October 5, 2011, and concluded that Respondent failed to pay workers' compensation premium of $22,111.20. After the premium was multiplied by the statutory factor of 1.5, it resulted in a penalty assessment in the amount of $33,167.75. The new calculation superseded the Amended Order and a Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was issued on or about July 27, 2012, reducing Respondent's penalty to $33,167.75. During the hearing, Respondent admitted not having workers' compensation coverage for his employees but contested Children's Academy being a single employer. Instead, Respondent contested that the five preschools that had three or fewer employees owed any premium because each preschool was exempt.
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 affirming the Stop-Work Order and Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in the amount of $33,167.75 minus the payments made to date. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of September, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. McKINNEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of September, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Alexander Brick, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 alexander.brick@myfloridacfo.com Layne Verebay, Esquire Law Office of Layne Verebay, P.A. Building B, Suite 104 7800 West Oakland Park Boulevard Sunrise, Florida 33351 lverebay@aol.com Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Whether an employee who has retired on ordinary early retirement and cashed more than 30 retirement checks should be heard on a claim made some two years or more after he retired that he is entitled to disability retirement benefits?
Findings Of Fact On January 15, 1983, petitioner Tommy Gene Grantham left the Escambia County Sheriff's Department after more than 14 years as a deputy sheriff. Respondent gave petitioner notice on April 27, 1983, of its intention to deny his application for disability benefits, which he had made on grounds he was "unable to lift, stand, or perform any type of physical exertion." Respondent's Exhibit No. 7. Petitioner took appropriate steps to cause his application for disability benefits to be placed on the agenda of the State Retirement Commission for its December 13, 1983, meeting. On the following day, the Commission entered a final order dismissing cause, which had the effect of denying the application. Respondent received petitioner's application for service retirement on December 4, 1986. Petitioner made this application because he needed the money. He had only recently been released from the Pavilion, a mental ward at a hospital in Pensacola, where he had been confined in a padded cell from November 15 to December 1, 1966. On December 10, 1986, respondent acknowledged receipt of the application. Respondent's Exhibit No. 4. The form acknowledgment said, "[O]nce you retire you can not add additional service nor change options. Retirement becomes final when the first benefit check is cashed." Respondent's Exhibit No. 4. By the time of the hearing in this matter, respondent had cashed more than 30 monthly retirement checks. Nancy Grantham has been married to the petitioner for 15 1/2 years although, between September 5, 1986, and February of 1987, she and her husband were legally separated. Over the years, according to Mrs. Grantham, her husband has suffered from serious mental problems. It was she who took him to the Pavilion on November 15, 1986, when, she recalls, he was "talking crazy," anxious, depressed, and apparently suicidal. At no time has any court adjudicated the petitioner incompetent. The respondent's policy is to honor elections made by retirement system members, even members seeking disability retirement on psychiatric grounds, in the absence of an adjudication of incompetency.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That respondent dismiss petitioner's application for disability retirement benefits. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of November, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 21st day of November, 1989. APPENDIX With respect to petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1 and 6, the agency actions were not final at those times. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 2, 4 and 5 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 3, it is not clear when the application was mailed. COPIES FURNISHED: Tommy G. Grantham 2266 Berrydale Road Cantonment, FL 32533 William A. Frieder, Esquire Department of Administration Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 22399-1550
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 is whether Petitioner is eligible to receive disability income payments under the State Group Disability Income Self-insurance Plan (DISP).
