The Issue Whether petitioner's employment from January 13, 1975 to January 24, 1977, was creditable service for purposes of calculating retirement benefits under applicable statutes and rules? Whether respondent is estopped to deny that this period of employment amounted to creditable service, where respondent's personnel twice advised petitioner it was, and petitioner continued working for Escambia County for some three years in reliance on this advice?
Findings Of Fact 12 In late 1974, Escambia County operated under the CETA program which was operated by the county under three separate programs known as Title I and Title II, and then later under Title VI. Title I was an on-the-job training program which provided training to individuals in jobs that were in addition to the regular employment positions already maintained by the County. Title II was an employment program for targeted groups of persons. At the beginning of the Title II program, the County paid retirement contributions on behalf of some of those participants. However, when it was advised that this was improper, it stopped such payments and refunded those contributions to some of the participants. Title VI was a program to employ as many people as possible. The positions were funded with Federal grant money and were considered public service employment positions for a limited tern. The County administered the program which eventually included about 300 participants. Payment of all CETA participants was made from a special sub-account (set up for this purpose) of the salary account. Mr. Wayne Peacock, currently Assistant County Administrator who was directly involved in the CETA program during its entire existence, testified that none of the participants who worked for the County occupied regularly established positions, or were in budgeted positions and none were paid from county budgeted salary funds. Mr. Little's employment file stated that he was hired in January, 1975, as a Title VI CETA participant and that no record showed payment of any retirement contributions on his behalf. Mr. Little testified that retirement contributions were deducted from his first four (4) paychecks, but thereafter stopped. Ruth Sansom, the Division representative, testified that the Division records as provided by the County reflected that the County began payment of retirement contributions on Mr. Little in January, 1977, and that there was no evidence or record that contributions had been paid from January, 1975, to January, 1977. Mr, Little submitted the Minutes of Escambia County for (inter alia) February 11, 1975, which showed numerous individuals hired as "manpower: laborers and four (4) men hired as "manpower planning aides". Included in that latter group was Mr. Little. Ms. Sansom testified that she checked the retirement records of several persons in the first group and all four (4) persons in the latter group. None of the persons had received creditable service for the employment, and the Division had no record of contributions having been paid. The evidence shows that Mr. Little was employed as a CETA participant and was not a county employee.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a resident of Florida and resides at 306 Sweetwater Cove Boulevard, North, Longwood, Florida 32779. Respondent, Department of Administration, Division of Retirement, is an agency of the State of Florida located at Cedars Executive Center, Building C, 2639 North Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32303. Intervenor is a resident of 5448 San Luis Drive, Orlando, Florida 32807. The agency action challenged by the Petition is the determination that the continuing monthly retirement benefit available under Option 4 of the Florida Highway Patrol Pension Plan, which provides for a continuing monthly benefit to the "spouse" of the retiree shall be paid to the person who was the spouse at the time of the retiree's retirement, not the individual who was the spouse of the retiree at the time of the retiree's death. Petitioner was not married to Florida Highway Patrol retiree Jack E. Walden on the date of his retirement, which was November 1, 1972, but was the legal spouse of Jack E. Walden at the time of his death on January 9, 1985. Florida Highway Patrol retiree Jack E. Walden was married to Barbara C. Walden on the date of his retirement; however, subsequently on January 22, 1976, Barbara Walden and Jack Walden were divorced. Thereafter, on February 6, 1976, Jack Walden married Marilyn S. Walden and she remained his spouse during the following nine years until his death. Petitioner has sought to be paid a "surviving spouse" or other benefit available from the Florida Highway Patrol pension plan, however, the Agency has determined that any benefit must be paid to the former spouse of Jack E. Walden, not Petitioner. Intervenor, Barbara C Yeater, was married to Jack E. Walden on January 19, 1949. She was his spouse during the entire time of his service with the Florida Highway Patrol, at the time of his retirement in 1972, and until dissolution of their marriage in 1976. In September, 1972, prior to his retirement, Jack E. Walden designated Barbara Walden as his beneficiary under the Highway Patrol Retirement System. (Exhibit 1)2 On June 27, 1975, Respondent received Exhibit 2,3 but did not respond to it. At the time Exhibit 2 was received by Respondent, it was the Division of Retirement policy that a retiree who had selected Option 4 under Chapter 321, F.S., could not change the previously selected recipient of survivor benefits subsequent to retirement and cashing of the first warrant. A copy of Exhibit 2 was not sent to Barbara Yeater. There was no further communication from Jack E. Walden to Respondent concerning changes in beneficiary or option selection after June 27, 1975. There was an exchange of correspondence between Respondent and Barbara Yeater (Exhibits 3, 4 and 5),4 but copies of that correspondence were not sent to Jack E. Walden. The Petition and final judgment of dissolution between Jack Walden and Barbara Yeater are Exhibits 7 and 8 in evidence. The subject retirement benefits were not disposed of in the final judgment of dissolution. The monthly benefit payable to Jack E. Walden's surviving spouse is $622.00 plus cost-of-living adjustments. Decedent retired with 21.60 years service, which produced an initial benefit of $475.91. Jack E. Walden believed, at the time of his death, that he had accomplished the change in beneficiary which he sought to carry out by filing Exhibit 2 with Respondent. This fact is based on the absence of any reply by Respondent rejecting the proposed change, by Decedent's failure to make other arrangements for Marilyn Walden, by not seeking to modify the alimony payments awarded to Intervenor, and by his statements to Petitioner and to his friend, George Watson, indicating his belief that the change had been effected, and, finally, by the fact that Respondent accepted and thereafter utilized the change of address contained in the change of beneficiary notice. Respondent relied on the Arnow case5 in its decision to award the continuing benefits to Intervenor on the death of Jack E. Walden (discussed below).
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a Final Order awarding continuing retirement benefits to Petitioner. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of August, 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of August, 1985.
