The Issue The issue in this matter is whether Petitioner is entitled to retroactive disability retirement benefits from June 1, 1999, through April 30, 2001.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was a bus driver employed by the Lee County School Board. He has a tenth-grade education and is of normal intelligence. Petitioner had worked for Lee County Schools for over eight years when he had a work related injury in March 1997. Upon settlement of his claim for workers' compensation, he resigned his position with Lee County Schools on June 22, 1999. On April 20, 2001, Petitioner, for the first time, sought information regarding disability retirement benefits from his personnel office and met with Griffin for that purpose. At that time, Petitioner had 8.33 years of creditable service. After meeting with Petitioner, Griffin sent an e-mail to Mark Sadler (Sadler), who at that time served as the Disability Administrator for the Division. During the e-mail exchange, in-line-of-duty disability benefits were not mentioned. Regular disability benefits under the FRS require that a member be "vested." In this case, that required a member, including Petitioner, to have ten years of creditable service (it has since been changed by the Legislature to six years). In-line-of-duty disability benefits, on the other hand, were available from the first day of employment. On August 1, 2001, Petitioner contacted the Division to inquire about benefits. As a result of the call, the Division sent a disability handbook and application to Petitioner on August 14, 2001. The disability handbook contains a description of all disability benefits available to members, as well as requirements for obtaining those benefits. On January 25, 2002, the Division received an application for in-line-of-duty disability benefits from Petitioner. After receiving and reviewing the relevant materials, the Division approved his application for benefits and added him to the retired payroll effective February 1, 2002. Shortly after being approved, Petitioner requested the Division to re-establish his effective date of retirement to April 1, 2001, based on the e-mail exchange between Griffin and Sadler. After reviewing Petitioner's file, the Division determined that he had attempted to apply on April 20, 2001, and accordingly re-established his effective retirement date as May 1, 2001, the first day of the following month. Shortly after the Division changed his effective retirement date to May 1, 2001, Petitioner then requested the Division to re-establish it as June 1, 1999, to correspond with his resignation. Howell again reviewed his file. Since there was no evidence of any earlier attempt to apply for benefits, the Division correctly determined that Petitioner's May 1, 2001, effective date was accurate. On July 23, 2003, the Division issued the Final Agency Action denying his request for a June 1, 1999, effective retirement date, and Petitioner timely appealed. According to the rules adopted by the Division, when a member applies for retirement benefits more than 30 days after his or her termination, the effective retirement date is established as the first day of the month following receipt of the application by the Division. The Lee County School System does not routinely provide termination or worker's compensation information to the Division, unless it is in connection with an application for benefits. Since Petitioner made no application for benefits, the Division was not aware that Petitioner's employment was terminated as of June 22, 1999, until the e-mail exchange in April 2001.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Retirement enter a final order denying Petitioner's request for an effective retirement date of June 1, 1999. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM R. PFEIFFER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of March, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: William C. Strickland 8230 Ebson Drive North Fort Myers, Florida 33917 Thomas E. Wright, Esquire Department of Management Services Division of Retirement 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Alberto Dominguez, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Sarabeth Snuggs, Interim Director Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner, Albert F. Cook, had a relationship with the Department of Corrections (DOC) at any time during the month of April, 1993, and if so, whether he was eligible to receive a retirement benefit for that month, as well.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was employed at times pertinent hereto by the Department of Corrections (DOC) at its Baker Correctional Institution facility. On February 19, 1993, he was notified of his transfer to the Florida State Prison, purportedly for disciplinary reasons. Upon learning of this eventuality, the Petitioner immediately went on sick leave. He maintains that it was duly- approved sick leave. No medical evidence to that effect was presented, but the Petitioner suggested that his illness might be of a psychiatric nature. He clearly was disgusted with the action taken by the DOC to transfer him. Subsequently thereto, he decided to apply for retirement, effective March 31, 1993. Shortly thereafter, he sought to have his retirement request rescinded or withdrawn; however, that request was denied. He was thereupon removed from the DOC payroll, effective March 31, 1993, essentially as a termination action. He received a retirement benefit check for the period of April 1-30, 1993 in the amount of $2,324.53 from the Division of Retirement. The Petitioner appealed the DOC employment action to the Public Employees Relations Commission and an administrative proceeding ensued. Ultimately, a settlement agreement was reached in that case which resulted in the Petitioner being allowed to resign, effective April 16, 1993, rather than suffer termination effective March 31, 1993. That agreement entered into by the parties in that case specifically stated that "the agency [DOC] will take whatever action is necessary to return the employee [Cook] to the payroll for the period between March 31, 1993 and April 16, 1993". The Division of Retirement was, of course, not a party to that agreement since it was not a party to the litigation involved. The agreement was incorporated into a Final Order issued by the Public Employees Relations Commission in Case No. CF-93-196, entered June 7, 1993. The Petitioner sent a letter to E.I. Perrin, the Superintendent of Florida State Prison, dated April 12, 1993, in which he stated "that if I am still on the payroll, I hereby resign my position with the Florida Department of Corrections effective April 16, 1993 . . .". According to attendance and leave reports signed by both the Petitioner and Marion Bronson, the Personnel Director of Florida State Prison, the Petitioner was on sick leave for the payroll period of March 26, 1993 through April 8, 1993. While the date of the Petitioner's signature on the relevant time sheet was April 8, 1993, the end of the pay period, the Petitioner testified that the time sheets had actually been submitted earlier. Attendance and leave reports for the following pay period indicated that the Petitioner continued on sick leave status through April 16, 1993. The time sheets for the latter period were not signed by the Petitioner but were signed by Marion Bronson. DOC ordered a manual payroll made up to record payment and to pay the Petitioner through April 16, 1993. He received a salary warrant for $1,234.43 for that period from April 1-16, 1993. That salary check and warrant reflects that retirement contributions were paid as to that April payroll period salary. Because he received additional retirement service credit and a new average final compensation as a result of being in a payroll status and being paid for the period of time in April 1993, the Petitioner's monthly retirement benefits actually now exceed what he would receive as retirement benefit payments had he not been compensated as an employee for his service through April 16, 1993. The Petitioner testified at hearing that he was terminated on March 31, 1993 and not re-hired. He further testified that he neither wanted nor expected payment from DOC for the period of March 31, 1993 through April 16, 1993 and that he "merely wanted to clear his name". Nevertheless, he entered into the settlement agreement which provided for him to be compensated and on payroll status through April 16, 1993, when he entered into the settlement with DOC in the proceeding before the Public Employees Relations Commission. He is presumed to have full knowledge of the content of that settlement agreement, and it reflects that he freely and voluntarily entered into it, as does his testimony. According to Mr. Bronson's testimony, during the relevant period from March 31, 1993 through April 16, 1993, the Petitioner was occupying an authorized and established employment position with DOC. His employment relationship continued with the Department, as a result of the settlement agreement, until April 16, 1993. Because Mr. Bronson and DOC are not parties to the present proceeding and have no financial interest in the outcome of this litigation, Mr. Bronson's testimony is deemed credible and is accepted insofar as it may differ from that of the Petitioner. The Respondent agency learned that a payroll had been prepared for the period of time in April of 1993 in question and that a salary warrant was issued on the basis of the settlement agreement extending the Petitioner's employment with DOC through April 16, 1993. The Division of Retirement thus temporarily reduced the Petitioner's retirement benefits to recover the amount of the resulting, unauthorized April retirement check. It was unauthorized because he remained employed for the period of time in April and was paid as though he were employed, as a result of the settlement agreement. Consequently, he was not entitled to retirement benefits for that period of time in April 1993 ending on April 16, 1993. Mr. Snuggs testified that every retirement applicant, such as the Petitioner, receives a form FRS-TAR, entitled "Retirement System Termination and Re-Employment". The Petitioner did not deny receiving that form (Respondent's Exhibit 4) which advises prospective retirees of their rights and obligations in terms of retirement and retirement benefits as it relates to re- employment.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, temporarily reducing the Petitioner's retirement benefits, in the manner already proposed by that agency, until such time as his April 1993 retirement benefit, paid to him previously, has been reimbursed to the agency. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of December, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-2292 Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-11. Accepted. The Petitioner filed no proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Albert F. Cook Post Office Box 782 Sneads, Florida 32460 Robert B. Button, Esquire Department of Management Services Division of Retirement 2639 North Monroe Street, Bldg. C Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 A.J. McMullian, III, Director Division of Retirement 2639 North Monroe Street, Bldg. C Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 William H. Lindner, Secretary Department of Management Services Knight Building, Ste. 307 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner, a surviving beneficiary, is entitled to change the Florida Retirement System retirement benefits 1 All references to chapter 120 are to the 2019 version. payment option selected by her now-deceased spouse, a member of the Florida Retirement System.