Findings Of Fact On or about February 1, 2005, James S. Purdy, Public Defender for the Seventh Judicial Circuit, State of Florida, hired Petitioner as a "part-time" appellate attorney. Petitioner's duties included representing indigent criminal defendants on appeal. As a "part-time" attorney, Petitioner worked the same number of hours as full-time attorneys. His workload was equivalent to the workload carried by all part-time and full- time appellate attorneys. However, except to attend weekly staff meetings, Petitioner did not perform his duties at the Public Defender's Office. Petitioner and other "part-time" attorneys were free to work from home and/or to maintain a private law office. During Petitioner's employment with the Public Defender's Office, Craig S. Dyer, Deputy Public Defender, was in charge of personnel. James Wulchak, Chief of the Appellate Division, was Petitioner's direct supervisor. Petitioner has been under the continuous care of a physician for Parkinson's disease since his diagnosis in 1997. Parkinson’s disease is a neurological degenerative movement disorder for which there is no known cure. The disease's symptoms initially are responsive to medication but become less responsive over time as the disease progresses. Despite the slow progressive nature of Parkinson’s, Petitioner always was able to compensate for his disability by typing his briefs during the periods of time that his medications were effective in relieving his symptoms. Sometimes he worked before dawn, during the evening hours, or on weekends. Petitioner never informed Mr. Purdy, Mr. Dyer, or Mr. Wulchak that he was unable to perform his duties due to a physical disability. Petitioner never requested or advised his employer of a need for special accommodation to perform his assigned tasks. Petitioner continued to perform the duties required of him as an appellate attorney up through the last day of his employment. Petitioner's employer never contemplated dismissing Petitioner due to his inability to perform satisfactory work. In a meeting on March 25, 2008, Mr. Purdy requested Petitioner's resignation due to an incident unrelated to his disability. Petitioner responded that he needed time to ascertain the status of his insurance benefits. Several days later, Mr. Dyer placed a telephone call to Petitioner. Petitioner again refused to resign. On April 15, 2008, Petitioner attended a routine weekly staff meeting. After the staff meeting, Mr. Dyer and Mr. Wulchak had a private meeting with Petitioner. When Petitioner refused to tender his resignation, Mr. Dyer terminated Petitioner's employment effective immediately. But for the incident unrelated to Petitioner's physical condition, Petitioner's employer would have allowed him to continue to work after April 15, 2008. The next day, Petitioner met with representatives of the Public Defender's Office to surrender files. The Public Defender's Office denied Petitioner's request to be paid for work performed on April 16, 2008. As of April 15, 2008, Petitioner had accumulated 228 hours of annual leave and 242.59 hours of sick leave. Respondent paid Petitioner for 120 hours of annual leave, the maximum allowed. Petitioner did not receive payment for accumulated sick leave because he had not worked six years for the state. At all times relevant here, Petitioner's employment was classified as Select Exempt Service (SES). The DISP is one of the employment benefits that Respondent provides to SES employees under Florida Administrative Code Rules 60P-6 and 60P- The purpose of DISP is to provide employees who are on leave with income once their accumulated leave is depleted. In April 2008, Petitioner filed a claim for disability benefits with the Social Security Administration. On May 5, 2008, Petitioner filed a Notice of Intent to file a claim for benefits under the DISP. In the notice, Petitioner asserted that he was disabled as of April 15, 2008, the last day he was a paid employee. Within 90 days thereafter, Petitioner filed his completed claim for disability income payments under DISP. In a letter dated July 1, 2008, Respondent advised Petitioner that he was not eligible to receive DISP payments because he was no longer a state employee. A letter dated July 5, 2008, advised Petitioner that he would receive Social Security disability income in the amount of $2,060 per month commencing October 2008. Petitioner offered the deposition testimony of Richard Boehme, M.D. in lieu of testimony at hearing. Dr. Boehme, a board-certified neurologist, treated Petitioner several times in 2003 and again in January 2004. Thereafter, Dr. Boehme did not see Petitioner professionally until August 2008. Dr. Boehme's medical opinion was that Petitioner was totally disabled and unable to perform the duties pertaining to his employment as of January 1, 2008. Dr. Boehme's testimony is not persuasive in light of Petitioner's continued productivity up through April 15, 2008. Dr. Boehme did not place any specific limitations on the physical activities of Petitioner. According to Dr. Boehme, there was no medical reason to keep Petitioner from continuing to perform the same duties he performed on his last day at work. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that Petitioner was performing satisfactorily on April 15, 2008.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a final order finding that Petitioner is not entitled to DISP benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of November, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 13th day of November, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Sonja P. Mathews, Esquire Department of Management Services Office of the General Counsel 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Henry T. Swann, III Henry Swann, III Post Office Box 4415 St. Augustine, Florida 32085 Dennis Robert Schutt, Esquire Schutt, Schmidt & Noey 2700-C University Boulevard West Jacksonville, Florida 32217 John Brenneis, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue Prior to the hearing a short pre-hearing conference was held. It was stipulated to by the parties that Hadden was a member of the Florida Retirement System, had over 17 years of creditable service, and that Hadden could no longer perform the duties of an automotive mechanic because of his physical limitations. Hadden had applied for regular disability retirement benefits. The Division controverted Hadden's eligibility for such benefits on the basis that while Hadden could not perform the duties of an automotive mechanic that his physical condition did not prevent him from rendering useful and efficient service to the State in some other capacity calling for less strenuous activity.
