The Issue Whether Petitioner qualifies for retirement benefits as a joint annuitant of the late Roy Hartley, Jr.
Findings Of Fact Roy Hartley, Jr., died on June 11, 1994, with more than ten years of service as a member of the Florida Retirement System (FRS). Mr. Hartley was employed as a police officer with the Metro Dade Police Department. His Social Security Number was 267-70-3906. At the time of his death, Mr. Hartley had personally contributed the sum of $655.38 to the FRS. On October 29, 1993, Mr. Hartley designated Petitioner as the beneficiary of his retirement benefits on FRS Form M-10. After Mr. Hartley's death, Petitioner applied to the State of Florida, Division of Retirement, for benefits as Mr. Hartley's designated beneficiary. To be entitled to monthly retirement benefits, Petitioner must establish that she was a dependent of Mr. Hartley so as to qualify as a joint annuitant of his monthly retirement benefits. Section 121.091(7)(g), Florida Statutes (1994), contains the option that Petitioner seeks to exercise: (7)(g) The designated beneficiary who is the surviving spouse or other dependent of a member whose employment is terminated by death subsequent to the completion of 10 years of credible service 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 death and the age the member would have attained on the commencement date of the deferred benefit elected by his beneficiary, paid in accordance with option 3 of paragraph (6)(a). Section 121.021(28)(c), Florida Statutes, contains the definition of the term "dependent beneficiary" that is pertinent to this proceeding: (28) Dependent beneficiary means any person designated by the member to receive a retirement benefit upon the member's death who is either: * * * (c) A person who is financially dependent for no less than one-half of his support from the deceased at retirement or at time of the death of such member, whichever occurs first. Rule 60S-6.001(34), Florida Administrative Code, defines the term "joint annuitant" as follows: JOINT ANNUITANT -- Means . . . any other person who is financially dependent where the other person is someone who is receiving one-half or more of his support from the member or is eligible to be claimed as a dependent or exemption on the Federal income tax return of the member. Petitioner and Mr. Hartley were not married, but they were living together at the time of his death. Except for a relatively short breakup, they had lived together for thirteen years. Petitioner was not claimed as a dependent on Mr. Hartley's federal income tax return. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner worked part-time as a bartender. Respondent requires a person who is claiming to be a dependent of a deceased member pursuant to Section 121.021(28)(c), Florida Statutes, to document that the member contributed more than half of the alleged dependent's support. Stanley Colvin, the administrator of Respondent's retirement section, established that the Respondent typically reviews financial data for the year preceding the member's death in determining whether the deceased member contributed half of the alleged dependent's support. In making this determination, the Respondent determines the amount that the alleged dependent has to contribute to his or her own support and thereafter requires the alleged dependent to establish that the member contributed an amount equal to or more than that amount. Since the member died in June of 1994, Respondent in this case examined the W-2 statements for Petitioner and for Mr. Hartley for several years proceeding his death and for the year 1994. The 1993 W-2 statements reflect that Mr. Hartley had income from his employment of $67,360.23 while Petitioner had income from her employment of $9,450.00. Based on the differences between their earnings, it did not appear that there would be a problem with Petitioner's claim when Respondent's staff first reviewed the claim. The house in which Petitioner and Mr. Hartley lived at the time of his death was titled solely in the name of the Petitioner. This house was purchased in 1992. The fact that Petitioner owned the house only in her name caused Respondent's staff to question this claim. After learning about the house, Respondent's staff asked Petitioner to document that Mr. Hartley contributed more than half of her support and requested that she provide copies of cancelled checks and tax returns. In response to that request, Petitioner provided copies of certain cancelled checks and copies of her tax returns for 1992 and 1993. 1/ Mr. Hartley and Petitioner routinely gambled at Seminole Bingo. The down payment for the house came from their bingo winnings. Although they both gambled at bingo, Petitioner usually sat in the chair so that she would be the one to claim any bingo winnings. These winnings were reported on Petitioner's income taxes for the years 1992 and 1993. For 1992, Petitioner claimed bingo winnings in the amount of $60,531 and wagering losses in the amount $45,850. For 1993, Petitioner claimed bingo winnings in the amount of $21,860 and wagering losses in an equal amount. Petitioner's federal income tax return for 1993 reflected an adjusted gross income of $31,508. This sum included bingo winnings of $21,860. Petitioner testified, credibly, that they did not go to bingo as frequently in 1994 because Mr. Hartley had become interested in racing automobiles, but there was no evidence as to whether Petitioner or Mr. Hartley won at bingo during 1994 prior to Mr. Hartley's death. After reviewing the documentation provided by Petitioner, the Respondent denied monthly benefits to her. Respondent's denial was based on its interpretation of its rule that all income, including gambling winnings, should be considered as being available for the support of a person claiming to be a dependent of a member of the FRS. 2/ Respondent is not concerned with whether the alleged dependent loses his or her winnings at bingo or uses the winnings to pay bills. Respondent allocated the house payments, household expenses, and grocery costs paid by Mr. Hartley to have been one-half for Petitioner's support and the other half for his own support. 3. Respondent determined, correctly, that the documentation did not support a findings that Mr. Hartley contributed more than half of Petitioner's support when the bingo winnings were considered. Respondent advised Petitioner that she was entitled to a refund of Mr. Hartley's contribution to the FRS in the amount of $655.38. Petitioner established that Mr. Hartley paid the house payment ($683.00 per month in 1994), that he paid most of the household expenses, and that he routinely gave Petitioner cash for food, clothes, and miscellaneous expenses. The only bill routinely paid by Petitioner was the utility bill. She also paid her car bill and her auto insurance bill. Mr. Hartley occasionally assisted her with those bills. Based on the totality of the evidence, 4/ including the discrepancy between Mr. Hartley's earned income and Petitioner's earned income, 5/ the fact that Mr. Hartley paid the housing expenses, except for utilities, and the fact that he routinely gave Petitioner cash to use for her support, it is found that Mr. Hartley contributed more than $10,000 a year toward Petitioner's support. The evidence does not, however, support a finding that Mr. Hartley contributed more than $31,000 a year toward Petitioner's support. 6/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein and approves Petitioner's application for monthly benefits as a joint annuitant of Roy Hartley, Jr. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of August, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON, 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, 1996.