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, is the state agency charged under chapter 121, Florida Statutes (2002),2 with administering the Florida Retirement System ("FRS"). Petitioner is the spouse of James L. Williams, now deceased, who was employed by the School District of Palm Beach ("District) for 38 years, and was a member of the FRS. Williams retired from his employment with the District on August 23, 2002. At that time, he executed the Florida Retirement System Application for Service Retirement Form, Form FR-11. On Form FR-11, he designated Petitioner as his primary beneficiary and Jones as his contingent beneficiary. Williams signed this form, and his signature was notarized. Also on August 23, 2002, Williams executed the Florida Retirement System Option Selection for FRS Members Form, Form FRS-11o. On that form, he selected FRS retirement benefits payment Option 2, and designated that choice by writing an "X" on the line next to Option 2. Option 2 was described on Form FRS-11o as: A reduced monthly payment for my lifetime. If I die before receiving 120 monthly payments, my designated beneficiary will receive a monthly benefit in the same amount as I was receiving until the monthly benefit payments to both of us equal 120 monthly payments. No further benefits are then payable. 2 All references to chapter 121 are to the 2002 version of the Florida Statutes, which was in effect at the time that the retirement benefits application and option selection forms that have given rise to this proceeding were executed. Form FRS-11o contained a section, immediately below the description of Option 2, that was required to be completed by the spouse of a married FRS member who had selected Option 1 or Option 2. On August 23, 2002, Petitioner completed, signed, and dated that section, confirming that she was the legal spouse of Williams and acknowledging that she was informed that Williams had selected either Option 1 or Option 2. The purpose of that section on Form FRS-11o is to inform the spouse of the FRS member that, by the member's selection of either Option 1 or Option 2, the surviving spouse is not entitled to receive a continuing benefit for the rest of his or her life. The last sentence on Form FRS-11o, immediately above the space for the FRS member's signature, states in pertinent part: "[m]y retirement becomes final when any payment is cashed . . . [or] deposited." DeVonnia Jones was present with Williams at the time he was given Form FR-11 and Form FRS-11o to execute. Jones testified that when Williams arrived at the District office on August 23, 2002, Form FR-11 and Form FRS-11o already had been filled out by District staff, and were presented to him by his supervisor, who informed him that he needed to retire or he would be terminated. According to Jones, Williams did not wish to retire at that time. Jones asked District staff how much more Williams' monthly benefits would be if he did not retire for another year or two, and was told that Williams' benefits would be between $25 and $30 more per month. According to Jones, "my dad basically shed a couple tears. He was not comfortable, but he went ahead and signed it because I told him to, because they made it seem like he wasn't going to be eligible to get what he was supposed to get." Williams signed and dated Form FRS-11o on August 23, 2002, and his signature was notarized. On August 28, 2002, Respondent sent Williams a document titled "Acknowledgement of Service Retirement Application." This document stated, among other things, that Williams had selected FRS Option 2, and that his retirement was effective September 2002. At the bottom of this document was a standalone paragraph, in bold face type, that read: "ONCE YOU RETIRE, YOU CANNOT ADD ADDITIONAL SERVICE OR CHANGE OPTIONS. RETIREMENT BECOMES FINAL WHEN ANY BENEFIT PAYMENT IS CASHED OR DEPOSITED!" Also on August 28, 2002, Respondent sent Williams a document titled "Florida Division of Retirement Estimate of Retirement Benefit (Estimate only, subject to final verification of all factors)." This document provided information regarding the amount of the monthly benefits Williams would receive for the four options offered under the FRS. A statement in bold face type at the bottom of the document read: "Comments: You have chosen Option 2. Your option selection cannot be changed after you cash or deposit any benefit payment." Had Williams wished to change his retirement benefits payment option, he could have done so up to the time he cashed or deposited a retirement benefits payment. Williams began receiving his monthly FRS retirement benefits payments from Respondent on October 4, 2002. He cashed or deposited the first FRS benefits warrant (Warrant #0618275) that he received. Thereafter, Williams received monthly FRS retirement benefits payments until his death on April 26, 2010. Williams received a total of 92 monthly benefits payments before his death. All of the FRS retirement benefits payment warrants issued to Williams were deposited or cashed. On May 17, 2010, Respondent contacted Petitioner to inform her that she needed to complete a Florida Retirement System Pension Plan Application for Beneficiary of Monthly Retirement Benefits Form, Form FST- 11b, in order for her to receive monthly FRS retirement benefits payments as Williams' beneficiary. In the contact letter, Respondent informed Petitioner that "you will receive the same gross monthly benefits to which the member was entitled through August 31, 2012." Petitioner completed Form FST-11b on June 25, 2010, and began receiving FRS monthly benefits payments on June 30, 2010. Petitioner received a total of 28 FRS retirement monthly benefits payments. The last warrant issued to Petitioner (Warrant #0375196) was issued on August 31, 2012. All of the warrants issued to Petitioner were cashed or deposited. In sum, Williams and Petitioner collectively received a total of 120 FRS retirement monthly benefits payments, pursuant to Option 2. All of the warrants issued to Williams, and then to Petitioner, as his beneficiary, were deposited or cashed. Petitioner testified that beginning in 2003, she made numerous attempts, over a period of years, to contact the District and Respondent regarding changing the FRS retirement benefits payment option that Williams had selected on August 23, 2002. During this time, Williams and Petitioner continued to cash or deposit the benefits payment warrants they received from Respondent. In this proceeding, Petitioner does not claim that Williams accidentally selected Option 2, or that he intended to select another option, when he signed Form FRS-11o on August 23, 2002. Rather, she asserts that at the time Williams retired, he suffered from confusion and memory loss such that he did not understand the option he chose—effectively, that he lacked the mental capacity to have chosen Option 2 as his retirement benefits payment option. Alternatively, Petitioner contends that because Williams was forced to retire under threat of termination from his employment, he was under duress when he chose Option 2 on Form FRS-11o. On these grounds, Petitioner asserts that she should be permitted to change Williams' choice of retirement benefits payment option.3 3 Here, Petitioner, has requested that she be allowed to "change" Williams' choice of Option 2 on the FRS retirement option selection forms. She did not identify, or present evidence, Petitioner's impassioned testimony at the final hearing shows that she fervently believes her husband was wrongly treated by the District when it required him to retire in 2002, against his desire to continue to work.4 However, as was explained to Petitioner at the final hearing, the purpose of this proceeding was not to determine whether the District wrongly forced Williams out of his employment; rather, it is to determine whether there is any factual or legal basis for changing the retirement benefits option that Williams selected when he executed Form FRS-11o nearly 18 years ago. The evidence does not support Petitioner's argument that Williams lacked the mental capacity to adequately understand the option that he chose on Form FRS-11o. Although Petitioner testified that Williams had been treated by a neurologist, no direct medical evidence was presented establishing that Williams was mentally incapacitated at the time he executed Form FRS-11o. Additionally, at the time Williams signed the form, he was accompanied by his daughter, who, after speaking to District staff regarding his options, advised him to sign the form. Petitioner herself also was present at the District office and signed Form FRS-11o, expressly acknowledging that she understood Williams had chosen Option 2. Thus, to the extent that Williams may not, on his own, have fully appreciated his choice of options on Form FRS-11o—and there is no competent direct evidence showing that to be the case—both his daughter and wife were present with him when he executed Form FRS-11o, his daughter told him to sign the form, and his wife expressly acknowledged that she understood his choice of Option 2. These circumstances do not support a finding that Williams lacked the mental capacity to understand, or did not adequately regarding which specific option she would choose, if permitted to change Williams' selected FRS benefits option. 4 The evidence indicates that the District required Williams to retire because he began having difficulty with his job as a mail carrier. According to Petitioner, Williams had an accident in a District vehicle and did not report the accident to the District, and that when he was transferred to the mail room, he had difficulty remembering to do certain required tasks. understand, the consequence of choosing Option 2 when he executed Form FRS-11o. The evidence also does not support a finding that Williams' choice of Option 2 should be changed, due to duress. There is no direct evidence establishing that Williams was under duress when he chose Option 2. Although Jones testified, credibly, that her father was upset about being forced to retire when he wanted to continue working, her testimony that he was under duress was based on her subjective conclusion. Furthermore, even if Williams was emotionally distressed when he signed the FRS benefits options forms, there is no evidence showing that as result of such distress, he chose Option 2 instead of a different option. It also is noted that Form FR-11 and Form FRS-11o both expressly informed Williams that once his retirement became final—which would occur when any benefit payment was cashed or deposited—his retirement benefits option selection would become final and could not be changed. Further, Williams received two more pieces of correspondence from Respondent—both containing statements in bold face type—expressly informing him that once any FRS retirement benefits payments were cashed or deposited, his retirement benefits option choice could not be changed. As noted above, Williams could have changed his FRS benefits option at any time before he cashed or deposited a benefits payment; however, he did not do so. Thus, pursuant to the express terms of Form FR-11 and Form FRS-11o, when Williams cashed or deposited the first benefits payment, his selection of Option 2 became final and could not be changed. In sum, the evidence does not establish any factual basis for permitting Petitioner to change Williams' selection of Option 2 as his FRS retirement benefits payment option.