Findings Of Fact Hadden is a white male, 51 years old, who worked as an automotive mechanic for Polk County for over 17 years. Hadden had had no formal schooling and can read and write very little. From Hadden's testimony and observations at the hearing regarding Identification of documents, it was apparent Hadden is functionally illiterate. Evidence was received that the former employer had indicated that there were no positions available for which Hadden was qualified. Hadden testified that he did do yard work at his home, mowing the lawn with a riding mower and weeding flower beds. However, Hadden indicated that if he became hot he would suffer pains in his chest and have to take his medication and lay down and rest for several hours. It appeared that even light physical work was beyond his capacity to perform on a regular continuing basis. Doctors' reports supporting Hadden's retirement application indicate that Hadden's physical condition will not improve and will probably worsen. Doctors restrict his activity to "mild" activity which is not strenuous or continuous. This would be consistent with Hadden's testimony regarding yard work. It should be noted that medical reports indicate that Hadden's heart condition is complicated by a nervous condition which restricts his ability to perform tedious manual work.
The Issue The issue in this case is who is entitled to payment of remaining retirement benefits due to James E. Brandon, deceased.
Findings Of Fact James E. Brandon was employed by the Hillsborough County Parks and Recreation Department and was a participant in the Florida Retirement System (FRS). Mr. Brandon had a long standing relationship with Dennis A. Barga. In February 1995, James E. Brandon applied for FRS disability benefits due to a medical condition. On the application for disability benefits, James E. Brandon designated Dennis A. Barga as his primary beneficiary. The application for disability benefits was approved in June 1995, with an effective retirement date of March 1, 1995. James E. Brandon elected to receive benefits under "Option 2" of the FRS, which provides for a lifetime benefit to the covered employee. Option 2 also provides that, if the covered employee does not survive for the ten years following retirement, payment is made to a designated beneficiary for the remainder of the ten year period. James E. Brandon died on August 28, 1995, of the condition which resulted in his disability. James E. Brandon did not personally receive any of his disability benefits. By letter dated September 29, 1995, the Division notified Mr. Barga that he was entitled to receive the remaining benefit payments for the ten year period. At the end of September, the Division sent two checks to the home of James E. Brandon. One check covered the initial benefits period from March 1995 through August 1995. The second check was for the September 1995 benefit. The checks were not returned to the Division and apparently were cashed or deposited. On October 10, 1995, the Division was notified by William Brandon that his brother, James E. Brandon, had completed a form amending his designation of beneficiary and that the form had been filed with the Division. The Division searched its files and located a form, FRS M-10, which was apparently filed on July 25, 1995, by James E. Brandon, and which amends his prior designation to identify sequential beneficiaries. The amended beneficiaries, in order, are William W. Brandon, III, Daniel A. Brandon, and Victoria Weaver Stevens. The Brandons are family members of the deceased. Ms. Stevens is a long-time family friend and was also employed by the Hillsborough County Parks and Recreation Department. FRS Form M-10 is the form adopted by the Division for use by a non-retired FRS participant in designating a beneficiary. Form M-10 does not require execution before a notary public. FRS Form FST-12 is the form adopted by the Division for use by a retired participant in designating a beneficiary. Form FST-12 requires execution before a notary public. The amendment of the beneficiaries should have been executed on a Form FST-12. The Form M-10, which was filed on July 25, 1995, was provided to James E. Brandon by the human resources office of the Hillsborough County Parks and Recreation Department. The form was obtained by Victoria Weaver Stevens apparently at the request of the deceased. The filing of the improper form was through no fault of James E. Brandon. The Petitioner suggests that the signature on the Form M-10 is a forgery. There is no credible evidence to support the assertion. The evidence establishes that the deceased sometimes included his middle initial in his signature, and other times did not. The Petitioner suggests that during the last weeks of the deceased's life, he was overmedicated, was often unaware of his surroundings, and was likely manipulated into changing the designated beneficiaries. There is no credible evidence that James E. Brandon was mentally incapacitated and unable to understand the import of his decisions at the time the amendment was filed with the Division.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Division of Retirement enter a Final Order dismissing the Petition of Dennis A. Barga. DONE AND ORDERED this 31st day of December, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _ WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of December, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: A. J. McMullian, III, Director Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Paul A. Rowell, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 David T. Weisbrod, Esquire 601 North Franklin Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Stanley N. Danek, Esquire Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Thomas Frost, Esquire 7901 Fourth Street North Suite 315 St. Petersburg, Florida 33702