Findings Of Fact The following findings of fact are based upon stipulations entered into and adopted by the parties on December 15, 1986, January 9, 1987, and January 12, 1987, which were confirmed by all parties at the final hearing: The League is a wholly owned instrumentality of its member cities. The League is charged in its bylaws to work for the general improvement of municipal government and its effective administration in this state. Further, it is charged with representing its membership on statewide issues affecting municipal government. The City is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida. The City has five (5) "local law" municipal retirement funds, including three (3) police plans and two (2) firefighter plans, all of which receive excise tax revenue from the tax fund established in Chapters 175 and 185, Florida Statutes. The Department has responsibility for administering Chapters 175 and 185, Florida Statutes (1986). On November 7, 1986, the Department published notice in the Florida Administrative Weekly of its intent to adopt rules to implement Chapters 175 and 185, Florida Statutes, pertaining to municipal firefighter and police pension funds and to provide for interpretations, standards, applications, enforcement and administration thereof. The published notice stated there would be a public hearing on December 2, 1986, and the public hearing was held on that date. On November 26, 1986, the League filed its petition for administrative determination of the invalidity of certain of the proposed rules. The League represents over 390 cities throughout the State of Florida. As part of their municipal administration, many of these cities maintain firefighter pension funds that receive premium tax pursuant to Chapter 175, Florida Statutes, and police officer pension funds that receive premium tax pursuant to Chapter 185. A number of these cities maintain "local law plans" as defined by proposed rules 4-14.028 and 4-54.019; a number of the League's member cities maintain "chapter plans" as defined by the same proposed rules. Such plans are required by the proposed rules to meet certain standards which affect the cities' responsibilities in relation to said plans. Thus, the League, which is required to work for the effective administration of municipal government, is substantially affected by the proposed rules. The City is a substantially affected party pursuant to Section 120.54(4)(a),(d), Florida Statutes. All cities operating pension plans which receive funds pursuant to Chapter 175 and Chapter 185 have a duty to adequately fund said plans annually to meet the normal costs of the plan as well as fund any actuarial deficiency over a 40 year period. A number of local law plans presently have procedures and provisions which vary from the procedures and provisions in those sections of Chapters 175 and 185 which are addressed by proposed rules 4-54.024, 4-54.035, 4-54.036, 4- 54.037, 4-54.039, 4-54.040, 4-54.041, 4-54.044 and 4-54.047. The Department has copies of all pension plans which receive funds pursuant to Chapters 175 and 185 in their possession. Case No. 86-4722RP involves a challenge to certain proposed rule amendments to Chapter 4-54, Florida Administrative Code. Case No. 86-4723RP involves a challenge to certain proposed rule amendments to Chapter 4-14, Florida Administrative Code. Many of the proposed rule amendments to Chapters 4-14 and 4-54, Florida Administrative Code, which are being challenged are substantially similar. The statutory authority relied on for corresponding, similar proposed rule amendments in Chapters 4-14 and 4-54 are substantially similar, and the legal issues involved in the challenge to those corresponding proposed rules are identical. As a result of the public hearing held by the Department on December 2, 1986, the Department has agreed and stipulated to modify and/or withdraw certain proposed amendments to Chapter 4-54 which follow, as well as corresponding proposed amendments to Chapter 4-14, and in consideration thereof the Petitioners have agreed to withdraw their objections thereto: 4-54.018 Scope. These rules apply to all municipal firefighters in this State who participate in a pension fund which receives money from the premium tax provided for in ss. 175.101-175.131, Florida Statutes, as well as all municipal firefighter pension boards and municipalities having a municipal fire- fighter pension fund or system which receives state excise tax revenue from the tax fund established in Chapter 175, Florida Statutes, except as otherwise provided herein. The Department shall withdraw subsections (2) and (3) and renumber subsection (4) of proposed rule 4-54.023. The Department shall withdraw subsection (8) and renumber subsections (9), (10) and (11) of proposed rule 4-54.048. The Department shall withdraw subsection (3) of proposed rule 4-54.031. The League agrees to withdraw its challenge to proposed rule 4-54.032, but said withdrawal shall not prejudice its right to later challenge said rule pursuant to Sec. 120.56, Florida Statutes. The City did not object to this proposed rule. The Department shall amend subsection (2)(a) of proposed rule 4-54.024, Florida Administrative Code, to read: 4-54.024(2) A "professionally qualified" consultant means a consultant who meets the following minimum criteria: (a) he must offer his services on a "hard dollar" or flat fee as opposed to or in addition to a commission type basis. The League shall withdraw its objections to proposed rule 4-54.038. The City did not object to this proposed rule. 4-54.020 Minimum Standards Except as otherwise provided herein and Chapter 175, Florida Statutes, Chapter 175, excluding Section 175.351, Florida Statutes, provides minimum standards for (a)(line through original) all chapter funds. and (b) for all local law funds established on or after October 1, 1986. (line through original) Except as otherwise herein and in Chapter 175, Florida Statutes, Section 175.351, Florida Statutes, provides minimum standards for all local law funds. (established prior to October 4, 1986.(line through original) 4-54.029(4) The Department of Insurance shall withhold distribution of Chapter 175 tax revenues as allocated to a Chapter Fund or Local Law Fund which is not in compliance with the applicable requirements of Chapter 175 or Section 175.351. (or these rules.(line through original) 17. The application of Sections 175.071(5), 175.121, 175.162, 175.171, 175.181, 175.191, 175.231, 175.251, 175.261 and 175.333, Florida Statutes, will have an economic impact as defined in Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, (actuarial or administrative costs) on a number of local law municipal pension funds and those municipalities (including the City) that are not presently complying with these sections. The impact of these applications is ascertainable within an identifiable range. The issue of whether these statutory sections, and resulting economic impact, are made applicable to these funds by the provisions of Chapter 175, Florida Statutes, or by the proposed changes to Chapter 4-54, Florida Administrative Code, is not resolved by stipulation or agreement of the parties. During the hearing and also subsequent thereto, the parties further stipulated that: There is a difference in benefits available under the City's pension plans for firefighters enacted by special act and ordinance, and benefits available under a Chapter 175, Florida Statutes, plan. In their respective proposed final orders, Petitioners have listed the proposed rules which remain at issue, following stipulations and voluntary dismissals. (See League proposed finding of fact 23 and City proposed conclusion of law 4.) Proposed rules at issue are: Rule Chapter 4-54 Rule Chapter 4-14 4-54.024(3) 4-14.033(3) 4-54.027 4-14.036 4-54.029(2) 4-14.037(2) 4-54.033(2) 4-14.040(2) 4-54.034 4-14.041 4-54.035 None 4-54.036 4-14.042 4-54.037 4-14.043 4-54.039 4-14.045 4-54.040 4-14.046 4-54.041 4-14.047 4-54.045 4-14.051 4-54.047 None 4-54.048(3)(5)(6)(7)(10) 4-14.053(3)(5)(6)(7)(10) 4-54.049 4-14.054 The following findings of fact are based upon the evidence presented at final hearing: Based on the testimony of Dr. John J. Fenstermaker, who was accepted as an expert in English grammar and sentence structure, the phrase "approved by a majority of the firefighters" found in Section 175.351(13), Florida Statutes, modifies the nouns "board of trustees of the pension fund" and "official pension committee", instead of the verb in the sentence. However, the phrase does not mean that a majority of firefighters must approve the membership of the board of trustees or official pension committee. Rather, it means that a majority must approve action by the board of trustees or committee relative to the placement or use of certain income. A reasonable construction of the statute is that majority approval is required for the board of trustees or committee to act, but not that the make-up or membership of these bodies must be approved each time they propose to place or use certain income from the premium tax referred to in said statute. Proposed rule 4-54.048(7), Florida Administrative Code, is therefore authorized by, consistent with, and implements Section 175.351(13), Florida Statutes. The City's firefighter and law enforcement pension plans have received distributions of state premium tax funds pursuant to Chapters 175 and 185, Florida Statutes, for the last five years. The provisions of the City's local plans are very similar. Actuarial valuations of the City's firefighter and law enforcement pension plans are performed by the City's actuary as required by Chapter 112, Part VII, Florida Statutes. The City's local pension plan for firefighters does not presently apply or conform to the requirements of: Section 175.071(5), Florida Statutes, which requires the board of trustees to retain an independent consultant professionally qualified to evaluate the performance of professional money managers at least once every three years; Section 175.171, Florida Statutes, which deals with optional forms of retirement income; Section 175.181, Florida Statutes, which concerns the designation of beneficiaries; Section 175.191, Florida Statutes, dealing with disability benefits; and Section 175.261, Florida Statutes, regarding reports to Respondent. The Department promulgated an Economic Impact Statement in connection with the proposed rules in Chapter 4-54 which states, in pertinent part, that: Pursuant to Section 120.54(2), Florida Statutes, the State of Florida, Department of Insurance has considered the economic impact associated with the implementation of proposed Rule Chapter 4-54 which relates to municipal firefighters' pension funds. Chapter 175, Florida Statutes, was amended by Chapter 86-41, Laws of Florida, generally effective on October 1, 1986 with some exceptions. The amendments of Chapter 175, Florida Statutes, contained in Chapter 86-41, Laws of Florida, had and will have an economic impact upon the Department, the municipalities receiving state excise tax funds provided for in Chapter 175, Florida Statutes, and the firefighters' pension boards of trustees and pension funds. That economic impact was addressed fully in the legislation and enactment of Chapter 86-41, Laws of Florida. These rules, which augment, interpret, and provide for definitions, application and enforcement of Chapter 175, Florida Statutes, as amended by Chapter 86-41, Laws of Florida, will have no additional impact or nominal additional impact on those entities affected by Chapter 86-41, Laws of Florida. * * * 2. An Estimate of the Cost or Economic Benefit to all Persons Directly Affected by the Proposed Action. Insurance Companies: None. Insurance Agents: None. General Public: None. Municipalities: None, except for minor interest cost if a violation of 175.131, Florida Statutes occurs. Firefighter Pension Boards: None. * * * 5. A statement of the Data and Methods Used in Making Each of the Above Estimates. METHODOLOGY Costs and benefits of the proposed rule are estimated on marginal basis, i.e., additional costs or benefits over and above those associated with normal operations of the affected entity. The relevant costs or benefits to any economic impact are the net additions associated with implementation of the action. DATA The data used in calculating costs and benefits are derived from Departmental experience and statistics. The estimated cost to the agency for implementing the proposed changes was made by responsible agency staff personnel. The Department's Economic Impact Statement for proposed rule Chapter 4-14 is substantially similar to the above. It is clear from the Notice published by the Department, as well as its Economic Impact Statement, that the proposed rules which are here at issue implement Chapters 175 and 185, as amended by Chapters 86-41 and 86-42, Laws of Florida, respectively.