Findings Of Fact The Petition named Dr. Szurkus as the physician providing obstetric services at Desmond’s birth on February 14, 2009. Attached to the Motion for Summary Final Order is an affidavit of NICA's custodian of records, Tim Daughtry, attesting to the following, which has not been refuted: One of my official duties as Custodian of Records is to maintain NICA’s official records relative to the status of physicians as participating physicians in the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Compensation Plan who have timely paid the Five Thousand Dollar ($5,000.00) assessment prescribed in Section 766.314(4)(c), Florida Statutes, and the status of physicians who may be exempt from payment of the Five Thousand Dollar ($5,000.00) assessment pursuant to Section 766.314(4)(c), Florida Statutes. Further, I maintain NICA's official records with respect to the payment of the Two Hundred Fifty Dollar ($250.00) assessment required by Section 766.314(4)(b)1., Florida Statutes, by all non-participating, non-exempt physicians. * * * As payments of the requisite assessments are received, NICA compiles data in the “NICA CARES” database for each physician. The “NICA CARES physician payment history/report” attached hereto for Dr. Dennis Szurkus indicates that on February 14, 2009, the date in which Dr. Szurkus participated in the delivery of Desmond Govan, as indicated in the Petitioner’s Petition for Benefits, Dr. Szurkus did not pay the Five Thousand Dollar ($5,000) assessment required for participation in the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan until September 21, 2009. Further, it is NICA’s policy that if a physician falls within the exemption from payment of the Five Thousand Dollar ($5,000) assessment due to their status as a resident physician, assistant resident physician or intern as provided in Section 766.314(4)(c), Florida Statutes, annual documentation as to such exempt status is required to be provided to NICA. NICA has no records with respect to Dr. Szurkus in relation to an exempt status for the year 2009. The physician payment history/report for Dr. Szurkus supports Mr. Daughtry’s affidavit. Petitioner has not offered any exhibits, affidavits or any other evidence refuting the affidavit of Mr. Daughtry, which shows that on February 14, 2009, Dr. Szurkus had not paid his $5,000 assessment for 2009. At the time of the birth of Desmond, Dr. Szurkus was not a participating physician in the Plan.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Since on or about September, 1980, the Petitioner has been a full-time employee of the Florida State University System, and up until the 1987-88 academic year a participant in the state of Florida health insurance program offered through the Florida State University by the Respondent, Department of Administration. During the 1987-88 academic year, the Petitioner was granted an unpaid leave of absence so that he could pursue a teaching assignment in the National Republic of China. Since the 1983-84 academic year, the Petitioner had been a participant in the Capital Health Plan Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) offered in Tallahassee, Florida under the Respondent's insurance program. Since the Petitioner could not avail himself of the benefits of the HMO in which he was enrolled in Tallahassee, Florida during the time he anticipated being in the National Republic of China, at or about the time the Petitioner commenced his unpaid leave of absence, he notified the personnel office at Florida State University that he wished to discontinue his participation in the HMO. During the 1987-88 academic year, the Petitioner did not make payments to continue his coverage during his period of leave of absence in the HMO. Immediately upon his return to employment on or about August 4, 1988, the Petitioner inquired of the personnel office at Florida State University of the steps to be taken to obtain coverage under his previous HMO for the 1988-89 academic year. The Petitioner was given certain forms to complete and return to the Florida State University personnel office. Petitioner completed and returned those forms as instructed but was informed that he could not reenroll since no open period of enrollment was available to him at that time. By letter dated July 8, 1988, Ronald G. Meyer, representing the United Faculty of Florida , FTP-FEA, corresponded with Mr. Carl Ogden, Director, Division of State Employees' Insurance, concerning a group of university faculty members who would not be on campus during the open enrollment period effective June 22, 1988 through July 15, 1988, and the need for a special open enrollment period upon them returning to their respective campus. By letter dated July 19, 1988, Mr. Ogden responded to Mr. Meyer's letter of July 8, 1988 and informed Mr. Meyer that the employees identified in his letter would be accommodated, and set out the procedure for that to be accomplished. The group of employees referred to in Mr. Meyer's letter and addressed by Mr. Ogden are those employees referred to as being "employed less than year round" and identified in Rule 22K-1.054(7), Florida Administrative Code, but does not include an employee such as Petitioner who was on an authorized leave without pay during this open enrollment period. The employees covered by the memorandum dated August 12, 1988 from Harriette A. Hudson, Manager, Insurance and Benefits, Florida State University, advising the "salaried Faculty Off Summer Payroll" of the special open enrollment period does not include employees such as Petitioner who was on an authorized leave without pay until August 4, 1988. Additionally, there was no evidence that this "open enrollment period " was designated by the Department of Administration or that the Department of Administration had authorized Florida State University to designate this open enrollment period. There was no open enrollment period available to Petitioner during August 1988. The first open enrollment period available to Petitioner after returning to work in August 1988 was in December 1988, at which time he reenrolled and became eligible for benefits on March 1, 1989. Only the Secretary of the Department of Administration has authority to determine an open enrollment period which is accomplished by numbered memorandum.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's request for coverage under the state of Florida Health Plan and any costs he may have incurred as a result of not being covered under the state plan. RESPECTFULLY submitted and entered this 29th day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 29th day of March, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-0277 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings Submitted by Petitioner 1.-2. Adopted in Findings of Fact 2 & 4, respectively. Immaterial to the conclusion reached herein. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 5.-6. Subordinate to facts actually found in the Recommended Order. 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings Submitted by Respondent 1.-6. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1 - 6, respectively. 7.-8. Subordinate to facts actually found in the Recommended Order. 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10, but modified. 10.-11. Immaterial to the conclusion reach herein. 12. Rejected as being a conclusion of law rather that a finding of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Adis Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Augustus D. Aikins, Jr., Esquire General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Ronald G. Meyer, Esquire MEYER, BROOKS AND COOPER, P. A. P.O. Box 1547 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 William A. Frieder, Esquire Department of Administration 440 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to service credit in the Florida Retirement System (FRS) from June 1, 1995, through August 2001.