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner timely filed his request for claim form requesting reimbursement for certain covered expenses under the Florida Flexible Benefits Program--Reimbursement Plan.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a member of the faculty of the University of South Florida. He participates in the Florida Flexible Benefits Program--Reimbursement Program (Program). The Plan allows participants to pay certain eligible medical or dependent day care expenses with pretax earnings. Each year, during an open enrollment period, an employee may elect to participate in the Program and select an amount of salary to be deducted from his or her pay. The amount of salary so deducted is not subject to federal income tax, but is available to reimburse the employee for covered expenses. In order for the Program to continue to enjoy preferential treatment under the federal income tax law, Respondent, which administers the Program, must adhere to certain rules. Most relevant to this case is that that the deducted salary must be at risk. Specifically, an employee is not entitled to a refund of all or part of the deduction if he or she does not timely submit sufficient reimbursable expenses to exhaust his or her account. The Program brochure clearly warns participants of this "use it or lose it" rule. The plan year for the Program is the calendar year. In 1997, Petitioner was a participant in the Program. He and his wife chose not to submit claims for covered expenses, as they paid them during the year. Instead, they accumulated the receipts with the intent of submitting a single claim for their account balance at the end of the plan year. The Program sets a claims filing deadline of April 15 for filing claims arising out of the expenses paid in the preceding calendar year. The Program brochure warns that this deadline means all claims for expenses incurred during a plan year must be postmarked by midnight, April 15 of the following year to be considered for processing. Any claims received after this date will be returned to the participant unprocessed, regardless of the account balances. Participants should file claims as soon as the required documentation is obtained. This case involves only one issue: whether Petitioner timely submitted his claims for reimbursement under the Program. There is no issue concerning Petitioner's payment of these expenses or his account balance. There is no issue whether these expenses are eligible for reimbursement. In early March 1998, Petitioner and his wife collected their receipts for covered expenses from 1997. Petitioner completed a reimbursement form and addressed the envelope to Respondent at the correct address. Wanting to make copies of the materials, Petitioner did not immediately mail the package to Respondent. A few days later, prior to copying the materials or mailing the package, Petitioner's father became ill in the Mideast, where he lives. Petitioner and his wife agreed that she would copy the materials and mail the package to Respondent. On March 21, which marks the birthday of Petitioner's wife and a cultural holiday for Petitioner and his wife, Petitioner's wife telephoned her husband, who was still visiting his sick father. In the ensuing discussion, Petitioner learned that she had not yet mailed the package. They discussed the matter and again agreed that she would copy the materials and mail the package without further delay. Without further delay, Petitioner's wife copied the materials and mailed the package to Respondent at the correct address. She placed the package with sufficient postage in a mailbox across from her home. The package consisted of a claims reimbursement form and receipts for eligible expenses. It appears that she may have written an old return address on the envelope. Respondent never received the package. Respondent's procedures are carefully designed and executed to ensure that it will not lose a claim form. Repeated searches for the missing form never uncovered it. The package was lost after its mailing by Petitioner's wife and prior to its delivery to Respondent. Possibly, the incorrect address precluded notification to Petitioner of problems with delivery. Possibly, the package was just lost. Unfortunately, Petitioner learned only after the April 15 deadline that Respondent had never received the package.