The Issue The retirement benefits to which Petitioner is entitled.
Findings Of Fact Jules Cofman was born September 20, 1911, and died September 23, 1990. Mr. Cofman was happily married to Petitioner, Beatrice Cofman, for 55 years, and they had two children. Prior to his death, Mr. Cofman was employed by the City of Margate, Florida, as an inspector and became entitled to retirement benefits from the Florida Retirement System. Mr. Cofman retired effective March 1, 1990, with 10.14 years of credible service in the Florida Retirement System. On June 20, 1989, Mr. Cofman was diagnosed as having cancer of the bladder. On June 30, 1989, Mr. Cofman underwent surgery, but the cancer continued to spread following the surgery. After his surgery in June 1990, Mr. Cofman was in constant pain and was on medication, including narcotic analgesics. Following his surgery, Mr. Cofman was treated at Bethesda Memorial Hospital between July 20, 1989, and September 14, 1990, on seven occasions as an inpatient and on twelve occasions as an outpatient. Between January 11, 1990, and July 23, 1990, Mr. Cofman was treated at Boca Medical Center on 16 separate occasions. The record does not reflect the nature of his treatments at Boca Medical Center or whether Mr. Cofman was treated as an inpatient or as an outpatient. No medical records were introduced into evidence. A letter from Dr. Mark Ziffer, the urologist who treated Mr. Cofman, was admitted into evidence as a joint exhibit, but there was no testimony from any of Mr. Cofman's treating physicians. There was no competent medical evidence introduced in this proceeding upon which it can be concluded that Mr. Cofman was incompetent when he selected his retirement option or when he cashed his retirement checks. On July 21, 1989, the Respondent mailed to Mr. Cofman an estimate that provided him with an explanation of his options under the Florida Retirement System and provided him with an estimate of the benefits under each option. On February 16, 1990, Mr. Cofman executed a Florida Retirement System form styled "Application for Service Retirement" (Form FR-11). This form provides the retiree with information pertaining to the four options by which his retirement benefits can be paid. On the reverse side of the form is an explanation of each option. By this form, Mr. Cofman selected retirement benefit Option 1, which is described as being a "member benefit only." The explanation of Option 1 on the reverse side of FR-11 is as follows: Option 1: A monthly benefit payable to you for your lifetime. Upon your death, the monthly benefit will cease and your beneficiary will receive only a refund of any contributions you paid which are in excess of the amount you received in benefits. This option does not provide a continuing benefit to a beneficiary. If you wish to provide a beneficiary with a continuing monthly benefit after your death, you should consider selecting one of the other three options. The option 1 benefit is the maximum form of lifetime payment and all other optional payments are derived by applying actuarial equivalency factors to the option 1 benefit. The FR-11 also contained the following statement in capital letters: ONCE YOU RETIRE, YOU CANNOT ADD ADDITIONAL SERVICE NOR CHANGE OPTIONS. RETIREMENT BECOMES FINAL WHEN THE FIRST BENEFIT CHECK IS CASHED OR DEPOSITED! Between the date of his retirement and the date of his death, Mr. Cofman received seven retirement benefit checks from the Florida Retirement System and cashed those benefit checks. The Respondent was notified of the death of Mr. Cofman by a telephone call from Mrs. Cofman on September 24, 1990. On October 2, 1990, the Respondent notified Mrs. Cofman by letter that Mr. Cofman had ". . . elected to retire under Option 1 of the Florida Retirement System which provides the maximum monthly benefit for the lifetime of the member only." This was the first time that Mrs. Cofman was aware that Mr. Cofman had selected a retirement option that would not provide her benefits after his death. By letter to Respondent dated December 7, 1992, Ms. Cofman stated, in pertinent part, as follows: My husband, Jules Cofman (Social Security No. 028-01-6868) has worked as Lot Inspector at the Public Works Department of Margate, Florida for 13 years. In June of 1989 he was diagnosed with bladder cancer. Because of surgery, chemotherapy and radiation he found it necessary to retire. He received notice that he would receive his retirement check the end of April, 1990. In conversations I have had with him in regard to his retirement, he said "of course I would be his beneficiary". He did not discuss the Options with anyone. He received about four checks before he passed away on September 23, 1990. I was shocked to learn that because of his state of mind, he had inadvertently put down Option One instead of Option Two. He had been unable to accept the fact that he was so sick and could not discuss his possible death even with me. He never made any arrangements for my financial security. He had no insurance and no savings. We always planned on his retirement to augment our Social Security. I cannot believe that he would knowingly do this to me. We had been happily married for 55 years. If he had been in a rational state of mind, knowing that he had less than a year to live, he would have certainly chosen OPTION TWO. I would greatly appreciate it if you would review his case and determine whether it would be possible for me to receive his Retirement Benefit. Thank you for your consideration. By letter dated January 28, 1993, the Respondent denied Petitioner's request to change the option selected by Mr. Cofman. The letter asserted the position that the selection cannot be changed since the retirement checks were cashed and cited the following portion of Rule 60S-4.002(4)(b), Florida Administrative Code: After a retirement benefit payment has been cashed or deposited: * * * (b) The selection of an option may not be changed . . . Mrs. Cofman does not believe that her husband made a rational choice in selecting retirement Option 1. Mrs. Cofman believes that her husband would not accept the fact that he had cancer and that he was in a state of denial to the extent he refused to discuss his illness. The testimony of Mrs. Cofman and that of Mr. Gold established that Mr. Cofman's personality changed after he became ill. Prior to his illness, Mr. Cofman was a warm, extroverted person. After his illness, he became withdrawn, moody, depressed, and lifeless. The testimony of Mrs. Cofman and the testimony of Mr. Gold do not, however, establish that Mr. Cofman was incompetent at the time that he selected his retirement option or at the times he cashed his retirement checks. Mrs. Cofman attempted to talk to her husband about his condition and about family financial matters, but he would not talk to her. When Mr. Cofman executed his retirement option, the form did not require the consent or signature of the spouse. Since Mr. Cofman's death, the form has been changed to require that the spouse sign if the retiree selects Option 1. Mrs. Cofman testified that had she been informed as to Mr. Cofman's retirement options, she would have insisted that he select Option 2. Mr. Cofman executed FR-11 on February 16, 1990. The form appears to have been completed in type on February 15, 1990. The evidence in this matter does not establish that Mr. Cofman was incompetent to execute the FR-11 on February 15 or 16, 1990, or that there was any irregularity in the execution of this form or in its delivery to the personnel office of the City of Margate. Between March 1, 1990, and the date of his death, Mr. Cofman received and cashed seven retirement benefit checks. Mrs. Cofman testified that she would not have permitted those checks to have been cashed had she been informed as to Mr. Cofman's retirement options.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent enter a final order which denies Petitioner's request to change the retirement option selected by Jules Cofman. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of December 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 29th day of December, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-1507 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order. The argument contained in those paragraphs are rejected as findings of fact as being argument and as being, in part, contrary to the findings made and the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 7 are rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 8 are subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 9 are rejected as being unsubstantiated by the evidence or as being argument that is contrary to the findings made or to the conclusions reached. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 12, and 13 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 6 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order. As reflected by Joint Exhibit 1, Mr. Cofman had additional hospital visits. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 8, 9, and 10 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 11 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order or are subordinate to the findings made. COPIES FURNISHED: Stanley M. Danek, Esquire Department of Management Services Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Stuart B. Klein , Esquire Klein & Klein, P.A. 1551 Forum Place, Suite 400B West Palm Beach, Florida 33445 A. J. McMullian, III, Director Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 William H. Lindner, Secretary Department of Management Services Knight Building, Suite 307 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Sylvan Strickland, Acting General Counsel Department of Management Services Knight Building, Suite 309 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