Findings Of Fact At all times material, Petitioner has been a school psychologist, certified by the Florida Department of Education. From June 1995 through August 2001, Petitioner performed duties as a psychologist under "purchase of services agreements" with SBAC to perform special needs assessments for gifted children. These formal contracts were executed between Petitioner and SBAC in and for each successive school year during that period. Although there was the expectation that a new contract would be negotiated/signed each year, there was no guarantee to that effect. The annual contracts for June 1995 through August 2001, between SBAC and Petitioner provided that Petitioner was to assume all risks, and that he was a "consultant." They further provided that he was to be paid at a rate of $150.00 for each assessment he completed. Either party to the contract could terminate it on 30 days' notice. In pertinent part, the annual contracts described Petitioner as an independent consultant and not an employee in the following terms: * * * The CONSULTANT is an Independent Consultant and will perform all services at the Consultant's risk, assuming full responsibility for completion of the services stipulated below: Psychoeducational evaluations of students referred for determination of eligibility to the Gifted Program as shall be requested by the Board through its Director of Exceptional Student Education or Lead School Psychologist. All psychoeducational evaluations shall be completed within 30 days of having been received by the CONSULTANT. All reports and billing for services rendered by the CONSULTANT shall be submitted in a timely manner. All reports are to be submitted in triplicate. * * * CONSULTANT also acknowledges that in rendering the services provided herein, the CONSULTANT will be acting as an Independent Consultant, and not as an employee of the School Board of Alachua County. (Emphasis added.) The contracts contained no specific provision for reimbursement of Petitioner's expenses. However, a calculated amount for travel expenses was built into the fee of $150.00 per child. SBAC did not consider Petitioner an "employee" during the period of his annual contracts, because he was not filling a regularly established position. Accordingly, SBAC did not report to FRS any retirement information/contributions on the amounts it paid Petitioner during this period. Likewise, during the specified period, Petitioner received no paid leave or other employee benefits from SBAC. Also, SBAC did not provide unemployment compensation coverage or workers' compensation coverage for Petitioner during the specified period. While under contract as an independent consultant, Petitioner did not report his time to SBAC via a timesheet or otherwise. Rather, he was paid for each completed assessment under the terms of his respective contracts. He was only required to file his test results within five business days of the date he assessed a student. Between 1995 and 2001, SBAC reported Petitioner's pay for federal income tax purposes by Form 1099, rather than by Form W-2. A 1099 form is traditionally used for occasional employees and for independent contractors. W-2 forms are used for regular employees. Petitioner reported his income from SBAC as "other income," i.e. self-employment income. In a similar vein, SBAC withheld no taxes, Social Security, or Medicare deductions for Petitioner during this period. SBAC made no matching contributions for Social Security or Medicare. During the specified period, Petitioner was hired solely for special needs assessments. The time frame for testing by SBAC was established by law. Other than special needs assessments, Petitioner had no duties for SBAC, but he was assigned cases by SBAC as necessary to meet its caseload and time frame. Petitioner was only called upon when SBAC's school psychologists, who filled regularly established positions, were not available or could not timely meet the demand for assessments in a school year of 10 months' duration. Petitioner was required to hold a professional license as a psychologist to perform his SBAC contracts, and he was expected to perform his services for SBAC within the standards of his profession. His contracts provided for him to render personal services, and he could not hire an assistant or subcontract out his duties to another psychologist. SBAC could not instruct Petitioner how to do his job as a professional psychologist or what decision or recommendation to reach on any child. However, SBAC told him which text to use, and he was initially trained by another school psychologist on the testing instrument required by SBAC. Petitioner also received initial training from SBAC on how to report his assessments, and SBAC provided him with test kits and word processing assistance for each child assessment. SBAC set the format for his reports and provided him with a template therefor. Petitioner was not regularly provided office space by SBAC. However, he was allotted a room on each school's premises for each test, as he traveled from school to school within the county, and he had to do his testing on a day the specified child was in school and that school was open. Each test had to be completed within 30 days of its assignment, per his contracts. Petitioner was free to schedule one or more of his assessments on the dates most efficient for him, provided he met his deadlines. Petitioner's efforts for SBAC during this period might be described as "frequently recurring, but not regular." Petitioner never worked for SBAC more than four consecutive months during the entire time period at issue. During that period, he was on his own for defending his test results. Petitioner was required to carry his own professional liability insurance during the time in question, whereas then and now, SBAC "covered" their employees' liability insurance. Between 1995 and 2001, Petitioner was free to offer his professional services to other clients besides SBAC, but he chose not to do so. There was no profit or loss involved for SBAC or Petitioner in Petitioner's 1995-2001 service. Petitioner had to invest none of his personal funds to do his assessments. In September 2001, Petitioner was hired by SBAC in a half-time, regularly established position with all benefits, including sick leave, personal leave, and FRS membership. Upon that event, his duties were altered to include rendering any psychological assistance required by any SBAC school in which he was working. He is now reimbursed for travel by submitting request forms. He has continued to meet that job description and has filled that regularly established position to date. SBAC requested, and in 2002, received a letter-opinion from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) interpreting various federal statutes and regulations. That IRS letter-opinion concluded that during the period in question, the Petitioner was an "employee" of SBAC; that various federal forms might require filing or amending by SBAC; and that SBAC and Petitioner might need to pay yet-to-be determined amounts. That IRS opinion is based on facts submitted by SBAC and not necessarily in evidence; is based on federal laws which are not determinative of the Florida retirement issue before this forum, and was not necessarily final. Accordingly, it is not binding in the instant case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, enter a final order denying Petitioner's request for membership and service credit in the FRS from June 1, 1995, through August 2001. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of February, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of February, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas E. Wright, Esquire Department of Management Services Division of Retirement 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Leonard D. Jackson 2731-B Northwest 104th Court Gainesville, Florida 32606-7174 Alberto Dominguez, Esquire Department of Management Services Division of Retirement 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Sarabeth Snuggs, Interim Director Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560
The Issue Whether petitioner abandoned her position and is deemed to have resigned from the Career Service under the facts and circumstances of this case.