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Management Services, enter a final order denying Petitioner's request to change the FRS retirement benefits payment option selected by her husband, an FRS member, when he retired. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of March, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of March, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Ladasiah Jackson Ford, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed) Deloris Williams 1219 West Ninth Street Riviera Beach, Florida 33404 (eServed) Nikita S. Parker, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed) David DiSalvo, Director Division of Retirement Department of Mangement Services Post Office Box 9000 Tallahassee, Florida 32315-9000 (eServed) Sean Gellis, General Counsel Office of the General Counsel Department of Mangement Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to continue to receive benefits under the Florida Teachers' Retirement System.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed as a school teacher in the public school system of Broward County, Florida, prior to October 1, 1989. Petitioner had been so employed for approximately 28 years and he was a member of the Florida Teachers' Retirement System. Petitioner was born January 1939 and was, at the time of the formal hearing, 52 years of age. In addition to his employment as a school teacher, Petitioner worked part-time, on weekends, holidays, and during vacations as a longshoreman at Port Everglades. On August 21, 1988, the Petitioner suffered an injury to his left ankle and leg while working as a longshoreman on the docks at Port Everglades. This accident occurred when a piece of equipment backed over Petitioner, breaking his ankle and leg. Two operations by a Dr. Smith followed the accident. Thereafter, Petitioner was treated by Dr. William A. Morris, III, M.D., a family practitioner. Petitioner applied for disability retirement benefits under the Florida Teachers' Retirement System and asserted that the injuries he suffered on the docks rendered him unable to teach. Respondent thereafter received a certification from Dr. Morris expressing the opinion that Petitioner was disabled as a result of his injuries and unable to teach school. Respondent granted Petitioner's application for disability retirement benefits in partial reliance on Dr. Morris's certification of disability. Petitioner's official retirement date was October 1, 1989, and he thereafter began to receive disability retirement benefits from the Florida Teachers' Retirement System. As part of its operations, Respondent receives computer reports from the Florida Auditor General's Office which provides information as to income earned by retirees who receive benefits under the Florida Teachers' Retirement System. From the Auditor General's report, it became apparent to Respondent that Petitioner continued to work as a longshoreman at Port Everglades. The report reflected that Petitioner was receiving income from several shipping companies at the same time he was receiving disability retirement benefits. Mark Sadler, one of Respondent's Retirement Administrators, thereafter requested that Petitioner complete FRS Form FR-13e, entitled "Retirees' Report of Continuing Disability", so that a determination could be made as to Petitioner's continued entitlement to disability retirement benefits. Petitioner gave a negative response to the following question on Form FR13-e: "Since the date of your disability retirement, or the date you last completed a Disability Evaluation Statement, have you ever been employed in any capacity?" This response was not truthful. Respondent also requested that Dr. Morris complete Form FR-13f, entitled "Physician's Report of Re-Examination" to ascertain his opinion as to Petitioner's continued disability. Dr. Morris returned the form, dated May 7, 1991, and expressed the opinion that Petitioner was still totally and permanently disabled. Dr. Morris also wrote Mr. Sadler a letter, dated June 16, 1992, expressing his opinion that Petitioner's condition was essentially unchanged from his previous indications. On July 7, 1992, Mr. Sadler informed Dr. Morris by telephone that it appeared that Petitioner had been gainfully employed as a longshoreman. Dr. Morris had not been aware of that employment and expressed the opinion to Mr. Sadler by telephone that Petitioner could teach if he could perform the duties of a longshoreman. On August 4, 1992, Respondent advised Petitioner in writing that it had determined that Petitioner was no longer entitled to disability retirement benefits. Petitioner contested that decision and requested a formal administrative hearing. This proceeding followed. Respondent thereafter took Petitioner's deposition to determine the extent of his employment as a longshoreman. In that deposition, Petitioner described his job activities and the hours he worked. Petitioner worked as a longshoreman on the docks throughout the time he was receiving disability retirement benefits. He was employed by different shipping companies in several different capacities. He worked as a porter handling luggage, he worked with a crew loading and unloading scrap iron, he worked with a crew loading foodstuffs on passenger ships, and he worked with a crew directing the operator of a gantry crane. He drove a fork lift and served as a supervisor of various crews, a position known as a "header." Prior to his own deposition, Dr. Morris reviewed Petitioner's deposition and became familiar with Petitioner's employment history since his disability retirement. Dr. Morris expressed the opinion that Petitioner was physically capable of performing the tasks required of a school teacher. Petitioner testified that he suffered from pain in his left ankle and leg as a result of the accident and that he has difficulty at times walking or standing. Petitioner was also concerned that he would be inattentive to his students at times because of his discomfort and because of the medication he takes to alleviate that discomfort and to control his diabetes, gout, and arthritis. Petitioner argues that his employment as a longshoreman does not establish that he is able to return to teaching and that he remains disabled. Petitioner presented no medical testimony to support his arguments. Based on Dr. Morris's testimony, Petitioner's arguments are rejected, and it is found that Petitioner is capable of returning to his employment as a teacher.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which adopts the findings of facts contained herein and which terminates Petitioner's disability retirement benefits. DONE AND ORDERED this 6th day of January, 1993, 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 6th day of January, 1993. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-5434 The only post-hearing submittal filed by Petitioner was a letter and attachment thereto that contains argument, but not proposed factual findings. Those arguments are contrary to the conclusions reached herein and are rejected. The proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Respondent are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Lewis B. Tunnage 450 North West 20th Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33311 Larry D. Scott, Esquire Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 A. J. McMullian, III, Director Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center Building C 2639 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Larry Strong, Acting Secretary Department of Management Services Knight Building, Suite 307 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue Whether the Petitioner's rights and benefits under the Florida Retirement System ("FRS") have been forfeited as set forth in the Notice of Forfeiture of Retirement Benefits dated August 26, 2004.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, on the stipulation of the parties, and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Division is the state agency charged with the responsibility of managing, governing, and administering the FRS on behalf of the Department of Management Services. The FRS is a public retirement system as defined by Florida law. It provides benefits to local and state employees, including teachers, state legislators, and local public officials. Mr. Childers was employed as a school teacher in Escambia County from 1955 to 1957, and this employment continued for approximately two and one-half years. During this time, Mr. Childers was a member of the Teacher Retirement System, which later became part of the FRS. His two and one-half years of service as a teacher is credited service under the FRS. In November 1970, Mr. Childers was elected to serve as a member of the Florida Legislature, and he continued to serve as a state legislator until November 2000, when he left office as a result of term limits. As a state legislator, Mr. Childers was a member of the FRS class of State Elected Officials, and his 30 years of service is credited service under the FRS. In November 2000, Mr. Childers was elected to serve as a member of the Escambia County Board of County Commissioners. In this position, Mr. Childers was a member of the FRS class of County Elected Officials, and his years of service as a County Commissioner is credited service under the FRS. On or about June 17, 2002, Mr. Childers was charged by indictment with one count of money laundering, a second-degree felony pursuant to Section 896.101(3)(a)1. and 2.a. and (5)(b), Florida Statutes (2002)1; one count of bribery, a third degree felony pursuant to Section 838.015, Florida Statutes2; and one count of receipt of unlawful compensation or reward for official behavior, a third degree felony pursuant to Section 838.016(1), Florida Statutes.3 The charges in the June 17, 2002, indictment were based solely on activities allegedly occurring subsequent to November 2000 and arising out of Mr. Childers's service as a member of the Escambia County Board of Commissioners. Mr. Childers was tried and found guilty by a jury of two counts in the indictment, bribery and unlawful compensation or reward for official behavior.4 On or about May 16, 2003, Mr. Childers was adjudicated guilty of these two crimes and was sentenced to 42 months in prison, to be followed by 18 months probation. Mr. Childers has not, to date, applied for retirement benefits under the FRS. Mr. Childers was a public officer who was adjudicated guilty of two offenses specified in Chapter 838, Florida Statutes, which arose out of his service as a member of the Escambia County Board of Commissioners. None of the actions related to his service as a state legislator or as a teacher in Escambia County.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, enter a final order finding that W.D. Childers committed specified offenses, as defined in Section 112.3173(2)(e), Florida Statutes, prior to his retirement from public service and ordering that, pursuant to Section 112.3173(3), Florida Statutes, W.D. Childers forfeit all his rights and benefits under the Florida Retirement System, except for the return of any accumulated contributions. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of August, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S PATRICIA M. HART 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 31st day of August, 2007.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to purchase leave of absence retirement credit on behalf of James Gapinski, Petitioner's ex- husband and a deceased member of the Florida Retirement System.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Geraldine Gapinski, is the former spouse of James Gapinski, deceased. At the time of his death, Mr. Gapinski was an employee of Florida State University and a "vested" Florida Retirement Service (FRS) member. Petitioner is an employee of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) and an active member of FRS. Mr. Gapinski was continuously employed by Florida's Univeristy System from approximately 1970, until his death on November 20, 2000, with the exception of a period from September 10, 1976 to June 9, 1977, during which period he took an approved leave of absence. During the period September 10, 1976 to June 9, 1977, no contributions were made by Mr. Gapinski or on Mr. Gapinski's behalf to FRS toward his accruing retirement benefits and he earned no creditable service in FRS for this eight month period he was on his leave of absence. On May 4, 2000, Mr. Gapinski requested an audit and estimate of retirement benefits from Respondent. At the time of his request for an audit and estimate, Mr. Gapinski and Petitioner had begun a dissolution of marriage proceeding (divorce). At all times material, each litigant had independent legal counsel, and each lawyer was aware that Mr. Gapinski's FRS benefits were "on the table" for division of the marital estate in the course of the divorce proceedings. At all times material, Mr. Gapinski was terminally ill with cancer. On September 14, 2000, Mr. Gapinski applied for participation in the Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP). His application (DROP Form DP11) requested a DROP "begin date" of September 1, 2000, and designated each of Mr. Gapinski's two adult daughters as 50 percent primary beneficiaries. Petitioner, who at that time was still married to Mr. Gapinski, was not even designated a secondary beneficiary. The application, which Mr. Gapinski signed, stated in pertinent part, I understand that the earliest date my participation in the DROP can begin is the first date I reach my normal retirement date as determined by law . . . I cannot add additional service, change options, or change my type of retirement after my DROP begin date (emphasis in original). The application also specified eight required acts before Mr. Gapinski could retire and become a DROP participant, including, but not limited to, 4. A check payable to FRS for any amount you owe, or a written statement that you do not wish to claim the service . . . . On September 15, 2000, Respondent provided James Gapinski with two estimates of benefits. Estimate No. 1 showed the benefit Mr. Gapinski would be entitled to if he chose to purchase the one year leave of absence for $6,820.52, providing for a DROP beginning date of September 1, 2000. This estimate further advised that 6.5 percent per annum would be posted on June 30, 2001. It also stated, Comments: The amount due is to purchase service for your leave of absence from September 10, 1976 to June 9, 1977. This amount must be paid for a DROP begin date of September 1, 2000. Mr. Gapinski was also notified of the need to purchase his leave of absence credit in a letter from Respondent dated September 15, 2001, stating, in pertinent part, as follows: The following items are pending. The amount due is to purchase service for your leave of absence from September 10, 1976 to June 9, 1977. If you do not elect to pay the above amount due and purchase the service it represents, we must have written notification of your intent. * * * Completion of the Option Selection for FRS members, . . . AFTER YOUR FIRST MONTH OF DROP PARTICIPATION YOU CANNOT ADD ADDITIONAL SERVICE, CHANGE OPTIONS, CHANGE YOUR DROP BEGIN DATE OR CHANGE YOUR TYPE OF RETIREMENT. * * * Estimate No. 2 sent to Mr. Gapinski on September 15, 2000, showed the benefit Mr. Gapinski would be entitled to if he chose not to purchase his leave of absence and waited until March 1, 2001, to participate in DROP, when he would accrue 30 years of service without counting the gap left by his 1976-1977 leave of absence. This estimate also stated: Comments: This estimate does not include the purchase of your leave of absence and is provided for comparison purposes. It is provided for DROP purposes with a March 1, 2001, DROP begin date (see the enclosed DROP brochure). If you do not elect to pay the amount due and purchase the service it represents, we must have written notice of your intent. Apparently, neither attorney ever saw any of the foregoing papers. The thrust of Petitioner's attorney's actions and advice was to obtain survivorship retirement benefits, not necessarily DROP benefits, for Petitioner. On October 23, 2000, Petitioner's attorney was told by telephone by Ms. Ferguson, a representative of Respondent, that Petitioner must make a non-party request to release Mr. Gapinski's retirement information to her. So far as this record shows, no third party request was ever made, but that day, Petitioner's attorney and Ferguson also generally discussed retirement pay-out options that Mr. Gapinski could elect, and Petitioner's attorney was generally aware that the DROP process was not complete. On October 24, 2000, Petitioner's attorney discussed by telephone, retirement, divorce, and survivorship benefit issues and life insurance payment options with Ms. Hudson, a representative of Respondent. On October 26, 2000, Petitioner's attorney discussed, by telephone, retirement options and steps to be taken, with both Ms. Ferguson and Mr. Helms, another of Respondent's representatives. Mr. Helms told her the DROP application was not complete but if the couple were still married, Option No. 3 would give the most benefit for survivorship benefits. During the October 2000, conversations, Petitioner's attorney made each of Respondent's representatives aware of the impending divorce and of Mr. Gapinski's impending death, but the attorney did not specifically inquire how soon the lapsed time payment must be made and none of Respondent's representatives volunteered information on that issue. At Mr. Gapinski's request, the divorce proceeding was bifurcated. Prior to the divorce, Petitioner's attorney had done independent research and was aware that Mr. Gapinski had to pay the $6,820.52, in order to perfect the DROP program and in order to complete 30 years of creditable service in order to be eligible for survivorship benefits on his retirement. This information was communicated to Petitioner by her attorney and whether or not Petitioner would be willing to pay half the amount was discussed. Petitioner stated she would be willing to pay half the amount owed. As a condition to her agreement to bifurcate the divorce proceeding, that is, as a condition to letting Mr. Gapinski out of the marriage but reserving jurisdiction in the Circuit Court to resolve certain disputes concerning assets and entitlements, Petitioner required that the couple enter into an "Agreement" on October 27, 2000, which provided, in pertinent part, as follows: BIFURCATION: The Husband shall be entitled to bifurcation of the dissolution action. The marriage of the parties shall be dissolved with the Court reserving on all remaining unresolved issues not addressed in this agreement. In light of the Husband's health, the Wife shall schedule and appear at an ex parte hearing to dissolve the marriage, to obtain Court-ordered approval of this agreement, and to ensure the Court's reservation of jurisdiction to hear any and all issues pertinent to support and the division of property not yet settled by the parties. * * * B. The Wife further agrees that all marital assets awarded to her in this cause (including proceeds from the Husband's retirement and life insurance in the event the Husband predeceases her), shall be placed in an inter vivos trust, from which she may draw living, personal, and medical expenses, during her life, with the parties' adult daughters named as the irrevocable beneficiaries of the remainder of such trust. C. The Husband agrees to bequeath sufficient marital assets, awarded to him in this cause, to the parties' adult daughters to aid in their comfort and support. HUSBAND'S RETIREMENT: The Husband shall elect an option on his retirement with the State of Florida that provides for survivorship benefits for the benefit of the Wife. The wife shall be entitled to all such retirement survivorship benefits which, like the other assets she receives in this bifurcated action, shall be placed in an inter vivos trust for her living, personal and medical expenses, during her life, with the adult daughters as irrevocable beneficiaries of the remainder of the trust. The Husband shall, simultaneously with the signing of the agreement, execute such documents as are necessary to create retirement survivorship benefits in accordance with this term. Should the Husband fail to execute the survivorship option on his retirement or should he ever change such option in contravention of this term, the Husband agrees that the obligation of this term is binding upon his estate, which estate shall be responsible for paying such retirement survivorship benefits to the Wife. The Agreement could have, but did not, specifically require that the leave of absence be purchased by either Mr. Gapinski or Petitioner. Petitioner's and Mr. Gapinski's Agreement does not bind the Respondent, which was in no way privy to that Agreement. Petitioner and Mr. Gapinski's marriage was dissolved on November 1, 2000. Petitioner's attorney provided Mr. Gapinski, through his counsel, with DROP forms (FST-12 and FRS-11o). On November 1, 2000, Mr. Gapinski executed Option 2 for his DROP retirement on these forms, naming Petitioner as his sole primary beneficiary and negating his prior designation of his adult daughters as beneficiaries. Option No. 2 provides for a reduced monthly benefit payable for the FRS member's (Mr. Gapinski's) lifetime. If the member dies before receiving 120 monthly payments, his designated beneficiary (Petitioner) would receive a monthly benefit in the same amount until the monthly benefit payments to both of them equaled 120 monthly payments, when payments would terminate. Option No. 2 is available for regular service retirements as well as DROP retirements. Option No. 3 is also available for regular service retirements and DROP retirements. Option No. 3 would have provided a reduced monthly benefit payable for Mr. Gapinski's lifetime, and upon his death, his joint annuitant, if living, would receive a lifetime monthly benefit payment in the same amount as Mr. Gapinski was receiving. Then, no further benefits would be payable after both he and his joint annuitant were deceased. There are exceptions to the foregoing general description, none of which matter to the case at bar. Option No. 3 would clearly provide more money to Petitioner if she were eligible. On November 2, 2000, Petitioner's attorney had three short telephone conversations with Mr. Helms, who opined that since Mr. Gapinski had signed up for DROP while the