Findings Of Fact The Division of Retirement will make no Findings of Fact relating to whether Petitioner's disability was in-line-of-duty. Accordingly, for the reasons mentioned previously, all findings contained in paragraphs 5, 6, 7, and 8, of the recommended order are rejected. However, the Division accepts the remaining Findings of Fact contained in the recommended order. As taken from the order these findings are: Herman Williams was an employee of the Department of Transportation and a member of the Florida Retirement System. The Division of Retirement approved payment of regular disability benefits to Herman Williams. Herman Williams is currently receiving and accepting these benefits. Herman Williams is an illiterate Seminole Indian, 62 years of age. Williams' duties with the Department of Transportation were driving a mowing tractor and cleaning out roadside ditches. Williams worked for the Department of Transportation approximately 21 years 11 months prior to being placed on the retired roles [sic]. On May 1, 1975, Williams was driving his tractor in the course of his regular employment at the Department of Transportation when the power steering of the tractor malfunctioned causing the front wheels to swerve violently, wrenching the steering wheel in Williams' hands and nearly throwing him from the tractor. Repairs had to be made to Williams' tractor by a Department of Transportation mechanic because the tractor was inoperative. The mechanic discovered a loose nut in the power steering assembly when he exchanged the power steering unit in Williams' tractor with another from the maintenance yard. When the new unit was installed in Williams's tractor it functioned normally. When the power steering from Williams' tractor was installed in the other tractor, it also functioned normally. The mechanic stated that the loose nut which he had discovered could cause the tractor to swerve violently in the manner Williams' had described. On the afternoon of May 1, 1975, Williams reported this instant [sic] to his supervisor, David McQuaig. Mr. McQuaig inquired as to any injuries to Williams and the tractor. Williams reported to McQuaig that the tractor had not been harmed and that he was only sore and stiff. No report of injury was prepared by McQuaig whose duty it was to file such reports. Williams' condition did not materially improve after seeking medical treatment by Dr. Albritton. Williams remained on sick leave until August 11, 1975, when it was exhausted. Williams then took annual leave from August 12, 1975 until September 23, 19975, when his retirement became effective. When the Petitioner's sick leave was exhausted, he was contacted by his supervisor in the Department of Transportation. He suggested that Williams could retire on disability if two physicians would state that he was disabled. This letter was read to Williams by his son, Eddie, because Williams is illiterate. Retirement application forms were provided Williams by the Department of Transportation. The physician report forms were completed by Dr. Albritton and Dr. Wilkerson. The statement of disability by employer form was completed by Williams' supervisor, David A. Young, Maintenance Engineer, for the Department of Transportation. Young stated that he completed the Statement of Disability by Employer, indicating that the application was for regular disability benefits because he had determined that no workman's compensation claim had been made by Williams and because Dr. Wilkerson's medical report had stated that the injuries occurred at Williams's home. The determination that the application was for regular disability benefits was solely Young's. The Application for Disability Retirement signed by Williams was prepared by personnel at the Department of Transportation District Office. This form was signed by Herman Williams; however, this form does not make provision for the member to state the nature of the disability benefits sought. Eddie Williams, son of Herman Williams, took his father to sign the forms at the Department of Transportation office. These forms were not explained to Williams, nor did Eddie Williams read them. Herman Williams was also unaware that such a benefit existed. Herman Williams stated he sought disability benefits based upon his injury on the job. Disability retirement was not discussed between Herman Williams and David Young. Based upon the application submitted in his behalf, the Division of Retirement made a determination that Williams was entitled to regular disability benefits. Williams was unaware that he was not receiving the in-line-of-duty benefits until his son inquired as to how much money he was receiving. When he was advised, he told his father that it appeared to be too little money. At this point Eddie Williams discovered that the application had been for regular disability.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer RECOMMENDS: That the administrator permit the applicant to file an amended application for disability in-line-of-duty retirement, and, further, that said application be approved. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of December, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: J. W. Chalkley, III, Esquire Post Office Box 1793 Ocala, Florida 32670 Douglas Spangler, Jr., Esquire Asst. Division Attorney Division of Retirement 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF RETIREMENT DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION HERMAN H. WILLIAMS, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 77-982 STATE OF FLORIDA, DIVISION OF RETIREMENT, Respondent. / FINAL AGENCY ORDER A petition for formal proceedings having been duly filed, and a request for hearing officer having been duly made, a hearing was held in the above-styled cause pursuant to the provisions of Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, before the Honorable Stephen F. Dean, Hearing Officer, in Ocala, Florida, on September 15, 1977. The Petitioner requested relief from the Division's determination that Petitioner was not entitled to resubmit an application for disability retirement requesting in-line-of-duty disability retirement benefits because he had previously applied for and accepted regular disability retirement. The purpose of the hearing was to determine the factual basis for Petitioner's claim that he should be allowed to apply for in-line-of-duty disability retirement benefits. APPEARANCES AT THE HEARING: Eric E. Wagner, Esquire J. W. Chalkey, III, Esquire Law Offices of Eric E. Wagner, P.A. Post Office Box 1763 Ocala, Florida 32670 For the Petitioner E. Douglas Spangler, Jr., Esquire Assistant Division Attorney Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center 2639 North Monroe Street Suite 207C-Box 81 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 For the Respondent The Hearing Officer entered his Recommended Order on December 8, 1977, in which he sustained Petitioner's assertion and concluded, on the basis of the findings made as a result of the hearing, that Petitioner should be entitled to resubmit his application and request in-line-of-duty disability benefits. In addition to this determination, the Hearing Officer found that Petitioner was in fact entitled to in-line-of-duty disability retirement benefits. In making this latter conclusion, both as a matter of fact and of law, the Hearing Officer went beyond his scope of authority. As will be developed more fully herein, the Hearing Officer was without jurisdiction to consider the issue of whether Petitioner was in fact entitled to the in-line-of-duty benefits. Therefore, so much of the recommended order as purports to address this issue is of no effect, being the result of a hearing that did not comply with the essential requirements of law.
The Issue May Petitioner make an application with Respondent for disability retirement benefits when he was already applied for and has received regular retirement payments?