Findings Of Fact The petitioner was first employed by the State of Florida with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services on May 2, 1980. At the time, the petitioner owned her own accounting firm. However because she intended to remain in State employment for a minimum of ten years and did not want to jeopardize her position with HRS, she closed out her accounting firm transferring her clients to another member of Florida State Accounting Association. On October 28, 1985, petitioner became ill with acute bronchitis. She did not return to work until November 8, 1985. During that period of time, she was on authorized leave. On Saturday, November 23, the petitioner had a relapse. After calling her doctor, petitioner resumed taking the medication that had previously been prescribed and stayed in bed. On November 25, 1985, Angela Gary, a co-worker, went by Petitioner's home to give her a ride to work. Petitioner informed Ms. Gary that she would not be going to work that day. Petitioner did not explain to Ms. Gary that she was ill and did not ask Ms. Gary to take any message to the petitioner's supervisor, Ms. Matson, or to the District Fiscal Officer, Mr. Fisher, who was in charge of the entire accounting section. 1/ Mr. Fisher was aware that Ms. Gary was to provide a ride for petitioner on November 25, 1985. Therefore when petitioner did not report to work, Mr. Fisher asked Ms. Gary if she had remembered to go by petitioner's house. Ms. Gary told Mr. Fisher that she had remembered to go by the house but that petitioner said that she wasn't going to work. On Tuesday, November 26, Ms. Gary again went by petitioner's home to drive her to work. At that time, petitioner told Ms. Gary that she wouldn't be going to work and that Ms. Gary did not have to come by her house on Wednesday unless the petitioner called her. Because petitioner did not feel capable of returning to work on Wednesday, she did not call Ms. Gary. Therefore, Ms. Gary did not go by petitioner's house on Wednesday November 27, 1985. At no time during the three day period that she was absent from work did the petitioner telephone her supervisor to inform her of the situation. Prior to this three-day period, petitioner had been absent on several occasions and had always called her supervisor to inform the supervisor that she would be unable to report to work. She was quite familiar with the procedure that she needed to follow. Petitioner had received a copy of the HRS Employee Handbook, HRSP 60-1, which includes procedures to be followed to obtain authorized leave. The procedure for sick leave includes the following: As soon as possible on the first day of absence, it is your responsibility to notify your supervisor that the absence is due to illness....Your supervisor should also be given an estimate of the length of the absence. Medical certification may be required. Further, within the accounting section, the employees had been specifically advised that they had to speak directly to their immediate supervisor when calling in sick. Although petitioner was aware of the sick leave procedure, she did not attempt to call her supervisor at any time during the three-day period she was absent. Her only reason for not calling was that the medication she was taking made her "woozy" and that she slept most of the time. There was no evidence to suggest that petitioner was incapacitated to the degree that she was unable to call her supervisor. 1O. November 27-28 were holidays. On December 2; 1985, the following Monday, petitioner called her supervisor in the morning to inform the supervisor that she would be late to work. At that time, petitioner was informed that she was no longer employed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered sustaining the action of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services in deeming Virginia I. Lee to have abandoned her position and resigned from the Career Service. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of April, 1986, in Tallahassee Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of April, 1986.
The Issue The issue posed for decision herein is whether or not the Respondent's (Division of Retirement) denial of Petitioner's claim to buy for retirement credit purposes, service while she was a student nurse during the period August, 1941 through December, 1944 was proper.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the arguments of counsel, and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. The facts herein are virtually undisputed. From August, 1941, through December, 1944, Petitioner was a student nurse at Florida State Hospital (Hospital) at Chattahoochee, Florida. As a student nurse, Petitioner worked twelve (12) hours a day, six and one-half (6-1/2) days per week with one full day off each month. During the weekdays, Petitioner spent time in class, with the remainder of time spent in the wards at the Hospital. Petitioner averaged between thirty-nine (39) and forty-seven (47) hours of work per week at the Hospital. As a student nurse, Petitioner received a salary of $15.00 per month in addition to her room, board, uniform and various fringe benefits such as medical care and leave, much like other Hospital employees. Personnel problems were resolved through the personnel office as with other employees. Petitioner returned to work at the Hospital as a Registered Nurse in October, 1954, and has worked almost continually to the present time. During the period 1970 through early 1972, employees of Florida State Hospital were given the opportunity to participate in the State and County Officers and Employees Retirement System (SCOERS). Petitioner participated in that retirement system. During the period 1970 through 1972, various state retirement systems, including SCOERS, merged and formed the present Florida Retirement System (FRS). Petitioner was given the option to transfer to FRS and in fact exercised that option by designating that election on a ballot provided by the personnel office at Florida State Hospital (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). The effective date of that transfer to FRS is December 1, 1970. During the period 1970 through early 1972, Respondent permitted transferees of the SCOERS retirement system to transfer student nurse credits as part of the retirement credits in the same manner as "full-time work" for retirement credit purposes. In early 1972, Respondent changed its policy of allowing work as a student nurse to be credited toward retirement benefits. C. J. Brock has been the personnel manager at Florida State Hospital in Chattahoochee since approximately 1968. He was initially hired at the Hospital in 1955. As personnel manager, Mr. Brock is in charge of submitting employee claims for retirement credits for various types of employment service to FRS for retirement benefits.' Mr. Brock recalled Petitioner visiting his office pan various occasions between the periods 1963 through 1972 inquiring as to the manner for purchasing student time for retirement credit purposes. Mr. Brock advised Petitioner that he would research the wage statements to determine the exact amount of student time she had earned and would refer the matter to FRS for a decision, Mr. Brock is not authorized to act for or on behalf of Respondent. The interaction between the Hospital's personnel officer and Respondent is limited to the referral of claims and certification of wage and employment statements. As such, there is no agency relationship between the Hospital and Respondent. This referral was made by Mr. Brock on Petitioner's behalf on December 20, 1972, and the request was denied. Former student nurses who were members of SCOERS and transferred to FRS during the periods 1970 through early 1972 had been allowed to purchase retirement credit for their student nurse service. This practice ended in early 1972. In this regard, Mr. Brock has certified the payroll records for student nurses who purchased retirement credit for their student nurse time, Ruth Sampson, Assistant Bureau Chief for the Division of Retireent, has primarily been involved in reviewing retirement benefit calculations since approximately 1969. Mrs. Sampson is familiar with the merger of SCOERS and FRS. Mrs. Sampson affirmed that Respondent had a policy which allowed members of SCOERS who transferred to FRS to purchase retirement credit for student employment time and that such policy was followed from December 1, 1970 (the inception of FRS) to early 1972. This policy was also followed by the SCOERS administrator prior to December 1, 1970. This unwritten policy was changed, according to Mrs. Sampson for two primary reasons. First, Chapter 122, Florida Statutes, did not permit the purchase of student time. Secondly, with the combination of SCOERS and the Teacher Retirement System (TRS) into the combined FRS system, an inequity existed since TRS members, unlike student nurses, were not allowed to purchase student time. As stated, the letter from Mr. Brock certifying Petitioner's employment and wage statements for the period in question was dated December 20, 1972. Mrs. Sampson, by letter dated March 30, 1973, requested additional information respecting the salary paid Petitioner and the amount of time she actually spent working at the Hospital during the period in question. Mr. Brock replied by letter dated April 4, 1973, advising that during the period in question, Petitioner was a student nurse at the Hospital which paid a full-time salary of $15.00 per month. By letter dated May 14, 1973, Mrs. Sampson denied Petitioner's claim since Petitioner was primarily a student during the period that the prior service claim was submitted (Joint Exhibit No. 1). Mr. Robert L. Kennedy, Jr. , the former Director of FRS, appeared and related that the policy decision was made to discontinue the practice of allowing student time to be credited for retirement purposes since that practice was not contemplated by pertinent statutes. Former Director Kennedy disagreed with the Comptroller's policy decision which had previously allowed this practice.