couple were still married, Petitioner could still get Option No. 3, with DROP retroactive to September 1, 2000, but that the leave of absence must be paid for. Apparently, Petitioner's attorney did not ask what would happen if the gap was not paid for before Mr. Gapinski died and no representative of Respondent volunteered that information. The thrust of Petitioner's case continued to be to persuade Mr. Gapinski to pay the whole amount due and to change his Option election to No. 3. On or about November 3, 2000, Mr. Helms sent an estimate letter based on selecting a September 1, 2000, retirement date with Option No. 1, to Mr. Gapinski. This estimate letter stated Mr. Gapinski had 30.11 years of creditable service. It did not mention DROP or any pay back. It did state that no lump sum retirement or cash value payments were available. (Second page of attachment to Exhibit P-11). On November 3, 2000, Petitioner's attorney wrote Mr. Gapinski's attorney that Mr. Gapinski was considered by Respondent to be in the DROP program as of September 1, 2000, not March 1, 2001, as supposed before the divorce, but he had not bought back his leave by paying $6,820.52, and requested that Mr. Gapinski change his Option Election Form to Option No. 3 and authorize the payment of the $6,820.52 to Respondent. On or about November 9, 2000, Petitioner's attorney sent the already-executed FST-12 (Beneficiary Designation Form) and FRS-11o (Option Selection for FRS Members) showing Option No. 2 to Respondent. Mr. Helms acknowledged receipt. On or about November 9, 2000, Mr. Helms told Petitioner's attorney that the forms were correct and anyone could pay the $6,820.52. The attorney felt Mr. Gapinski was enrolled in DROP but that the $6,820.52 was still needed. On November 15, 2000, Petitioner's attorney sent Mr. Helms a letter memorializing their conversation, in which Mr. Helms had indicated it was not necessary for Petitioner to sign below the Option No. 2 selection paragraph on FRS 11o as long as she was aware of the option Mr. Gapinski had selected. On November 20, 2000, Mr. Gapinski passed away without anyone having purchased his leave of absence credit. Mr. Gapinski was only 57 years of age when he died. DROP retirement or regular service retirement with full benefits is possible at 62 years of age or upon attaining 30 years of creditable service. Mr. Gapinski remained in regular employment until his death. Because he had not purchased the leave of absence credit, Mr. Gapinski died with only 29 years and 9 months of creditable service for purposes of retirement. In other words, he was 3 months and ten days short of the 30-year retirement mark necessary to activate DROP or regular service retirement. Petitioner never communicated directly with Respondent until after Mr. Gapinski's death. Mr. Gapinski's will provided for the effective disinheritance of Petitioner to the extent provided by law. On December 14, 2000, Petitioner's attorney spoke by telephone with Mr. Helms, who told her he thought Petitioner could still pay the leave of absence money but he would call her back. On December 15, 2000, Stanley Colvin, another of Respondent's representatives, telephoned Petitioner's attorney to say Petitioner could not pay the amount after Mr. Gapinski's death. At no time prior to Mr. Gapinski's death did any representative of Respondent affirmatively represent to anyone that Petitioner could pay the money after Mr. Gapinski's death or the conditions under which no benefits would be paid or specifically what would happen if Mr. Gapinski died before the money was paid by someone. By a December 15, 2000, letter, Respondent notified Petitioner that since Mr. Gapinski had elected not to purchase the leave of absence, he could not have reached the required 30 years of service necessary to participate in the DROP program until March 1, 2001. It further stated that since Mr. Gapinski's death occurred before completion of the required months necessary to participate in DROP, his DROP application was cancelled and his choice of Option No. 2 was nullified. Moreover, Mr. Gapinski was viewed as an active FRS member on the date of his death, and because Petitioner, though designated as his beneficiary was not also a joint annuitant, she could only receive a refund of Mr. Gapinski's retirement contributions in the amount of $4,719.19,and was not eligible to receive Option No. 3. Respondent did not send a similar letter to prior beneficiaries, the decedent, or his estate/personal representatives. Petitioner requested a review, and on February 2, 2001, Respondent issued its proposed final agency action letter, to the same effect as the December 15, 2000, letter. Respondent did not send a similar proposed final agency action letter to prior beneficiaries, the decedent, or his estate/personal representatives. However, the undersigned notes that Mr. Gapinski's adult daughters, who also were his joint personal representatives, were present in the courtroom on September 24, 2001, the first day of hearing. As of the second day of hearing on October 21, 2001, the estate had been closed and the personal representatives had been discharged. Mr. Larry Hunnicutt, Benefits Administrator for the Bureau of Retirement Calculations, Division of Retirement, testified by deposition. He indicated that Respondent Division of Retirement has no rules in place specifically addressing DROP. Therefore, in DROP cases, Respondent interprets and applies Chapter 121, Florida Statutes, and the existing rules addressing regular service retirement. In practice, Respondent gives DROP applicants a 90-day grace period from the date of application in which to finalize all the outstanding documents or other requirements for DROP eligibility, including payments of amounts due, even though there are no provisions in place authorizing a grace period for DROP applicants. If there are money amounts due, the member must pay up during this period. If the member fails to pay up during this period, the DROP application and the option selected for DROP is cancelled by a certified letter, but the designated beneficiary remains intact. Herein, because the amounts were not paid before Mr. Gapinski died, and because it would serve no purpose to notify the decedent, who could no longer complete his DROP requirements, Respondent did not send the deceased member a cancellation of his DROP application and Option No. 2 selection. Rather, it treated the DROP application and option selection as null and void and notified his ex-wife, the designated beneficiary, of what Respondent understood to be her rights. In this notification, Respondent applied the statutes as its personnel understood them to apply to a member who dies in active service prior to reaching either 62 years of age or 30 years of creditable service. Respondent would have permitted Petitioner to pay the money on Mr. Gapinski's behalf only during his lifetime. If the amount due had been paid, and Petitioner were qualified for Option No. 2, she would receive approximately $500,000 plus cost of living increases as opposed to $4,719.19. She would receive considerably more if she qualified for Option No. 3.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement enter a final order denying Petitioner's request to purchase leave of absence credit on the account of James Gapinski. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of December, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 14th day of December, 2001.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Division of Retirement, is the agency responsible for administering the Florida Retirement System (FRS), a statewide consolidated system encompassing over 500,000 active employees and over 100,000 retired employees, representing all levels of government: state agencies, counties, school boards, cities, special districts, the community colleges and the nine universities -- nearly 800 different public employers. Brevard Community College (BCC) is the previous employer of the three petitioners and is a participating employer in the FRS. BCC is located in Cocoa, Florida, with satellite campuses throughout Brevard County. Petitioners William Nunn, PhD Prior to his retirement on November 30, 1988, Dr. William Nunn worked for BCC for approximately 17 years in various capacities, including Director of Evening Studies, Chair of the Division of Social Sciences, Provost and Dean of the Titusville campus and Dean of Vocational/Instructional Planning in the central administrative offices. It was this latter position he held at the time of retirement. As Dean of Vocational/Instructional Planning, Dr. Nunn was responsible for college-wide coordination of BCC's vocational programs, developing new programs, providing reports on vocational education, developing the master course plans and the college catalog, and serving as head of the college's collective bargaining unit. Dr. Nunn received a salary of approximately $52,000.00 a year and all the fringe benefits of regular employment: vacation and sick leave, insurance benefits, worker's compensation coverage, and contributions to social security and the FRS. He reported directly to the Vice President and President of the college, and his performance evaluations were completed by the President. With the advice of his accountant, Dr. Nunn informed his employer in July or August 1988, that he would retire in November. The advance notification was a requirement for an early retirement program which provided a major incentive for retirement in the form of a cash bonus of 25% of salary. Upon his retirement, Dr. Nunn's duties were primarily split among existing staff persons and a new hire. Certain duties were not specifically assigned, and sometime in December, the BCC's President contacted Dr. Nunn and asked if he would be willing to provide work in those areas so that they would not fall through the crack while people were being trained to take them over. The arrangement to which Dr. Nunn agreed was that he would be allowed to work on his own, without specific hours, for a 6-month period, for $10,000.00. For cash-flow purposes, he asked for payment in monthly increments, with a maximum of 390 hours total, a limit he felt would assure that he would not violate the law allowing for a maximum of 780 hours of employment by retired adjunct instructors. A one-page form contract between the District Board of Trustees of Brevard Community College and William Nunn, dated January 3, 1989, provides that he perform the following services: Work to insure that the college is in compliance with the criteria of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. Classify for funding, reporting and data processing purposes all courses and programs of study. (Common Course Numbering and Community College Management Information System) Maintain master course plan files. Coordinate catalog additions, changes and deletions. (Pet. Exh. #2) For background information on the person performing the service, the contract provides: Dr. Nunn is a knowledgeable college administrator with over twenty years experience at the community college and university level. He has performed all of the functions for which he is being employed. (Pet. Exh. #2) A subsequent identical contract was entered between the parties for the period June 14, 1989 through December 21, 1989. Dr. Nunn continued to provide services through December 1990 under a series of contracts. Dr. Nunn worked