Findings Of Fact Mr. Vernon Taylor Bell voluntarily terminated his employment with the Department of Legal Affairs on February 26, 1980. By that date he had accumulated 23.66 years of service for credit in the Florida Retirement System. After his termination Mr. Bell had a conference with a retirement benefits specialist, Ms. Taylor, who is an employee of Respondent. At Mr. Bell's request she gave him an estimate of his retirement benefits for a regular retirement. She did not discuss the benefits which a disabled retiree might receive. The testimony of Ms. Taylor and Mr. Bell is in conflict on whether or not she discussed disability retirement benefits with him. Ms. Taylor's testimony is accepted as being more credible because Mr. Bell was shown throughout his testimony to have a poor memory. Mr. Bell began to receive regular retirement benefits in the monthly amounts of $178.32 on May 30, 1980. Since that date he has continued to receive and accept regular retirement payments. Petitioner has cashed or deposited his first benefit check. If Mr. Bell were to be granted disability retirement benefits rather than regular retirement benefits, his monthly payment would be substantially increased. Petitioner did not present credible evidence that he was misinformed or mislead by Respondent about the relative advantages to him in electing to apply for regular retirement as opposed to applying for disability benefits. On August 26, 1980, Mr. Bell wrote a letter to Mr. Andrew M. McMullian III, who is the State Retirement Director. Mr. Bell stated that he had been given incorrect information about the disability benefits he might be eligible for. He requested that he be allowed to make an application as a disabled retiree. On October 1, 1980, Mr. McMullian responded to Mr. Bell in a letter which states in part: We have reviewed your retirement account and have determined the information provided to you by this office was correct regarding your retirement eligibility. We regret if there was any misunderstanding on your part re- garding disability retirement; however, we cannot honor your request to be retired with disability at this late date, because you applied for regular retirement which was approved for you effective April 1, 1980. Your initial monthly benefit was $178.32 and your July 1980 benefit payment contained a cost-of-living increase, thus your current monthly benefit is $179.73. The Florida Retirement System law requires certification by two licensed physicians in Florida that one is totally and permanently disabled and unable to render any useful and efficient work before this agency can approve an employee for retirement with disability. Apparently, you made no attempt to retire with disability, other than discussing the matter in general with us, and according to our records, you made no application for disability retirement. Further, a retiree is not allowed by law to change his type of re- tirement once he begins drawing monthly re- tirement benefits.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the State Retirement Director enter a Final Order authorizing Mr. Bell is submit an application for disability retirement benefits. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 24th day of August, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON Hearing Officer Department of Administration Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24 day of August, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Silas R. Eubanks, Esquire 103 North Gadsden Street Post Office Box 4266 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 William Frieder, Esquire Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center 2639 North Monroe Street Suite 207C - Box 81 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Daniel C. Brown, Esquire General Counsel Department of Administration 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Nevin G. Smith Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Jean E. Preus is a registered real estate broker and was so registered at all times here relevant. Tax Shelter Real Estate, Inc., and Tax Shelter Real Estate of America, Inc., are corporate brokers registered by the Florida Board of Real Estate and were so registered at all times here relevant. Tax Shelter Real Estate, Inc., and Tax Shelter Real Estate of America, Inc., are wholly owned subsidiaries of another corporation controlled by S. William Preus, the husband of Respondent. The family owns the majority, if not all, of the stock in this controlling corporation. S. William Preus is president of Corporate Financial Planning of Florida, whose business is primarily providing computer printouts and expertise to insurance agents setting up retirement plans for clients. Preus holds the degree of Chartered Life Underwriter (CLU) although at present he sells no insurance, but deals primarily with the insurance companies in assisting their agents. On 28 October 1980 at the request of insurance agents, Edward LaGrave and Don Hansman, S. William Preus, enroute from a seminar in Daytona to his office in St. Petersburg, met with the owners of Peebles Tractor Company in Winter Haven, Florida, to present information on a Keogh Plan for employees of Peebles. Jean E. Preus accompanied her husband to this meeting. LaGrave and Hansman provided Preus with a list of employees of Peebles, their ages and salaries, from which it was determined that some $27,000 per year could be invested in an employee retirement plan such as a Keogh Plan. In the presentation Preus used prototype trust documents prepared by Lincoln Trust Company and, if the Peebles Tractor Company opted for the plan he presented, it was his intention to forward the application to Lincoln Trust to serve as trustee of the plan. Preus had purchased one or more time-sharing condominium units and was impressed with the appreciation he had noticed in the selling price of such units in the past two years. He was especially impressed with the Bahia Mar development at which he had purchased a unit and who had additional time-sharing units to sell. Time-sharing is those housing units sold to various individuals for one week out of the year as a vacation home with the capability of swapping usage with similar units in other places. At Bahia Mar the unit owner sold one- week usage per year on a 99-year lease with the property managed by the developer and rented if the owner does not want to occupy the unit during his week's ownership. Preus proposed time-sharing units as a suitable investment vehicle for the Peebles Tractor Company employees retirement fund and Jean E. Preus showed pictures of the condominium units they owned at Bahia Mar. Peebles was not interested in purchasing time-sharing units for their employees' retirement fund and no sales were made. Had Peebles bought any of the Bahia Mar units, Respondents would have received a ten percent commission. Preus had obtained the Lincoln Trust forms from Lincoln Trust Company at an earlier date by simply requesting the forms. He obtained additional forms from Flagship Bank in a similar fashion. William A. Preus, the adult son of Respondent who also works with his father, had called Lincoln Trust before the October 28 meeting and learned the fees had been changed since the forms he had on hand were printed. He amended the forms used by S. William Preus to reflect this change in the fees charged by Lincoln Trust Company when the presentation was made to Peebles Tractor Company. The day following the Peebles meeting Preus contacted Lincoln Trust Company and learned they would no longer accept financed real estate in an employee retirement plan for which they served as trustee. Specifically, they would not accept funds to invest in financed time-shared condominium units. Formerly, Lincoln Trust had accepted financed raw land at Sugarwood Mills (in Florida) in such a retirement plan (Exhibit 11). In order to protect employee benefit plans Congress enacted the Employees Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 USCS 1001, et seq. Tax advantages accrue to those plans complying with ERISA, the federal tax laws and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto. All investments are not acceptable; however, the principal requirement is that funds placed in such accounts be prudently invested. Regulations have been promulgated disqualifying investments and certain personal property such as gold coins in ERISA plans, which type investment was formerly allowed. No regulations specifically authorize or bar ERISA investments in time-shared condominium units. Although trustees such as Lincoln Trust Company will not accept time-shared units in ERISA accounts, testimony was presented that Flagship Bank of Tampa would accept such investments in ERISA accounts. No evidence was presented that Jean E. Preus made any representations regarding the acceptability of time-shared units in an employee retirement account. According to her testimony she has no knowledge of ERISA plans and her participation in the October 28 1980, meeting was limited to showing pictures of and describing the time-shared unit she owned at Bahia Mar.