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner's appeal of the State Retirement Director's decision denying her request to purchase prior service credit for her service as a student nurse be DENIED. Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that the decision of the State Retirement Director be SUSTAINED. RECOMMENDED this 13th day of May, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Edward S. Stafman, Esquire Diane K. Kiesling, Esquire PATTERSON and TRAYNHAN Division of Retirement 1215 Thomasville Road Cedars Executive Center Tallahassee, Florida 32302 2639 North Monroe Street Suite 207C - Box .81 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER =================================================================
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner, Verna M. Johnson, terminated all employment with a Florida Retirement System employer, or employers, as defined in Section 121.021(39)(b), Florida Statutes, when she concluded or terminated her "DROP" participation and therefore whether she actually, finally retired.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was employed by the Alachua County School Board in 1998 and 1999 and prior to that time. She was a regular class member of the FRS who begin participating in the DROP program on August 1, 1998. Thereafter, on July 9, 1999, the Petitioner terminated her employment with Alachua County Schools to begin receiving her DROP accumulation and her monthly FRS retirement benefits. The Petitioner and her husband had founded the Caring and Sharing Learning School (Charter School) back on January 28, 1998, while the Petitioner was employed by the Alachua County School District and had not yet retired or entered the DROP program. She was a full-time FRS employee with the Alachua County School system. The Charter School was not then an FRS employer, nor were retirement contributions made on the Petitioner's behalf by the Charter School. She worked most of the ensuing year after entering the DROP program, and on June 9, 1999, ended her employment relationship by exercising her resignation from the Alachua County School District employment, at which point she began receiving FRS benefits and her DROP accumulation. Thereafter, on July 16, 1999, the Director of State Retirement for the FRS, and the Charter School, entered into an agreement for admission of the Charter School to the FRS as an FRS employer. It had not been an FRS-enrolled employer before July 16, 1999, slightly over a month after the Petitioner had terminated her employment with the school district and began receiving her DROP accumulation and retirement benefits. That agreement provided that the effective date of admission of the Charter School into the status of an FRS employer (with attendant compulsory FRS membership by all employees) was related back with an effective date of August 24, 1998. The record does not reflect the reason for this earlier effective date. The Petitioner continued to work as an administrator with the Charter School even through the date of hearing in 2005. The Division performed an external audit of the Charter School during the week of March 15, 2004. In the process of that audit the Division received some sort of verification from the school's accountant to the effect that the Petitioner was employed as an administrator and had been so employed since August 24, 1998. Because of this information, the Division requested that the Charter School and the Petitioner complete "employment relationship questionnaires." The Petitioner completed and submitted these forms to the Division. On both questionnaires she indicated that the income she receives from the school was reported by an IRS form W-2 and thus that the employer and employee-required contributions for employees had been made. She further indicated that she was covered by the school's workers' compensation policy. On both forms the Petitioner stated that her pay was "more of a stipend than salary." On the second form she added, however, "when it started, at this time it is salary." She testified that she was paid a regular percentage of her total income from the Charter School before her DROP termination and the stipend after. She added that she just wrote what she "thought they wanted to hear" (meaning on the forms). The check registers provided to the Division by the Petitioner also indicate "salary" payments for "administrators" in September 1999. It is also true that the Petitioner from the inception of the Charter School in January 1998, and was on the board of directors of the Charter School corporation. According to the Division, the Petitioner was provided at least "three written alerts" by the Division that she was required to terminate all employment relationships with all FRS employers for at least one calendar month after resignation, or her retirement would be deemed null and not to have occurred, requiring refund of any retirement benefits received, including DROP accumulations. The Division maintains that based on the material provided it by the Petitioner, that the Petitioner was an employee of the Charter School from August 24, 1998 (the date the "related-back agreement" entered into on July 16, 1999, purportedly took effect) through at least May 12, 2005. It is necessary that a member of the FRS earning retirement service credits, or after retirement or resignation, receiving retirement benefits have been an "employee," as that is defined in the authority cited below, in order for the various provisions of Chapter 121, Florida Statutes, and related rules to apply to that person's status. This status is determinative of such things as retirement service credit contributions and benefits, including DROP benefits, entitlement, and accumulations and the disposition made of them. In any event, the Division determined that the Petitioner had been an employee of the Charter School, as referenced above, and took its agency action determining that the Petitioner failed to terminate all employment relationships with all FRS employers (that is she kept working for the Charter School) before and during the month after resignation from the Alachua County School Board and continuing through May 12, 2005, as an employee in the Division's view of things. Therefore, because she was still employed by an FRS employer during the calendar month of July 1999 (only because of the agreement entered into between the Charter School and the division director on July 16, 1999,) her retirement (which had ended her employment with the Alachua County School System) was deemed null and void. The Division thus has demanded that she refund all retirement benefits and DROP accumulations earned or accrued between the date of entry into DROP which was August 1, 1998, through approximately May 12, 2005. This apparently totals approximately $169,000.00.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, determining that the Petitioner's retirement was effective and lawful, that she was entitled to the retirement benefits accrued and paid from June 9, 1999, forward, including the DROP accumulations that accrued up from August 1, 1998, until that date. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of March, 2006, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of March, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Sarabeth Snuggs, Director Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Post Office Box 9000 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Alberto Dominguez, General Counsel Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Post Office Box 9000 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Verna M. Johnson 3432 Northwest 52nd Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32605 Thomas E. Wright, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to Section 57.105(5), Florida Statutes, and, if so, what amount?