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of State Group Insurance, enter a final order determining that Petitioner timely submitted the claim and eligible expenses that were the subject of this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of March, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 8th day of March, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul A. Rowell, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Thomas D. McGurk, Secretary Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Mohsen M. Milani 15927 Ellsworth Drive Tampa, Florida 33647 Julia Forrester Assistant General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Whether Respondent should grant Petitioner's request to change Petitioner's type of retirement from In-Line-Of-Duty (ILOD) disability retirement to regular service retirement, after he had made application for ILOD and received some of those benefits.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Ronald Hodge, was employed under the Florida Retirement System (FRS) for 31.34 years. On December 19, 1996, he filed the Application for In-Line-Of-Duty (ILOD) Disability Retirement, Form FR-13, with Respondent, Florida Division of Retirement. The Application for ILOD Disability Retirement was signed by Petitioner in the presence of a notary public. In the lines of text immediately before Petitioner's signature, the Application for ILOD Disability Retirement provides, in relevant part: . . . . I also understand that I cannot add additional service change options, or change my type of retirement (Regular, Disability, and Early) once my retirement becomes final. My retirement becomes final when any benefit payment is cashed or deposited. (emphasis added) See also Rule 60S-4.002(4), Florida Administrative Code. On February 19, 1997, Petitioner was accepted as permanently and totally disabled by the State of Florida and began receiving Workers' Compensation permanent total disability benefits for the same accident for which his ILOD disability benefits were accepted by the Division of Retirement. On April 25, 1997, the Division notified Petitioner that his application for ILOD disability benefits had been approved, but that since he also qualified for regular retirement benefits, he had several options available to him. With the letter of April 25, 1997, he was given four different estimates of retirement benefits. He was further advised to send his decision in writing. The letter of April 25, 1997, also advised Petitioner that "You have the option of choosing the type of retirement you wish to receive . . . . If you decide to change from disability to service retirement, complete the enclosed application for service retirement, Form FR-11 and return it also." No deadline for changing his service retirement was specified in the letter. At the time of the April 25, 1997, letter Petitioner had not received any retirement benefit payments. Petitioner responded to the Division's April 25, 1997, letter on May 4, 1997. Petitioner clarified that he had ". . . selected F.R.S. ILOD (In-Line-Of-Duty) disability benefit Option 2 . . ." His decision was based on the estimates of benefits enclosed in the Division's letter of April 25, 1997. In June 1997, Petitioner began to receive disability retirement benefits in the monthly amount of $1,850.33. In May 1997, in a case in which neither Petitioner nor Respondent was a party, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that ILOD disability retirement benefits paid to recipients of Workers' Compensation benefits could be used to offset/reduce Workers' Compensation benefits. Escambia County Sheriff's Department v. Grice, 692 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 1997). Importantly, Respondent was not aware at the time that it sent the estimates of benefits to Petitioner in April 1997, of the Supreme Court's decision in Escambia County Sheriff's Department v. Grice, 692 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 1997), in May 1, 1997. However, Respondent was aware of the decision before the election was made and before the first benefit was paid of prior decisions in Barragan v. City of Miami, 454 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 1989), and Brown v. S.S. Kresge Co., 305 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 1974), which limit the combination of such benefits to 100 percent of a claimant's average weekly wage. However, these decisions did not address the offset issue. Respondent never informed Petitioner of this potential reduction when advising him of the selection options. In September 1997, the State of Florida began to take an offset against Petitioner's Workers' Compensation benefits for his disability retirement benefits, thereby reducing the total amount of his Workers' Compensation benefits. If Petitioner had been receiving service retirement benefits, no offset against his Workers' Compensation benefits would have been taken. Based on the effect of the Grice, decision supra. Petitioner sought to change his type of retirement from ILOD disability retirement to regular service retirement. Petitioner's retirement benefit has never been reduced. Petitioner, subsequently filed Application for Service Retirement, Form FR-11, notarized on October 8, 1997, and by letter dated October 7, 1997, which advised that he " . . . had decided to change from disability to service retirement. " Petitioner's Application for Service Retirement was