at the college, for a while in his prior office, then in a different office. He also did some work at home. He used independent judgement based on his past experience and education. Because of his skill and because of the uniformity of the course system, Dr. Nunn could have performed most of the same services for any community college. No one else at BCC had the ability to perform the duties and eventually he trained someone to assume them. He kept his own hours and received no fringe benefits. For a period of approximately four months he was given the services of a graduate assistant who had been assigned to his office prior to retirement. He shared her services with other staff until she left when the term ended in April. He used college office supplies and the college computer. Dr. Nunn had been a member of the management team prior to retirement, and in that capacity attended various meetings and social functions. He no longer did this. As a volunteer, and not related to the services he performed under his contract, he travelled twice to statewide meetings on behalf of the college. He was reimbursed for his travel expenses. Dr. Nunn reported his earnings under the contract to the IRS as self- employment income. He did not obtain a business license and neither advertised nor did consulting work for other entities. The contract form utilized by the college for Dr. Nunn's services has no provision for termination. Both Dr. Nunn and the college administrators understood it could be terminated by mutual agreement. When he needed to consult with the college, Dr. Nunn reported directly to the President. Dr. Nunn received $35,715.99 in retirement benefits from FRS from January through November 1989. The Division has demanded repayment of that sum. John Mangus Prior to his employment with BCC in 1970, John Mangus had twenty-six years experience in machine work in private industry, including work for the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, Hercules Power Company and the Chrysler Corporation. In 1970, he was hired by BCC to teach machine tool technology. After ten years he became Division Chairman of the Industrial Division, and in 1988, he was appointed Assistant Director of the Palm Bay Vocational Center, also part of BCC. As Division Chair, Mr. Mangus was responsible for vocational shops at the various campuses in Brevard County. He administered the Division, performed faculty evaluations, recruited students, planned curriculum and met with counterparts from other colleges. He also coordinated a move of two vocational shops when the BCC facility at Patrick Air Force Base was closed. As Assistant Director for Palm Bay Vo Tech, he assisted the Director in purchasing equipment and meeting with industry representatives; he determined curriculum and continued to do some paperwork for the Vocational Division. He received a biweekly salary and received all fringe benefits of a regular BCC employee. After a heart attack and a cancer operation, Mr. Mangus retired from BCC on January 31, 1989. By retiring just prior to his 63rd birthday he was able to take advantage of the early retirement incentive. In late December or early January, around the time of Mr. Mangus' retirement, the Vocational Division was undergoing some changes. Teachers were retiring and programs were being reorganized. The administration decided to merge programs and move four different vocational shops. Since John Mangus had extensive experience in moving equipment, he was asked to return to BCC after retirement to handle the moves for the vocational shops. A contract, the same form utilized for Dr. Nunn, was executed effective March 1, 1989 between John Mangus and BCC, providing for his services from the period March 1, 1989 through December 31, 1989, at the rate of $536.00 a month, for a total of $5,360.00. The duties specified on the contract were: Assist the Provost in the operation of the Industrial Division, assist in the development of the curriculum for Building Maintenance program, supervise moving of equipment and tooling for several programs, and to include other duties assigned by the Cocoa Campus Provost. (Pet. Ex. #12) emphasis added Justification for the service was provided in the contract as follows: Will assist the Provost in the operation of the Industrial Division, will assist in orienting the new Chairman, and will be involved in planning, implementing and supervising program moves and curriculum changes, will work a total of 268 hours. (Pet. Ex. #12) John Mangus' primary responsibility under the contract was the move, a function which required a special expertise. The mechanical lifting and transport of heavy equipment is complicated, and Mangus had acquired this skill at the railroad and at Chrysler Corporation when he moved a shop from Melbourne to Cape Canaveral in 1969. He planned the BCC moves in his own home and arranged the schedules. Basis for the 268 hour limit was his estimate of the time it would take at what he considered a fair hourly rate. He insisted on monthly increments so that his railroad retirement benefits would not be affected. He also insisted that he not be required to attend meetings and that he be allowed to work on his own. He was assisted in the move by several college instructors, but he had no supervisory responsibility for them. All equipment was provided by the college. In addition to the moving, John Mangus prepared budgets and planned the curriculum. He worked at home mostly on the budgets, just as he had done when he was employed as Division Director. John Mangus received only the $536.00 per month from BCC, no fringe benefits, and ended up working more than the maximum hours for no additional compensation. He paid his own insurance and reported his income to the IRS as self employment. During the same time that he was handling the BCC moves, he was also moving, revising the curriculum and setting up shops for Lake City Community college on a contract at $200.00 a day. He did not advertise his services and did not incorporate as a business. His engagement at Lake City was by virtue of his reputation in the field. The Division of Retirement has demanded that John Mangus repay the $11,050.76 he received from the FRS from March through December 1989. William L. Benfield William Benfield was hired by BCC in 1969 as a maintenance employee, became supervisor of maintenance, and remained in that position until approximately 1984, when he took over the college hardware and locksmith shop. His primary responsibility during the last five years prior to retirement was as locksmith. He worked under a supervisor who gave him his duties each morning when he reported to work at the Cocoa maintenance department. He worked eight hour days, with an hour for lunch and two 15 minute breaks. He was required to turn in time sheets. He received $21,000.00 annual salary, plus benefits such as paid leave, insurance and retirement contributions. As locksmith, Mr. Benfield worked at all the BCC campuses, as directed. He was required to utilize the tools furnished by the employer and used the employer's vehicle. In June or July 1988, Mr. Benfield notified the college that he would take an early retirement. He planned on retiring at age sixty-two in February 1989, but was eligible for the financial incentive for early retirement. His retirement occurred effective November 30, 1988. Around the latter part of December, William Benfield was contacted by Harold Creel, BCC's Vice President for Maintenance, with regard to performing short-term contract work. They met, and Mr. Creel explained that the college wanted Benfield to work on the new keying system for the college. This was a computerized code system that required re-pinning each lock in the campus buildings. The work also involved keeping records in a code that would allow a key to be made. Mr. Benfield agreed to the work so long as it did not exceed 20 hours a week, as he did not want to jeopardize his social security income. A contract was executed on the same form as used for Petitioners Nunn and Mangus, for the period January 3, 1989 through June 30, 1989. The services are described as follows: Locksmith - repair door locks, make keys, repair doors, rekey building, etc. [sic] (Pet. Ex. #17) Consideration was set at $11.50 per hour for 20 hours a week. A second contract was entered for the period July 3, 1989 through December 31, 1989 for $11.50 per hour and 12 hours a week. (Pet. Exh. #18) William Benfield was familiar with these short-term contracts since carpenters, plumbers or electricians had been retained in this manner in his maintenance department. Benfield's work under the contracts was on his own time. He was not required to work a minimum number of hours or to check in at a given hour. He picked up work orders, as before, but used his discretion as to priorities. He used his own vehicle to travel to the various campuses and used his own tools, a substantial investment of several thousand dollars. He did not advertise as a business and did no work for anyone else, as he did not want to affect his social security benefits. He did not have a business license. He received no fringe benefits and reported his income under the contracts to the IRS as self-employment. He received no performance evaluations. William Benfield earned approximately $8,000.00 under the two contracts with BCC; he also received $7,345.97 in retirement benefits from FRS during the same period in 1989. The Division of Retirement is demanding repayment of those benefits. General Findings and Summary The law with regard to reemployment of FRS retirees has been in a state of flux for over 10 years. At one time, reemployment was prohibited altogether. Then the law was changed to permit reemployment when the agency certified that no one else was available to fill the job. Reemployment was limited to 500 hours in a calendar year; the limit was expanded to 600 hours, and later to 780 hours or $4,000.00. In 1985, the legislature created a 12-month waiting period, during which retirement benefits had to be suspended if the retiree returned to work under an FRS-covered employer. After 12 months, the retiree could return and draw both salary and retirement benefits. Immediately, school boards prevailed with an amendment to allow teachers to return for a maximum of 780 hours in the first calendar year after retirement. The community colleges and nine state universities also obtained similar amendments for rehiring instructional staff. The Division of Retirement has conscientiously provided written guidance to its member employers in the form of rules, guidelines, handbooks, and memoranda. It also provides instructional leaflets to employees and retirees. As Associate Vice-President of Human Resources at BCC, Robert Lawton oversees the entire personnel operation for the college. He is familiar with the requirements of the law and rules of the Division of Retirement and reviewed the contracts for the petitioners' services. These contract forms are different from those used for adjunct faculty who are paid through a regular payroll account. Short term contractors are paid from a separate account. The contracts were drafted by the department heads seeking the petitioners' services. Robert Lawton recommended approval to the President after assuring himself that the contracts were appropriate. He had instructed a staffperson to call the Division of Retirement in his presence to