The Issue The issue presented for decision in this matter is whether petitioner is entitled to disability retirement benefits pursuant to F.S. Section 121.091(4). 1/
Findings Of Fact Having heard the testimony presented and considered the exhibits received into evidence at hearing, it is found as follows: On April 30, 1973, petitioner was employed by Metropolitan Dade County as a fire lieutenant, when he injured his back while unloading fire hoses. 2/ He then took some vacation time and returned to work for about three months. He saw a medical doctor during this time for pain in his right hip and lower back. For a while, his back pains seemed to improve, but then got worse again. In August of 1973, petitioner again injured his back at work when responding to an emergency. Dr. Ray Lopez saw petitioner after this second injury and put him in the hospital. Apparently, petitioner did not return to work after August 30, 1973. On September 10 or 11, 1973, Dr. Hubert Aronson performed surgery on petitioner and removed a herniated disc. According to Dr. Aronson, on September 25, 1973, petitioner's legs were free of pain, but he was still having some back pains, as he was on October 16, 1973. His pain in his right leg had abated somewhat after the surgery. On October 24, 1973, petitioner suffered a gunshot wound to the abdomen. The bullet entered the spinal canal and cut some of the nerve roots inside the spinal canal. Immediately after the gunshot wound, petitioner had a partially paralyzed left leg. Abdominal surgery was performed in connection with the gunshot wound. In December of 1973, a third operation was performed on petitioner. This operation was also related to the damage done by the gunshot wound. After the gunshot wound, petitioner began to have pain recurring in the right leg. Since his left leg was paralyzed as a result of the gunshot wound, he was having to use his right extremity almost exclusively in his ambulation. His complaints from this point forward relate primarily to pain in his right leg, right hip, and lower back. As noted above, petitioner did not return to work after August 30, 1973. Petitioner is now receiving benefits under a long-term disability program by Metropolitan Dade County, which determined that petitioner was, for that purpose, totally and permanently disabled as a result of the work-related accidents and was not capable of being placed in any of its approximately 500 job classifications. It was petitioner's testimony that although the pain in his right leg and hip is somewhat relieved by medication, he is still uncomfortable even with the medication. He testified that he cannot sit or stand for any long period of time and only gets relief when he lies down. He stated that although he would like to work, he does not feel that he is able to do so because of his pain and the resulting medication. Petitioner is 39 years of age, has a high school education and has been employed as a plasterer, as well as a firefighter. It was Dr. Aronson's opinion that petitioner received a twenty-five percent permanent physical impairment as a result of the work-related injuries. As to the injuries resulting from the gunshot wound, Dr. Aronson estimated the permanent physical impairment to be forty or fifty percent. The combination of the work-related injuries and the gunshot wound would be less than seventy-five percent. In answer to questions regarding petitioner's ability to work, Dr. Aronson opined that petitioner would not be able to be an active firefighter and, as to other jobs, Aronson stated that only the petitioner could answer that question because he is the one who suffers the pain. Dr. Aronson did state that, while the gunshot wound produced the greater physical impairment, the work-related injuries produced the greater disability due to the pain involved. Dr. Ray Lopez felt that the gunshot would aggravate the prior work-related injuries. Had petitioner not been shot, he may have been able to return to work in some capacity with the fire department. Even after the gunshot wound, it was Dr. Lopez's opinion that while petitioner could not return to work as an officer in the fire department, he may "potentially, eventually be rehabilitated in some other type of endeavor".
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is my recommendation that petitioner's request for disability retirement benefits be denied. Respectfully submitted and entered this 30th day of October, 1975, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE E. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 904/488-9675
The Issue The issue in this matter is whether Respondent has forfeited his rights and benefits under the City of Tampa General Employees Retirement Fund pursuant to section 112.3173, Florida Statutes (2009).1/
Findings Of Fact The Fund is a public retirement system as defined by Florida law. The Fund is charged with administering and managing a pension plan for employees of the City of Tampa (the “City”). Respondent was employed with the City from August 1, 1994, through March 16, 2009, when the City terminated his employment. Respondent worked as an Automotive Equipment Operator II in the City’s parks and recreation department. Respondent worked a total of 15 years for the City. By reason of his employment with the City, Respondent was enrolled in the pension plan administered by the Fund. After six years of employment, Respondent vested in the pension plan. According to a Notice of Disciplinary Action, dated March 16, 2009, the City terminated Respondent based on a complaint that he had stolen City property. Specifically, in February 2009, the City received information that Respondent was in possession of a City-owned lawn mower at his residence. After receiving the complaint, the City notified the Tampa Police Department (“TPD”). TPD searched Respondent’s home. TPD did not find a City lawn mower. However, during its search, TPD did discover a spool of weed eater line on Respondent’s porch that he admitted belonged to the City. During a subsequent interview with TPD, Respondent confessed to taking the spool from the City’s supplies without permission. Respondent also divulged that he did occasionally take a lawn mower owned by the City and use it on his property. Following the TPD interview, Respondent was arrested and charged with theft of the City property under section 812.014, Florida Statutes. Respondent, however, was never prosecuted for the crime. After completing a pre-trial intervention program, Respondent’s theft charge was dismissed. The City, however, terminated Respondent’s employment based, in part, on his admission to stealing the weed eater line. Kimberly Marple, an Employee Relations Specialist Supervisor for the City, testified on behalf of the City and explained that the City maintains a zero tolerance policy for removal of or taking City property for personal use. Consequently, when the City learned of Respondent’s admission to TPD that he took City property, he was fired. At the final hearing, Petitioner admitted to “borrowing” the City lawn mower from time to time to use at his home. He expressed, however, that he always returned it to the City. Respondent claimed that he never considered permanently taking the lawn mower. Respondent did, however, confirm that he took the weed eater line from the City, without authority, for personal use and did not intend to return it. Respondent relayed that a spool of weed eater line costs approximately $80. Respondent voiced that he was an exemplary employee for the City during his 15 years of employment. Respondent represented that, prior to this incident, he had never received any disciplinary action from the City. Respondent’s testimony is supported by his annual performance evaluations which record that he dependably and diligently performed his responsibilities for the City parks and recreation department. Respondent’s performance was frequently marked as excellent or outstanding. Based on the evidence and testimony presented at the final hearing, the preponderance of the evidence establishes that the City terminated Respondent’s employment by reason of his admission to theft of City property. Therefore, the Fund met its burden of proving that Respondent must forfeit all rights and benefits to the Fund’s pension plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the City of Tampa General Employees Retirement Fund enter a final order finding that Respondent, Robert Ramshardt, a public employee who, by reason of his admitted commission of a “specified offense” under section 112.3173(2)(e), forfeited all rights and benefits in the pension plan administered by the Fund. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of February, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER 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 22nd day of February, 2017.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner's deceased wife, Dorothy Bazzel, made a valid selection of retirement "option 1" instead of "option 2"; whether that apparent selection was a mistake and, consequently, whether the Petitioner should be allowed to receive retirement survivors benefits in accordance with "option 2", as provided for under section 121.091(6), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Joe Bazzel, is a resident of Blountstown, Florida, and is retired. His wife, now deceased, was Dorothy Bazzel. She was a longtime teacher in the Bay County school system, with more than 46 years continuous creditable service in the Florida Retirement System and as a teacher. She retired on July 1, 1988. The Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida charged with administering and enforcing the statutes, embodied in Chapter 121, and related rules, by which operation of the Florida Retirement System, including determinations of entitlement to and payment of benefits, is accomplished. Mrs. Bazzel underwent surgery for breast cancer on January 11, 1987. She had been diagnosed by Dr. Dixon McCloy, of Panama City, with breast cancer sometime in January of that year. Her progress after surgery was satisfactory, and she kept all appointments, had required x-rays, examinations and mammograms thereafter, by which her physicians monitored her progress. She had expressed to several persons of her acquaintance a desire to retire by the end of the 1987-1988 school year. In order to prepare for that event, she contacted her brother-in-law, Ray Bazzel, who testified in this case, and asked him to contact the Division of Retirement in