cancelled by Respondent on November 4, 1997, with notice to Petitioner that Respondent's records indicated that he was added to the June 1997 Retired Payroll under ILOD Electronic Fund Transfer (EFT) monthly benefit. Because benefit payments had been deposited, Petitioner's retirement was final. By letter dated December 8, 1997, Petitioner requested reconsideration by the Respondent of its decision to cancel his Application for Service Retirement and to deny his request to change his type of retirement. He stated that he was " . . . not receiving the benefits I was led to believe I would receive because of setoffs taken by the state of Florida on my Workers' Compensation benefits . . . ." He further stated he was misled in that the Division representative informed him that he could change from disability retirement to service retirement by just completing the Form FR-11. At best, the letter of April 25, 1997, is ambiguous as to when the election to change types of benefits could be made and as to whether this letter superseded the previous statement in the original application for ILOD benefits signed by Petitioner that stated he could not change his election of benefits once benefits had been paid. However, the ambiguity in the letter does not constitute a misrepresentation of fact by the Division. The letter simply did not address the issue. Moreover, Petitioner was aware of the language in Form FR-13 that benefit elections were final once benefits were received. Respondent has never reduced or offset any member's benefit, whether disability or regular service retirement, due to receipt of any other benefit. In short, Petitioner's retirement benefit is not being reduced. Moreover, the reduction in Petitioner's Workers' Compensation benefits was not due to Respondent's fault, action, or representation to Petitioner. At the time of retirement, Petitioner was eligible to receive either service retirement because of his more than 30 years of service, or disability retirement because of his ILOD injury. If Mr. Hodge were to be granted service retirement benefits rather than disability retirement benefits, his total monthly payments from the State of Florida (retirement and Workers' Compensation) would be substantially increased.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Division of Retirement issue a Final Order denying Petitioner, Ronald Hodge, the relief sought herein, as Respondent has no basis in law or equity to change Petitioner's type of retirement. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 28th day of April, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Emily Moore, Esquire Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Anthony J. Salzman, Esquire Moody and Salzman, P.A. Post Office Drawer 2759 Gainesville, Florida 32602 A. J. McMullian, III, Director Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to receive survivor benefits from a joint and survivor annuity, under Option 3 of the Florida Retirement System (FRS) defined benefit plan, following the death of her spouse, Anne M. Birch, who, as an FRS member, elected Option 1 in 2012 when Florida law would not allow Ms. Birch to elect Option 3 or 4 and designate the joint annuitant as Petitioner, whom she lawfully married after electing Option 1.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Birch, who was born on September 12, 1950, and Petitioner, who was born on August 26, 1956, fell in love and began to live together in 1992. They jointly owned all significant property, including their primary residence, with a right of survivorship and were jointly liable for household expenses and debt, including the mortgage note on their primary residence. On January 31, 2001, Ms. Birch executed a will that left any remaining property to Petitioner and named her as the personal representative of the estate.1/ Ms. Birch designated Petitioner as her primary beneficiary for employee benefits that authorized such designations. On October 11, 2002, Ms. Birch and Petitioner signed an Amended Declaration of Domestic Partnership, pursuant to the Broward County Domestic Partnership Act of 1999, to register themselves as domestic partners under Broward County Ordinance 1999-18. Fully vested and having accrued substantial benefits from having worked for Broward County in an FRS-covered position for nearly 30 years, on October 23, 2012, Ms. Birch entered DROP, effective October 1, 2012. At that time, Ms. Birch elected Option 1 for the payment of her benefits, checking the "no" box in response to the question of whether she was married. As described in the Conclusions of Law, Option 1 is the maximum benefit and is payable for the life of the retiree. Ms. Birch's monthly Option 1 benefit was $3039.25. The monthly Option 3 benefit, which, as described below, is payable until the latter death of the FRS member or her surviving spouse,2/ would have been nearly $1000 less than the monthly Option 1 benefit.3/ Respondent implemented Ms. Birch's election by paying Ms. Birch's Option 1 benefits into her DROP account. In August 2013, Ms. Birch became ill with cancer. She eventually had to quit working and terminated DROP, at which point Respondent paid Ms. Birch her Option 1 benefits directly. On June 16, 