Findings Of Fact The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this proceeding. § 57.105(5), Fla. Stat.; and Order and Mandate in Case No. 1D04-4167, First District Court of Appeal. Section 57.105(5), Florida Statutes, reads as follows: (5) In administrative proceedings under chapter 120, an administrative law judge shall award a reasonable attorney's fee and damages to be paid to the prevailing party in equal amounts by the losing party and a losing party's attorney or qualified representative in the same manner and upon the same basis as provided in subsections (1)-(4). Such award shall be a final order subject to judicial review pursuant to s. 120.68. If the losing party is an agency as defined in s. 120.52(1), the award to the prevailing party shall be against and paid by the agency. A voluntary dismissal by a nonprevailing party does not divest the administrative law judge of jurisdiction to make the award described in this subsection. Subsection (5) of Section 57.105, Florida Statutes, directs the undersigned to the preceding subsections which set forth standards to be applied in the analysis of entitlement to attorney’s fees. Subsection (1) provides that reasonable attorney’s fees shall be awarded to the prevailing party to be paid by the losing party where the losing party or the losing party’s attorney knew or should have known that a claim or defense, when initially presented to the administrative tribunal or at any time before the administrative hearing, “[w]as not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the claim or defense or [w]ould not be supported by the application of then-existing law to those material facts.” The standards set forth in Subsection (1) and incorporated by reference in Subsection (5) were the result of an amendment to Section 57.105, Florida Statutes, in 1999. s. 4, Ch. 99-225, Laws of Florida. Prior to that amendment, the statute provided for the award of attorney’s fees when “there was a complete absence of justiciable issue of either law or fact raised by the complaint or defense of the losing party.” These new standards became applicable to administrative hearings in 2003 by s. 9, Ch. 2003-94, Laws of Florida, with an effective date of June 4, 2003. Petitioner filed his Petition for Administrative Hearing in September 2003. Accordingly, the newer standards of Section 57.105, Florida Statutes, apply to this case. In the case of Wendy’s v. Vandergriff, 865 So. 2d 520, (Fla. 1st DCA 2003), the court discussed the legislative changes to Section 57.105: [T]his statute was amended in 1999 as part of the 1999 Tort Reform Act in an effort to reduce frivolous litigation and thereby to decrease the cost imposed on the civil justice system by broadening the remedies that were previously available. See Ch. 99- 225, s. 4, Laws of Florida. Unlike its predecessor, the 1999 version of the statute no longer requires a party to show a complete absence of a justiciable issue of fact or law, but instead allows recovery of fees for any claims or defenses that are unsupported. (Citations omitted) However, this Court cautioned that section 57.105 must be applied carefully to ensure that it serves the purpose for which it was intended, which was to deter frivolous pleadings. (Citations omitted) In determining whether a party is entitled to statutory attorney's fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes, frivolousness is determined when the claim or defense was initially filed; if the claim or defense is not initially frivolous, the court must then determine whether the claim or defense became frivolous after the suit was filed. (Citation omitted) In so doing, the court determines if the party or its counsel knew or should have known that the claim or defense asserted was not supported by the facts or an application of existing law.(Citation omitted) An award of fees is not always appropriate under section 57.105, even when the party seeking fees was successful in obtaining the dismissal of the action or summary judgment in an action. (Citation omitted) Wendy's v. Vandergriff, 865 So. 2d 520, 523. The court in Wendy’s recognized that the new standard is difficult to define and must be applied on a case-by-case basis: While the revised statute incorporates the ‘not supported by the material facts or would not be supported by application of then-existing law to those material facts’ standard instead of the ‘frivolous’ standard of the earlier statute, an all encompassing definition of the new standard defies us. It is clear that the bar for imposition of sanctions has been lowered, but just how far it has been lowered is an open question requiring a case by case analysis. Wendy’s v. Vandergriff, 865 So. 2d 520, 524 citing Mullins v. Kennelly, 847 So. 2d at 1155, n.4. (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). More recently, the First District Court of Appeal further described the legislative change: The 1999 version lowered the bar a party must overcome before becoming entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes . . . Significantly, the 1999 version of 57.105 ‘applies to any claim or defense, and does not require that the entire action be frivolous.’ Albritton v. Ferrera, 913 So. 2d 5, 6 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), quoting Mullins v. Kennelly, supra. The Florida Supreme Court has noted that the 1999 amendments to Section 57.105, Florida Statutes, “greatly expand the statute’s potential use.” Boca Burger, Inc. v. Richard Forum, 912 So. 2d 561, 570, (Fla. 2005). The phrase “supported by the material facts” found in Section 57.105(1)(a), Florida Statutes, was defined by the court in Albritton to mean that the “party possesses admissible evidence sufficient to establish the fact if accepted by the finder of fact.” Albritton, 913 So. 2d 5, at 7, n.1. Therefore, the first question is whether FAMU or its attorneys knew or should have known that its defense of Dr. Jain’s claim was not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the defense when the case was initially filed or at any time before trial. That is, did FAMU possess admissible evidence sufficient to establish its defense. The parties filed a Pretrial Stipulation the day before the hearing. The Pretrial Stipulation characterized FAMU’s position as follows: It is the position of the University that Dr. Babu Jain retired at the close of business on May 30, 2003, pursuant to the provision of the DROP retirement program. Dr. Jain did not have the right, nor the authority, to unilaterally rescind his resignation and retirement date. In a letter dated May 5, 2003, the Division of Retirement informed Dr. Jain that it was providing him with the “DROP VOID” form that had to be signed by himself and the University, for his participation in DROP to be rescinded. No University official signed that form nor agreed to rescind his retirement. On May 30, 2003, Dr. Babu Jain knew that his retirement through DROP had not been voided and that he had in-fact retired. The University included the position that Dr. Jain occupied in its vacancy announcement in the ‘Chronicle of Higher Education.’ The University, through Dr. Larry Robinson notified Dr. Jain that his retirement rescission was not accepted. Dr. Jain did not work past May 30, 2003. Finally, there was never a ‘meeting of the minds’, nor any other agreement between the University and Dr. Jain to void his retirement commitment. It [is] the University’s position that Dr. Babu Jain retired from Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University effective at the close of business on May 30, 2003. Pretrial Stipulation at 14-15. (emphasis in original) The material facts known by FAMU necessary to establish its defense against Petitioner's claim at the time the case was filed included: Petitioner’s initial Notice of Election to Participate in DROP and Resignation of Employment in which Dr. Jain resigned effective the date he terminated from DROP (designated as May 30, 2003); Dr. Robinson’s letter dated May 27, 2003, which asserted that the University was not in agreement with Dr. Jain's decision and that the decision to terminate from DROP is a mutual one; Dr. Robinson's letter of May 30, 2003, which informed Dr. Jain that the two summer semester employment contracts were issued to him in error and informing Dr. Jain that he would be paid through May 30, 2003, his designated DROP date; the refusal of anyone from FAMU to sign the DROP-VOID form provided to Dr. Jain by the Division of Retirement; the reassignment of another instructor to take over Dr. Jain’s classes the first Monday following the designated DROP termination date; and the Refund of Overpayment of Salary Form and resulting salary deduction from Dr. Jain’s sick leave payout. It is difficult to determine what, if any, additional facts FAMU learned through discovery. That is, whether deposition testimony of FAMU officials enlightened FAMU or its attorneys as to material facts not known at the time the case was filed by Dr. Jain, is not readily apparent. However, a review of the pre-trial depositions reveals material facts which supported FAMU’s defense that the summer contracts were issued in error and that there was no meeting of the minds between the parties regarding voiding Dr. Jain’s DROP participation. In particular, Dr. Robinson, Provost and Vice- President for Academic Affairs, testified in deposition that when he signed Dr. Jain’s summer employment contracts on May 20, 2003, he had no knowledge of Dr. Jain’s participation in the DROP program; that he first became aware that Dr. Jain was in DROP with a DROP termination date of May 30, 2003, upon receiving a May 21, 2003, memorandum from Nellie Woodruff, Director of the FAMU Personnel Office; and that Dean Larry Rivers did not have the authority to issue work assignments for any of his faculty beyond their DROP dates. Additionally, Dr. Henry Williams, Assistant Dean for Science and Technology, testified in deposition that when he signed the Recommendation for Summer Employment on May 5, 2003, which recommended Dr. Jain for teaching summer courses beginning May 12, 2003, he was unaware that there was a 30-day window during which a DROP participant could not be employed. Obviously, when the undersigned weighed all of the evidence, including evidence presented at hearing which is not part of this analysis, it was determined that the preponderance of the evidence was in favor of Dr. Jain’s position. However, that is not the standard to be applied here. The undersigned concludes that at the time the case was filed and prior to the commencement of the hearing, FAMU possessed admissible evidence sufficient to establish the fact that it did not give written agreement to his decision to abandon DROP and resume employment if accepted by the finder of fact. While the finder of fact ultimately did not agree with FAMU, FAMU possessed the material facts necessary to establish the defense, i.e., admissible evidence sufficient to establish the fact if accepted by the trier of fact, when the case was filed and prior to the final hearing. The second question is whether FAMU’s defense would not be supported by the application of then existing law to those material facts, when the case was initially filed or at any time before the final hearing. In the Pretrial Stipulation, the parties referenced Sections 121.091(13) and 121.021(39), Florida Statutes, as provisions of law relevant to the determination of the issues in the case.2/ These statutory provisions were also referenced by the undersigned in the Recommended Order as “two competing statutory provisions.” Recommended Order at 15. Subsection 121.091(13), Florida Statutes, establishing the DROP program, was created by s. 8, Ch. 97-180, Laws of Florida, with an effective date of January 1, 1999.3/ Section 121.091(13), Florida Statutes (2003), read as follows: DEFERRED RETIREMENT OPTION PROGRAM.--In general, and subject to the provisions of this section, the Deferred Retirement Option Program, hereinafter referred to as the DROP, is a program under which an eligible member of the Florida Retirement System may elect to participate, deferring receipt of retirement benefits while continuing employment with his or her Florida Retirement System employer. The deferred monthly benefits shall accrue in the System Trust Fund on behalf of the participant, plus interest compounded monthly, for the specified period of the DROP participation, as provided in paragraph (c). Upon termination of employment, the participant shall receive the total DROP benefits and begin to receive the previously determined normal retirement benefits. Participation in the DROP does not guarantee employment for the specified period of DROP. Participation in the DROP by an eligible member beyond the initial 60-month period as authorized in this subsection shall be on an annual contractual basis for all participants. Section 121.021(39)(b), Florida Statutes (2003), read as follows: 'Termination' for a member electing to participate under the Deferred Retirement Option Program occurs when the Deferred Retirement Option Program participant ceases all employment relationships with employers under this system in accordance with s. 121.091(13), but in the event the Deferred Retirement Option Program participant should be employed by any such employer within the next calendar month, termination will be deemed not to have occurred, except as provided in s. 121.091(13)(b)4.c. A leave of absence shall constitute a continuation of the employment relationship. Unlike the situation in Albritton, supra, the DROP program was relatively new and the statutes creating the same were not well established provisions of law. Dr. Jain was in the first “class” of DROP for FAMU. FAMU and its lawyers did not have the benefit of established case law that discussed DROP and its provisions when this case was filed or at any time before the hearing. While general contract law also came into play, it had to be considered in the context of the DROP program, which had no precedent of case law. FAMU argues in its Response to the Motion for Attorney's Fees that it interpreted