Tallahassee, Florida, to obtain an estimate of her expected retirement benefits. He made that request to Ms. Loreen Vause, an employee of the Division, on July 16, 1987, by telephone. The Division of Retirement has an ongoing program which automatically generates an estimate of benefits for members who have certain amounts of creditable service and are of a certain age. When Mr. Bazzel made his request for an estimate of benefits for Mrs. Bazzel, the Division was already in the process of preparing a benefit estimate for her through its routine program. That estimate was forwarded to Mrs. Bazzel on July 22, 1987, and it stated as follows: This is a routine audit of your account. Noting the many years of service you have, we are furnishing you an estimate of your benefits as if you terminate your employment on June 30, 1988, and retire effective July 1, 1988. This is furnished for informational purposes only. By means of that estimate, Mrs. Bazzel was informed as to the benefit amounts which she would receive under all four retirement options. See Respondent's exhibit 8 in evidence. Ray Bazzel would visit Mrs. Bazzel on occasion during his visits to Panama City. She was described by him in his testimony to be a very private person not given to talking much about her illness or the operation. She did discuss the possibility of her retirement on one occasion with him, sometime during the summer of 1987. They discussed all four retirement options, and he explained the options in detail to her. He advised her that she would have to make a decision as to which option she would take, but he was never advised by Mrs. Bazzel nor anyone else as to which option she had actually selected until after her death. He did not know that she had made application for retirement on January 14, 1988. Harold Bazzel is a nephew of the Petitioner. He testified that he did not know that Mrs. Bazzel had made an application for retirement and did not know what option she selected until after her death. Richard Locker was the personnel officer with the school board where she was employed and knew Mrs. Bazzel personally and professionally. He was the principal for six years at Cove Elementary School where both his wife, Nan Locker, and Mrs. Bazzel taught. Mr. Locker had a policy of discussing retirement issues with Florida Retirement Service members on his staff and advising them of correct procedures to follow, as to the paperwork involved, and as to the full retirement options which they could select. He advised all members who were employed at his school to call the Division of Retirement in Tallahassee for more information. He never advised anyone of which option they should take because each case is an individual case, and he did not feel comfortable advising an employee or friend which option to take and then later have that person accuse him of advising the wrong option. Mr. Locker saw Mrs. Bazzel after her surgery and stated that after the surgery, she appeared to be in good health. He saw her in May of 1988 and stated that she was very optimistic and appeared capable of teaching the next year. She did not seem moody or depressed in any way to him. He believed that she exhibited an attitude that her treatment had been a success and that her health had been restored. He discussed with her the possibility of her retiring at the end of the 1987-88 school year, and he believed that she would retire at that time. In two telephone calls, he and Mrs. Bazzel discussed the four different retirement options. She appeared to know what he was talking about and to understand those options. He felt that she understood that option 1 would pay the highest benefit amount to her of the four options. He, however, did not really know what option she had chosen until after the Petitioner, her husband, informed him after Mrs. Bazzel's death. Based upon the testimony of Ray and Harold Bazzel and that of Richard Locker, concerning their contact and discussions with and advice to Mrs. Bazzel, it is found that Mrs. Bazzel was aware of the four options and the differences between them. She was aware that option 1 provided the highest benefit to the retiring member for the lifetime of that member and that it would cease at the death of the member with no further benefits being payable to any person. On January 14, 1988, the Petitioner, Joe Bazzel, drove his wife to the offices of the school board, where she completed the forms necessary for her retirement. She talked with Vicky Poole, the records clerk, who helped teachers and administrators complete necessary retirement forms as part of her job duties. Ms. Poole had worked at the school board offices for approximately seven years and had an established procedure for informing prospective retirees of all information needed to process retirement applications. As part of her instructions to them, she would ask each potential retiree to inform her of the option they wanted to select, who their beneficiary would be and where the checks were to be sent. She would inform them when they would start receiving checks, would discuss with them their sick leave balance "payoff", and what steps they needed to take to obtain social security benefits. This discussion with prospective retirees would take up to one-half hour if the retirement form had not been partially completed before the retiree came into the office, or about 15 minutes if the form had already been partially completed. If Mrs. Bazzel already understood the retirement options and had formed an opinion of what she wanted to do concerning retirement and the selection of an option, and if the form had already been partially completed, then the entire process on January 14, 1988 could have occurred in a few minutes. It was Ms. Poole's practice to sit next to the prospective retiree, obtain the necessary information, and type it on the retirement form at that time. She would then advise the member of the various options by referring to the back of the retirement form (Respondent's exhibit 12 in evidence) or to a pamphlet explaining the options issued by the Division of Retirement. Both of those documents contain a narrative description of the retirement options. Ms. Poole did not choose a retirement option or advise a prospective retiree of which option to choose. The retiree must choose his or her own option. Ms. Poole would never advise a person concerning which option to take and had been advised by the Division of Retirement never to give such advice on option selection. If Ms. Poole perceived that a prospective retiree was indecisive about option selection or did not appear to understand the options or the consequences of such election, she would advise that person to speak with someone else who was knowledgeable about the retirement system and about the retiree's financial situation, such as a friend or relative. If a prospective retiree was still indecisive or unsure of the meaning of options or which option to select, Ms. Poole would hold the form and not complete it without being sure in her own mind that the retiree understood the option and knew what it meant. In her standard procedure, she would go over each item on the form at least two and up to four times with a retiree. If they were very certain of the option they wanted to select, she would then finish the form and have the person sign it and give it to Ms. Bolinger to notarize. Ms. Poole realized that the choice of an option was an important decision and conducted her interview with the retiree accordingly. She testified in this regard as follows: If they said well I'm looking at 2 and 3, that's waivering. If they said I want option 1, I typed 1 in and I would say it several times as I typed it in. I mean I was very well aware that this selection was for the rest of their life and could affect someone else. I was very well aware of that. So, I would repeat it several times and when I was complete, when the form was complete, I'd give it back and go over it again, again reemphasizing the option. If they did waiver, I would briefly go over the options and there was time, I always mention, you know, there's time to do this, to choose your option, perhaps you want to talk to someone. I could not advise them. That's what I did. Ms. Poole remembered that Mrs. Bazzel came into the office but did not remember if the retirement forms had already been completed or partially completed prior to the visit. She testified that there was no doubt in her mind that Mrs. Bazzel chose option 1 and no doubt that she knew what option 1 meant. Ms. Bolinger began to work with the school board dealing with retirement applications in 1984. She is now the records clerk who handles retirement matters for teachers and school administrators. This is the same job that Ms. Poole performed in January of 1988. Ms. Bolinger notarized the retirement form of Mrs. Bazzel. Ms. Bolinger learned her job from Ms. Poole and testified that the retirement form was always completed in the office before a retirement clerk and was never sent to anyone. She stated that the clerk would ask the member if they understood each of the options, and the clerk would be sure that the member did understand them. It was the practice to ask such a retiring person if he or she was familiar with the options. If the retiree seemed the least bit confused, Ms. Bolinger testified that the clerk would discuss each option all over again with the prospective retiree, give him the form with the options listed on the back, and they would then discuss each one and make sure that the prospective retiree understood each option before continuing the process of executing the requisite forms. Thus, Ms. Poole and Ms. Bolinger or any school board clerk follows a routine practice of examining and discussing in detail each retirement option with a prospective retiree and makes sure that person understands the wording of the four options and what the four options mean before making a selection, answering any questions the prospective retiree might have and advising them to seek counsel from a qualified person if the prospective retiree remains unsure of which option to elect. After the forms are completed, the clerks, including Ms. Bolinger and Ms. Poole, when she was performing that function, examine the forms with the retiring member to make sure that all information is correct. "We wait until they check the whole thing and this is exactly what they want, and I watch them sign it." The signature is the last item which is placed on the retirement form. If the retiring member