get some guidance. There is no evidence that someone from the agency actually approved the circumstances. Rather, it is apparent that the guidance received through the phone call, in which the college may not have been identified, was of a general nature as to what the agency looks at in determining an independent contractor status. The college commonly uses the short-term contract form for consultant and mechanical services. While it routinely advertises to fill employment vacancies, it ordinarily obtains contractual services from individuals it knows can provide those services. The Division of Retirement became aware of Petitioners' contracts through a routine independent audit. The agency carefully scrutinizes these type of service provider relationships as it has the responsibility to maintain the actuarial soundness of the retirement fund for thousands of employees and retirees. That actuarial soundness relies on a proper balance of contributions to benefits. That balance is jeopardized if employers are able to avoid required contributions by obtaining services of employees through a contract. The opportunity to circumvent the law is particularly seductive where, as here, the employer needs the services of a recently retired employee. Scepticism by the agency in such instances is appropriate. Dr. Nunn's many successful years as a valuable member of the college's management team were served, by his choice and the college's, in the status of an employee. He retired, and was immediately retained to perform some of the same functions as before -- sensitive and significant functions that were integral to the successful administration of the institution--functions related to its accreditation and funding. Language in his contract such as "work to insure", "maintain", and "coordinate" connote an ongoing relationship, rather than discrete definable contract products. Indeed, his relationship with the college was ongoing, for two years beyond his official retirement date. The term, "coordinate", implies that he was not to work alone, but was rather meant to direct the work of others. Some actual evidence of that is found in the fact that a student assistant was provided, albeit briefly. As a highly qualified professional, Dr. Nunn could have performed the same or similar tasks for other institutions. He did not, and if he had, the circumstances would have to dictate whether he was a consultant to, or employee of, those other institutions. Dr. Nunn was not an adjunct professor nor member of the instructional staff, and was not entitled to the 780 hour exception to the 12 month reemployment prohibition. The 390 hour limit in his contract, however, reveals that his compensation, $10,000.00, was approximately the same rate of pay he received prior to retirement when he worked full time. The facts addressed at hearing regarding the relationship of Dr. Nunn to BCC, when considered as a whole, weigh more heavily in favor of finding an employee/employer relationship than that of consultant/client. The same conclusion is reached as to Petitioner, John Mangus. If his only contractual service had been the shop moves, his consultant or independent contractor status would have been more evident. As he eloquently described at the hearing, the transportation of heavy machinery is a unique skill, the exercise of which demands noninterference by others. However, the terms of his contract, and the actual services he performed also related to budget and curriculum, functions he performed as an employee and functions integral to the mission of his employer. The terms of his contract thoroughly belie his claims of independence. He was to "assist", to "supervise", to "be involved in planning, implementing, and supervising...". Perhaps most fatal is the language, "...and to include other duties assigned by Cocoa Campus Provost". Except for the move, the contractual duties were entirely open-ended and subject to the interpretation or direction of others. That he was also retained at the same time by another community college might imply that he was properly a consultant/specialist in moving industrial workshops, but this fact alone does not outweigh the more substantial evidence that at BCC he was still performing as an employee, much the same as he had performed prior to his official retirement. The evidence weighs differently as to William Benfield. His services as a locksmith were a specialized mechanical skill of a type commonly provided through a contract. His services were not integral to the nature of the institution and did not necessitate his working with, for, or over other staff. The substance of his contractual tasks is found on the face of the contract form, and his prior performance of the same or similar tasks as an employee does not indicate those tasks must always be provided by an employee. The terms and conditions of his relationship with the college were radically altered after his retirement. The college chose, in the words of Robert Lawton, to "privatize" certain mechanical functions previously provided in-house, and the locksmith function was one of them. William Benfield became an independent contractor to BCC after his retirement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, recommended that a Final Order be entered requiring repayment of retirement benefits received by Petitioners, Nunn and Mangus, during the time they were employed by Brevard Community College in the first 12 months of their retirement. RECOMMENDED this 15th day of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 15th day of January, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 90-8015, 90-8016, and 90-8017 The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties: Petitioner's Proposed Findings Adopted in paragraphs #3. and #5. Adopted in substance in paragraph #5. Adopted in paragraph #7. Adopted in substance in paragraph #8. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence or immaterial. Adopted in substance in paragraph #9. Adopted in substance in paragraphs #8. and #9. Adopted in part in paragraph #9, otherwise rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph #9. Adopted in substance in paragraph #10. Adopted in substance in paragraph #11. Adopted in substance in paragraph #10. Adopted in substance in paragraph #9. Adopted in substance in paragraph #12. Adopted in substance in paragraph #13. Adopted in substance in paragraph #16. Adopted in substance in paragraphs #14. and #15. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph #17. Adopted in paragraphs #17. and #19. Adopted in paragraph #21. Adopted in paragraph #20. Adopted in paragraph #21. Adopted in paragraph #19. Adopted in substance in paragraph #19. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph #21. Adopted in paragraph #22. Rejected as immaterial in light of other evidence that the relationship was not independent. Adopted in substance in paragraph #21. Adopted in paragraph #19. 32.-33. Adopted in paragraph #24. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph #27. Adopted in paragraphs #28. and #29. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph #28. Adopted in paragraph #30. Rejected as unnecessary. 41.-43. Adopted in paragraph #30. Adopted in paragraph #31. Adopted in paragraph #34. Rejected as immaterial. Adopted in substance in paragraph #34. Adopted in substance in paragraph #35. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in part in paragraph #35; otherwise rejected as contrary to the evidence. Adopted in part in paragraph #34; otherwise immaterial in light of the evidence that as to Nunn and Mangus, the relationship was not independent. 52.-53. Rejected as immaterial. 54.-56. Rejected as repetitive and unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in paragraph #36. Rejected as repetitive or immaterial. 60.-77. Rejected as immaterial, unnecessary or unsupported by the weight of evidence. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted in substance in paragraph #13. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph #8. Adopted in substance in paragraph #22. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph #18. Adopted in substance in paragraph #31. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph #28. Adopted in paragraph #1. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph #1. 13.-14. Adopted in paragraph #32. 15. Adopted in substance in paragraph #37. 16.-19. Adopted in substance in paragraph #33. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph #37. 22.-23. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph #3. Adopted in paragraph #4. Adopted in paragraph #9. Adopted in paragraph #6. Adopted in paragraph #7. Adopted in paragraph #8. Adopted in paragraph #8. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence (as to attendance at meetings). Adopted in paragraph #5. Adopted in paragraph #12. Adopted in paragraph #8. Adopted in paragraph #11. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph #11. Rejected as unsupported by the evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph #10. Adopted in substance in paragraph #8. Adopted in paragraph #8. 43.-44. Adopted in paragraph #9. 45.-46. Adopted in paragraph #14. 47.-48. Adopted in paragraph #15. Adopted in paragraph #16. Adopted in paragraph #17. Adopted in paragraph #18. Adopted in paragraph #15. Adopted in paragraph #20. Adopted in paragraph #19. Adopted in paragraph #20. Adopted by implication in paragraph #35. Adopted in paragraph #17. Adopted in substance in paragraph #21. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraphs #23. and #26. Adopted in paragraphs #23. and #24. Adopted in paragraph #26. Adopted in paragraph #28. Adopted in part in paragraph #28; otherwise rejected as unnecessary. 65.-67. Adopted in paragraph #30. 68.-69. Rejected as immaterial. COPIES FURNISHED: Larry D. Scott, Esquire Asst. Division Attorney Dept. of Administration Div. of Retirement-Legal Ofc. Cedars Executive Ctr., Bldg. C 2639 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1560 Peter L. Sampo, Esquire HOGG, ALLEN, NORTON & BLUE, P.A. 121 Majorca Ave., 3rd floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 A. J. McMullian, III, Director Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Bldg. C 2639 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1560 John A. Pieno, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr. General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550