the provision in Section 121.091(13), Florida Statutes, that requires written approval of the employer to be either the DROP VOID form provided by the Division of Retirement or a written document, executed by the designated University official, specifically approving Petitioner's decision. "The University did not believe the employment contracts that were issued to Petitioner in error, would constitute written approval." FAMU's Response at 5. This argument is consistent with the position FAMU took in the Pretrial Statement quoted above, that there was never a meeting of the minds "or any other agreement" that Dr. Jain's retirement rescission was accepted. A critical conclusion in the Recommended Order is found in paragraph 38: "Moreover, while the FAMU administration did not sign the DROP-VOID form, the contracts issued to Dr. Jain constitute written approval of Dr. Jain's employer regarding modification of his termination date." FAMU also took the position in the Pretrial Stipulation that Dr. Jain did not work past May 30, 2003, based upon the material facts recited above. Under that reading of the facts, Dr. Jain did not work during the next calendar month after DROP, and, therefore terminated employment consistent with the definition of "termination" in Section 121.021(39)(b), Florida Statutes. Again, while the undersigned did not agree with FAMU's application of the material facts to the then-existing law, FAMU's interpretation was not completely without merit. See Mullins v. Kennerly, 847 So. 2d 1151, 1155. (Case completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by reasonable argument for extension, modification or reversal of existing law is a guideline for determining if an action is frivolous.) Accordingly, the undersigned concludes that at the time the case was filed and prior to the commencement of the hearing, FAMU did not know and could not be expected to know that its defense would not be supported by the application of then-existing law to the material facts necessary to establish the defense. Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is ORDERED: Petitioner’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is denied. DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of March, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS 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 1st day of March, 2006.
The Issue Whether or not the Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Administration, Division of Retirement, was in error in refusing to allow the Petitioner, John S. Forster, Jr., a/k/a John S. Forster to repay his contributions to the Florida Retirement Systems after he had requested and been granted a refund of his contributions made to the Florida Retirement Systems.
Findings Of Fact John S. Forster, Jr. applied for a job with the University of North Florida, Jacksonville, Florida. That application was under the name John S. Forster. He was given employment by the University and commenced the job. His position was as Store Keeper II. That job involved the receiving and distribution of incoming materials which the University was purchasing. Sometime in the middle to late part of February, 1976 the Petitioner suffered an injury in his employment and was required to be away from his work. During the course of the treatment of the Petitioner and subsequent contact by the employer, it was discovered that the Petitioner had on several occasions given false answers on his employment applications and medical questionnaires. Specifically, in answering questions propounded to him about former serious illness or operations, he had answered in the negative when in fact he had had a back condition which required surgery. This finding is borne out by the Respondent's Exhibits 2, 3 and 4, admitted into evidence, which are employment questionnaires and medical questionnaires completed by the petitioner. After the discovery of the false answers and subsequent to the Petitioner having been away from his employment for an extended period of time, a decision was made to terminate the Petitioner from his employment with the University of North Florida. Upon receiving the notice of termination the Petitioner had no further contact with the University of North Florida and did not attend any form of exit interview, as is the policy of the University. However, prior to his employment, the University had given an orientation session in which he was made familiar with the right that he had under the Florida Retirement Systems, to include the distribution of certain brochures of information. It is not clear how the Petitioner obtained the form, but he did obtain a form which is a form utilized for requesting refund of contributions to the Florida Retirement Systems. This form may be found as Respondent's Exhibit 1, admitted into evidence. The form was completed in its entirety by the Petitioner, with the exception of the portions which are to be completed by the last Florida employer. The portions to be completed by the Florida employer were not completed. effectively what the form did was to instruct the, Petitioner that his application for refund would waive, for him, his heirs and assignees all rights, title and interest in the Florida Retirement Systems. This waiver constitutes a waiver in law on the question of any rights the Petitioner, his heirs and assignees would have under the Florida Retirement Systems. The waiver becomes significant because the Petitioner went to a social security office and discovered that he would possibly be entitled to certain benefits due to the injury he suffered on the job with the University of North Florida, and those benefits would accrue to the Petitioner as a member of the Florida Retirement Systems. Notwithstanding that possible right to recovery, the Petitioner may not recover any compensation from the Florida Retirement Systems, due to his voluntary withdrawal from the Florida Retirement Systems by his refund request dated May 7, 1976. This withdrawal was made without coercion and without the knowledge of the University of North Florida and without the responsibility on the Dart of the University of North Florida or the Florida Division of Retirement to give any instructions on the implications of such a refund being granted. The Petitioner now has received his contributions from the Florida Retirement Systems and is not entitled to further relief as petitioned for.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Petitioner, John S. Forster, Jr. also known as John S. Forster, be denied any right to repay his contributions into the Florida Retirement Systems as a means to receiving compensation on the injury received while employed by the University of North Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of April, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: John S. Forster, Jr. 11615 Jonathan Road Jacksonville, Florida 32225 Stephen S. Mathues, Esquire Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center 2639 North Monroe Street Suite 207-C - Box 81 Tallahassee, Florida 32303