2014, Ms. Birch and Petitioner were lawfully married in Massachusetts. Almost two years later, on May 24, 2016, Ms. Birch died, at which time all payments under Option 1 ended. When Ms. Birch and Petitioner registered as domestic partners in Broward County, no state allowed or recognized same- sex marriage, often pursuant to a "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA). Continuously since 1997, Florida law banned the allowance and recognition of same-sex marriage, even if performed in a jurisdiction where such a marriage were legal, and restricted "marriage" to a legal union between a man and a woman and "spouse" to a member of such a union. § 741.212(1) and (3); Ch. 97-268, § 1, at 4957, Laws of Fla. (Florida DOMA).4/ Massachusetts was the first state to allow and recognize same-sex marriage, effective in 2004. Goodridge v. Dep't of Pub. Health, 798 N.E. 2d 941 (Mass. 2003) (decision stayed 180 days to allow legislature to enact law consistent with the court's ruling). Three or four years after Goodridge, Ms. Birch and Petitioner visited Massachusetts, but did not exercise their right to enter into a lawful marriage at that time. A series of court decisions invalidated the federal and state DOMAs, including the Florida DOMA. On June 26, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013), held that the federal DOMA, as applied to federal tax law, was unconstitutional. By order entered August 21, 2014, in Brenner v. Scott, 999 F. Supp. 2d 1278 (N.D. Fla. 2014) (Brenner I), Respondent was enjoined from enforcing or applying the Florida DOMA, although the court stayed its injunction. The U.S. Supreme Court lifted the stay,5/ as reported by the district court in Brenner v. Scott¸ 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91969 (N.D. Fla. 2016) (Brenner II), in which, on March 30, 2016, the court issued a summary judgment on its injunction in Brenner I. Between Brenner I and Brenner II, on June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held that state DOMAs were unconstitutional in Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015). Petitioner testified that she and Ms. Birch would have been lawfully married by October 2012, when Ms. Birch retired, but for the Florida DOMA. This testimony is credited. Long prior to 2012, Ms. Birch and Petitioner organized their financial affairs as though they were lawfully married, sharing assets and liabilities equally. Petitioner testified credibly that she and Ms. Birch always "played by the rules": thus, Ms. Birch and Petitioner would have been deterred from getting married prior to Ms. Birch's retirement, such as when they were visiting Massachusetts in 2007, due to the legal futility of attempting to obtain recognition in Florida of a marriage lawfully performed elsewhere. Less persuasive is Petitioner's testimony that, in October 2012, Ms. Birch would have elected Option 3, if this option had been available to her, and it is impossible to find on this record that she would have done so. There is no evidence that Ms. Birch and Petitioner rearranged their financial affairs to achieve, to the extent possible, an Option 3 election. Household income was $1000 per month greater under Option 1 than Option 3, so life insurance on Ms. Birch or an annuity for Petitioner could have mitigated Ms. Birch's inability to choose Option 3 when she retired. Prior to retiring, Ms. Birch did not attempt to elect Option 3 in writing or orally. Even after retiring, as noted below, Ms. Birch displayed ambivalence about whether she wanted to change her election. As a named defendant in Brenner I, on April 14, 2015, Respondent responded to the injunction against its enforcement or application of the Florida DOMA by issuing Information Release #2015-184 (Release). Sent to FRS members who retired prior to January 2, 2015, and elected Option 1 or 2, the Release states: . . . FRS retirees and . . . DROP participants who were in legally-recognized same-sex marriages at the time they retired or began DROP participation and chose Option 1 or Option 2 will have an opportunity to change benefit payment options in light of . . . Brennan. These retirees will be able to change their retirement payment option from their current selection to Option 3 or Option 4 to provide a continuing monthly benefit to their spouse. The retirees impacted by this change have an effective retirement date or DROP begin date on or before January 1, 2015. The Release provides that an eligible retiree interested in a second election must contact Respondent in writing, identify the retiree's spouse, and certify that the retiree and spouse were married in a state or country that allowed same-sex marriage when the FRS member retired. The Release states that Respondent will respond with an estimate of the new benefit payment under the option that the retiree intends to select and provide the retiree with the paperwork necessary to make the second election. Available on Respondent's website,6/ the Release provides the opportunity of a second election of Option 3 or 4 to any FRS member7/ who retired prior to January 2, 2015; chose Option 1 or 2 when she retired; and was in a same-sex marriage when she retired. The Release places no limit on how far in