The Issue The issue is whether to grant Petitioner's request that her deceased husband's selection under the Florida Retirement System be changed from Option 1 to Option 3.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In this retirement dispute, Petitioner, Clara F. Holland, seeks to change her late husband's selection under the Florida Retirement System from Option 1 to Option 3 on the ground he was mentally incompetent to make a rational decision when the selection was made. Respondent, Division of Retirement (Division), has denied the request on the grounds that the late husband, William T. Holland (Holland), cashed or deposited his Option 1 retirement benefits from February 1993 until his death in December 1997, and that the law prohibits a change of options under these circumstances. Counting his state and military service, Holland accrued almost thirty years of creditable service with the Florida Retirement System between 1959 and early 1993, when he retired, due to a disability. In the spring of 1990, while employed at Florida State Hospital as a vocational instructor II, he first began contemplating retirement and contacted the Division requesting an estimate of benefits. In April or May 1990, Holland was sent an estimate of benefits, a pamphlet entitled "Preparing to Retire," and an "OPT FRS form," which explained in detail the various retirement options available. Among these were Options 1 and 3. In general terms, the first option paid the largest monthly benefits but terminated upon the death of the retiree. The third option paid smaller benefits, but if the retiree predeceased his spouse, the spouse would continue receiving benefits for her lifetime. This was fully explained in the form. On October 8, 1992, Holland was admitted to Tallahassee Community Hospital (TCC) suffering from recurrent transient ischemic attacks. After various tests were run, Holland underwent an emergency carotid endarterectomy to alleviate a blockage in his left carotid artery. During that surgery, he suffered a stroke, which, among other things, paralyzed his left side and temporarily confined him to a wheelchair. Immediately after the stroke, he could not speak or recognize family members, and he was totally dependent on others. Holland was eventually discharged from TCC on October 22, 1992, and referred to Capital Rehabilitation Hospital (CRH) for additional physical and speech therapy. At the time of discharge from TCC, his treating neurologist, who did not testify at final hearing, noted in the patient records, and without further explanation, that he had "returned to essentially his normal mental status." As a medical record, and an exception to the hearsay rule, this notation constitutes the only competent evidence of record from a medical doctor concerning Holland's mental status at that time. Holland remained at CRH until November 25, 1992, or the day before Thanksgiving. During his month-long stay at CRH, he was given a course of rehabilitation treatment which included physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, psychology, and recreation. In addition, his brain function was evaluated by a certified speech language pathologist, Linda Boynton, who presented expert testimony as a speech pathologist in this cause. Boynton had no independent recollection of Holland; instead, she based her deposition testimony on the evaluation and testing data she compiled in October and November 1992 while treating him. According to Boynton, because of a deficit in the right side of his brain, Holland was disoriented in terms of time and date; his brain could not interpret all of the images that it was picking up; he had difficulty with remembering, retaining, or recalling facts; and he had problems with the higher levels of mental activity. In addition, while he could read "chunks" of words, he could not read whole sentences. She also opined that at the time she was evaluating him, Holland would have been unable to remember the information contained in the four retirement options even if it was explained to him. Boynton conceded, however, that Holland's stroke was "mild," his comprehension was "adequate," and he scored "moderate" in the cognitive areas. She also confirmed that stroke victims could improve in a matter of days, and that everyone's recovery is different. She had no firsthand knowledge of Holland's mental status on November 7, 1992, the critical date in this dispute. Finally, Boynton was not a medical doctor, and her expertise was limited to speech pathology. For these reasons, her testimony has not been accorded the weight given to the notation in Holland's medical records during his stay at TCH. Shortly after being transferred to CRH, that facility began allowing Holland to go to his home in Sneads, Florida, on "weekend passes." While at home on November 7, 1992, a Saturday, Holland decided to make application for disability retirement with the State. The record does not reflect the person who actually obtained the retirement papers from the Division, but Holland's daughter carried them to his treating physicians so that they could verify in writing the nature of his disability. With the assistance of his wife, Holland completed Division Form FR-13 and selected Option 1, which extended retirement benefits for his lifetime only. In his wife's words, Option 1 was selected because "I don't think we knew we had a choice." At that time, Petitioner says her husband was still strapped in a wheelchair, he was mentally confused, and he could only briefly converse with others. Petitioner also signed the form since there is a requirement that if Option 1 is selected by a married retiree, the spouse must sign the form. Petitioner telephoned William "Bubba" Nelson, Jr., a second cousin who was chief of police in Sneads, and asked that he stop by the house that morning, witness Holland sign the form, and notarize the application. Nelson agreed and notarized the document as requested. The entire visit took no more than five minutes. At hearing, Nelson recalled that Holland used a walker to come into the den to sign the document; he did not appear to be "confused" when he signed the application; he did not ever lose his train of thought; he did not struggle to think of a word while speaking; his "mental capacity seemed to be not affected," and the two were able to engage in small talk for a minute or so. Petitioner then carried the papers to the Division's offices in Tallahassee on November 9, 1992, but was told that her husband needed to sign the form in one other place. Accordingly, she carried the form to CRH and obtained her husband's signature. A stamp on the document reflects that the fully executed document was later filed with the Division on November 13, 1992. When she filed the forms, Petitioner did not ask for any additional information regarding the various options; had she done so, counseling was available at the Division during normal business hours. When the application was filed, Holland had 1.84 years of military service; he also had refunded service from October 1959 to October 1961 and September 1963 to February 1966. Accordingly, on January 12, 1993, the Division advised Holland that $3,334.68 was due if he intended to claim that service. If he did so, his Option 1 benefits would increase almost $200.00 per month. The form requested that Holland notify the Division in writing only if he wished to retire with paid-on service, and not claim his military and refunded service. Finally, the form advised him in bold print as follows: YOU HAVE CHOSEN OPTION 1. YOUR OPTION SELECTION CANNOT BE CHANGED AFTER YOU CASH OR DEPOSIT ANY BENEFIT PAYMENT. The record does not specifically show if Holland opted to purchase his military and refunded service. However, it can be reasonably inferred that he did since the first benefit check described in Respondent's Exhibit 4 roughly equated to what his estimated benefits would have been under Option 1 if such service had been purchased, and there is no record of any written notice to the Division by Holland that he did not wish to purchase this service. Holland's first benefit check was issued on February 5, 1993, and mailed to him on February 9, 1993. That check, and all subsequent monthly checks until his death in December 1997, were cashed or deposited by Holland. They totaled $55,830.72, or more than his total deposits to the retirement system. Therefore, when he died, Petitioner was not due any refunded contributions or future monthly benefits. If Petitioner prevails in this action, however, she would be required to offset any future benefits by approximately $22,000.00, which represents the difference between the benefits payable under Options 1 and 3 during the lifetime of her husband. In August 1994, Holland received a new driver's license with the only restriction being that he had to drive a vehicle with an automatic transmission. He used his license to drive to Marianna for physical rehabilitation treatement. At no time was Holland ever adjudicated incompetent or incapacitated by a court. It is fair to state that he experienced gradual but continued improvement from the time of his release from the hospital until his death in December 1997.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Retirement enter a final order denying Petitioner's request that her late husband's election of retirement benefits be changed. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of June, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: A. J. McMullian, III, Director Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Emily Moore, Chief Legal Counsel Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Robert B. Button, Esquire Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Stanley M. Danek, Esquire 2114 Great Oak Drive, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is eligible to participate in the Florida Retirement System (FRS), within the meaning of Subsection 121.021(17)(a), Florida Statutes (2009),1 as a substitute teacher for the Lee County School Board.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has been an employee of the Lee County School Board (the School Board) from February 28, 2001, through the date of the final hearing. The School Board is a participating member in the FRS. Petitioner has never been a full-time employee of the School Board and has never been eligible for service credits for purposes of the FRS. From February 28, 2001, until some time in May 2004, the School Board employed Petitioner in a temporary, part-time position. From some time in May 2004 through the date of the final hearing, the School Board has employed Petitioner as a substitute teacher. From February 28, 2001, through some time in May 2004, the School Board required part-time employees such as Petitioner to participate in a plan identified in the record as the Bencor FICA Alternative Plan (the Bencor Plan). The Bencor Plan provided retirement benefits for temporary teachers, who were not eligible for FRS retirement benefits. On May 25, 2004, Petitioner submitted a Distribution Request Form to withdraw her accumulated savings from the Bencor Plan. Petitioner was eligible to withdraw her retirement benefits from the Bencor Plan, because she changed her employment status from a temporary teacher to a substitute teacher. Some time in May 2004, Petitioner began teaching as a substitute teacher for the School Board. Petitioner has continued as a substitute teacher for the School Board through the date of the final hearing. As a substitute teacher, Petitioner is not a full-time employee, who is eligible for service credits for purposes of the FRS.
Recommendation Based upon 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 FRS benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of August, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of August, 2010.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer finds that HRS did not discriminate against Keith Woods on the basis of age, but exercised its legal rights under the then applicable statute. Therefore, this petition should be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of January, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Frank C. Lawson, Esquire 244 Bal Bay Drive Bay Harbour, Florida 33154 James G. Mahorner, Esquire 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Julia M. Giller, Esquire 1177 Kane Concourse Miami Beach, Florida 33154