appears unsure about the options, Ms. Poole and Ms. Bolinger will ask them to go home and think about it and think it all through before they decide. Like Ms. Poole, Ms. Bolinger leaves the option selection up to the retiring member and does not attempt to advise persons about which option to select, merely giving them the information concerning the effect of selecting a particular option. In her capacity as a notary, Ms. Bolinger stated that if a person did not look like they knew what they were doing in executing the form, she would not notarize the form. If they did not appear to understand that they were applying for retirement, or which facet of it they were applying for, she would, likewise, not notarize the form. She would not notarize a signature after the fact of the signature being placed on the form. Ms. Bolinger was shown a copy of Petitioner's exhibit 7, in evidence, which is a copy of the retirement form that did not have her notary signature. She observed that her notary stamp was on that copy but that her name had merely been signed in the wrong place, possibly because she was new to those duties concerning retirement clerk matters. She testified, however, that her signature was correctly placed on the form, she believes, that same day. See pages 17 and 37 of Petitioner's exhibit 7, in evidence. On January 14, 1988, Mrs. Bazzel completed two forms: FR-11, "Application for Service Retirement", and FR-9, "Request for Audit", (see Respondent's exhibits 9 and 10, in evidence). Both of those forms contain Mrs. Bazzel's signature and are dated with the same date, January 14, 1988. The FR- 11 form had that date written on it in three places. The two forms were then filed with the Division of Retirement. They were acknowledged by the Division as being received on the next day, January 15, 1988, according to the form FST- 40C, "Acknowledgment of Retirement Application", which has January 15, 1988 as the received date. See Respondent's exhibit 11 and the testimony of Stanley Colvin, in evidence. The Petitioner testified that he believes the retirement application forms referenced above were suspect as to accuracy because, according to his testimony, he took his wife to the school board offices on a Friday to sign the forms after the end of the teaching day on either January 8th or January 15th, and states that generally he remembers that it was a Friday because that was the day they had the habit of leaving the Panama City area to visit relatives for the weekend. However, the forms are dated January 14, 1988 in several places. The forms in evidence and the testimony of Ms. Colvin establish that the application documents were received on January 15th in the offices of the Respondent agency. Thus, they could not have been signed on Friday, January 15th. If they had been signed on Friday, January 8th, the record leaves no explanation as to why all of the forms were dated January 14th. The Hearing Officer can only logically find that, indeed, the forms were signed by Mrs. Bazzel on January 14, 1988 and received in the offices of the Division in Tallahassee, Florida, on January 15, 1988. The date of January 20, 1988, appearing on the documents, was established to be the date they were received in the bureau within the department which actually performs benefit calculations, not the date it was first received by the department. The evidence establishes that Mrs. Bazzel selected option 1, the retirement option which provides no survivor's benefits. None of the exhibits in evidence can support a finding that she chose or intended to choose option 2, which provides survivor's benefits. The application for service retirement shows an election for option 1 and the acknowledgment of receipt of that retirement application, FST-40C, shows that option 1 was selected, as well as the letter that informed Mrs. Bazzel that she was being added to the retirement payroll in the category of option 1 benefits. On August 1, 1988, the day after the first retirement warrant would have been received by Mrs. Bazzel, Ray Bazzel called the offices of the Division of Retirement to state that Mrs. Bazzel had checked the wrong number of income tax exemptions and wanted to change them. In order to know how many exemptions she had, he would have had to see the stub from that first retirement warrant. The stub would have depicted the gross amount of the benefit, which was the same amount as that provided for option 1, and not the gross amount attributable to option 2. See FST-40C form, in evidence as Respondent's exhibit 8. Additionally, in a conversation with one of her closest friends, Nan Locker, Mrs. Bazzel led Ms. Locker and friends at school to believe that her surgery had alleviated her medical problem with cancer and that she was in good health. During a conversation they had approximately nine months before Mrs. Bazzel's death, Mrs. Bazzel, in talking about retirement with Ms. Locker, who was also contemplating retirement, made a comment as follows: "Well, I've got my retirement and Joe's got his." This comment was made sometime in the fall of 1989 before Mrs. Bazzel's death in July of 1990. Although the Petitioner introduced exhibits 1, 2 and 4 in an attempt to show that his wife meant to select option 2 and that some mistake was made by the school board or the Division in preparing and submitting the documentation setting up Mrs. Bazzel's retirement benefit situation; in reality, those exhibits merely show that Mrs. Bazzel possibly did some calculations as to the difference in monthly amounts between option 1 and option 2. The exhibits can only show that she may have been aware of the difference in monthly benefit amounts between the two options, but they do not show that she intended to select option 2. Indeed, the evidence and testimony, considered in its totality, shows that her selection of option 1 was a voluntary, knowing selection. The evidence also shows that Mrs. Bazzel was mentally and medically competent to make that selection, freely and voluntarily. Her visits with Dr. McCloy, her treating physician, in the first half of 1988, to monitor her health situation after the cancer surgery, were normal and showed nothing unusual as far as any recurrence of cancer was concerned. Her chest x-rays were negative for recurrent cancer. On June 3, 1988, she was diagnosed as having a small duodenal ulcer, but no indication of recurrent cancer was present. Dr. McCloy treated her for the ulcer with medication; and by August 10, 1988, her symptoms attributable thereto had largely been alleviated. Her visits to Dr. McCloy were routine for the remainder of 1988 and 1989, with normal results. It was not until March of 1990 that she was diagnosed with a spot on the left rib, which proved to be recurrent cancer, probably attributable to the original breast cancer. She deceased as a result of this condition on July 9, 1990. Dr. McCloy testified that he never advised Mrs. Bazzel that her cancer was terminal because he believed that it had been successfully treated after the surgery and for a long period of time thereafter he had no evidence of its recurrence. Therefore, he had not advised her that she was terminally ill during the period of time she was making the retirement decisions, applying for and receiving her first retirement check during essentially the first half of 1988. Dr. McCloy's testimony further establishes, without doubt, that Mrs. Bazzel was alert, possessed her full intelligence and faculties, and understood the significance of his medical instructions, and understood his advice as to her health status. Accordingly, it has been established that Mrs. Bazzel did not have a recurrence of cancer until it was diagnosed in March of 1990, long after she had made the relevant retirement decisions pertinent hereto, and that she knew and was fully aware of her medical condition during the process of applying for her retirement benefits. She, therefore, understood the steps she took for retirement application and benefit receipt purposes, and was not medically or mentally impaired to make those decisions. It was established that she began her teaching career as a member of the Teacher Retirement System, pursuant to Chapter 238, Florida Statutes. She subsequently transferred into the Florida Retirement System under Chapter 121, Florida Statutes, during an open enrollment period. While a member of the Teacher Retirement System, she paid $12,870.33 in total contributions, plus interest, which accumulated on those contributions in the amount of $8,561.97, for a total on deposit in her account of $21,432.30. During the period of her retirement before her death, Mrs. Bazzel received total benefits in the amount of $49,551.95. She, therefore, received $28,119.65 more in benefits than she had paid into the Teacher Retirement System in contributions, plus accumulated interest. It was proven that the distance to the residence or places of business of the deponents, whose depositions were admitted into evidence, comports with the standard of Rule 1.330, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Since the locations of the deponents as potential witnesses accorded with the 100 mile standard, their depositions were admitted in lieu of live testimony.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued by the Division of Retirement determining that the Petitioner, Joe Bazzel, is not entitled to have the retirement option selected by Dorothy Bazzel changed from option 1 to option 2. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of September, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of September, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-5774 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-5. Rejected as not being in accord with the preponderant weight of the evidence. 6. Accepted but not itself materially dispositive. 7-11. Rejected as not being in accord with the preponderant weight of the evidence. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-25. Accepted. 26-30. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: A.J. McMullian, III, Director Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Bldg. C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1560 Mr. Larry Strong Acting Secretary Department of Management Services Knight Building, Suite 307 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950 Joe Bazzel P.O. Box 46 Blountstown, FL 32424 Stanley M. Danek, Esq. Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center 2639 North Monroe Street, Bldg. C Tallahassee, FL 32399-1560