the past the retirement took place.8/ The thrust of Petitioner's case is directed toward backdating her lawful marriage to Ms. Birch to a point prior to Ms. Birch's retirement. As noted above, the timing of the lawful marriage is a problem under the Release, which requires a lawful marriage at the time of retirement, but another problem under the Release is the fact that the Release provides to the FRS retiree, not her surviving spouse, the opportunity for a second election, nor, as discussed immediately below, is this a technical requirement that can be overcome by Petitioner's serving as a representative of Ms. Birch--the second election is extended only to living FRS retirees. The virtue of the Release for Petitioner is that it confers the opportunity of a second election without any proof that, at the time of the first election, the FRS member would have elected Option 3 or 4. If Petitioner does not rely on the Release, she must also prove that Ms. Birch would have elected Option 3 or 4, which, as noted above, she has failed to prove. By limiting the second election to the FRS retiree, the Release limits the potential of adverse selection in allowing a second election, possibly years after the first election.9/ There are three possibilities at the time of the second election: both spouses are alive, only the FRS retiree is alive, and only the surviving spouse is alive. The Release's restriction of the right to make the second election to the FRS retiree means that the second and third possibilities do not result in second elections: respectively the FRS retiree would not reduce her payment to provide an annuity to a spouse who is already deceased10/ and a surviving spouse has no right to make an election under the Release. The couple may gain a minor financial advantage by the opportunity to revisit the payment option several years after the retirement of the FRS member, so that they may be better informed of the health of each of them. But the surviving spouse would gain a significant financial advantage by the opportunity to revisit the payment option after the death of the FRS member. Shortly after Respondent issued the Release, Ms. Birch filed with Respondent a Spousal Acknowledgement Form that she had signed on May 8, 2015. This form indicates that Ms. Birch is married, but nothing else. At about the same time, though, Ms. Birch contacted Respondent by telephone to discuss the Release and any choices that she may now have under the Release. By letter dated May 26, 2015, Respondent calculated monthly benefit amounts under Options 1 through 4, but the letter warns: "Your benefit option will not be changed unless you complete and return the required forms noted in this letter" and indicate a choice of repaying in a single payment or installments the excess benefits of Option 1 over the smaller benefits paid under Option 3 or 4. The May 26 letter requires further action on Ms. Birch's part and predicates any right to a second election upon a lawful marriage at the time of retirement. The record provides no basis for finding that any of Respondent's representatives misstated the lawful-marriage condition. To the contrary, in at least one conversation with Ms. Birch, Respondent's representative insisted on verification of a lawful marriage as of October 2012. Additionally, Ms. Birch was not requesting a right to make a second election; at most, she was gathering information to prepare to decide whether to ask to change her election. By June 26, 2015, pursuant to a note documenting a telephone conversation between Ms. Birch and a representative of Respondent, Ms. Birch decided to keep Option 1 rather than make a second election of Option 3.11/ In May 2016, Ms. Birch finally made a clear attempt to change her election to Option 3. By letter dated May 12, 2016, Ms. Birch stated that she was lawfully married to Petitioner on June 12, 2012, and asked for "the change in beneficiary for my pension, due to the one time option given" in the Release. Even at this late date, Ms. Birch was not yet ready to elect Option 3 because the letter concludes: "I would like to see the breakdown of monetary options to make an informed decision." However, on May 20, 2016, during a telephone call with a representative of Respondent, Ms. Birch provided the date of birth of Petitioner and asked Respondent to expedite her request because she did not have long to live. On the same date, Ms. Birch signed an Option Selection form electing Option 3. By letter dated July 18, 2016, Respondent acknowledged the death of Ms. Birch and informed Petitioner that all pension benefits ended at that time. By letter dated September 22, 2016, Petitioner asked for reconsideration and supplied copies of various documents, the relevant provisions of which have been referenced above. By letter dated October 20, 2016, Respondent denied the request for reconsideration.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order denying Petitioner's request for benefits under Option 3 from Ms. Birch's FRS account and dismissing Petitioner's Request for Administrative Hearing. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of January, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 16th day of January, 2018.
