The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to receive survivor benefits from a joint and survivor annuity, under Option 3 of the Florida Retirement System (FRS) defined benefit plan, following the death of her spouse, Anne M. Birch, who, as an FRS member, elected Option 1 in 2012 when Florida law would not allow Ms. Birch to elect Option 3 or 4 and designate the joint annuitant as Petitioner, whom she lawfully married after electing Option 1.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Birch, who was born on September 12, 1950, and Petitioner, who was born on August 26, 1956, fell in love and began to live together in 1992. They jointly owned all significant property, including their primary residence, with a right of survivorship and were jointly liable for household expenses and debt, including the mortgage note on their primary residence. On January 31, 2001, Ms. Birch executed a will that left any remaining property to Petitioner and named her as the personal representative of the estate.1/ Ms. Birch designated Petitioner as her primary beneficiary for employee benefits that authorized such designations. On October 11, 2002, Ms. Birch and Petitioner signed an Amended Declaration of Domestic Partnership, pursuant to the Broward County Domestic Partnership Act of 1999, to register themselves as domestic partners under Broward County Ordinance 1999-18. Fully vested and having accrued substantial benefits from having worked for Broward County in an FRS-covered position for nearly 30 years, on October 23, 2012, Ms. Birch entered DROP, effective October 1, 2012. At that time, Ms. Birch elected Option 1 for the payment of her benefits, checking the "no" box in response to the question of whether she was married. As described in the Conclusions of Law, Option 1 is the maximum benefit and is payable for the life of the retiree. Ms. Birch's monthly Option 1 benefit was $3039.25. The monthly Option 3 benefit, which, as described below, is payable until the latter death of the FRS member or her surviving spouse,2/ would have been nearly $1000 less than the monthly Option 1 benefit.3/ Respondent implemented Ms. Birch's election by paying Ms. Birch's Option 1 benefits into her DROP account. In August 2013, Ms. Birch became ill with cancer. She eventually had to quit working and terminated DROP, at which point Respondent paid Ms. Birch her Option 1 benefits directly. On June 16, 2014, Ms. Birch and Petitioner were lawfully married in Massachusetts. Almost two years later, on May 24, 2016, Ms. Birch died, at which time all payments under Option 1 ended. When Ms. Birch and Petitioner registered as domestic partners in Broward County, no state allowed or recognized same- sex marriage, often pursuant to a "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA). Continuously since 1997, Florida law banned the allowance and recognition of same-sex marriage, even if performed in a jurisdiction where such a marriage were legal, and restricted "marriage" to a legal union between a man and a woman and "spouse" to a member of such a union. § 741.212(1) and (3); Ch. 97-268, § 1, at 4957, Laws of Fla. (Florida DOMA).4/ Massachusetts was the first state to allow and recognize same-sex marriage, effective in 2004. Goodridge v. Dep't of Pub. Health, 798 N.E. 2d 941 (Mass. 2003) (decision stayed 180 days to allow legislature to enact law consistent with the court's ruling). Three or four years after Goodridge, Ms. Birch and Petitioner visited Massachusetts, but did not exercise their right to enter into a lawful marriage at that time. A series of court decisions invalidated the federal and state DOMAs, including the Florida DOMA. On June 26, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013), held that the federal DOMA, as applied to federal tax law, was unconstitutional. By order entered August 21, 2014, in Brenner v. Scott, 999 F. Supp. 2d 1278 (N.D. Fla. 2014) (Brenner I), Respondent was enjoined from enforcing or applying the Florida DOMA, although the court stayed its injunction. The U.S. Supreme Court lifted the stay,5/ as reported by the district court in Brenner v. Scott¸ 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91969 (N.D. Fla. 2016) (Brenner II), in which, on March 30, 2016, the court issued a summary judgment on its injunction in Brenner I. Between Brenner I and Brenner II, on June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held that state DOMAs were unconstitutional in Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015). Petitioner testified that she and Ms. Birch would have been lawfully married by October 2012, when Ms. Birch retired, but for the Florida DOMA. This testimony is credited. Long prior to 2012, Ms. Birch and Petitioner organized their financial affairs as though they were lawfully married, sharing assets and liabilities equally. Petitioner testified credibly that she and Ms. Birch always "played by the rules": thus, Ms. Birch and Petitioner would have been deterred from getting married prior to Ms. Birch's retirement, such as when they were visiting Massachusetts in 2007, due to the legal futility of attempting to obtain recognition in Florida of a marriage lawfully performed elsewhere. Less persuasive is Petitioner's testimony that, in October 2012, Ms. Birch would have elected Option 3, if this option had been available to her, and it is impossible to find on this record that she would have done so. There is no evidence that Ms. Birch and Petitioner rearranged their financial affairs to achieve, to the extent possible, an Option 3 election. Household income was $1000 per month greater under Option 1 than Option 3, so life insurance on Ms. Birch or an annuity for Petitioner could have mitigated Ms. Birch's inability to choose Option 3 when she retired. Prior to retiring, Ms. Birch did not attempt to elect Option 3 in writing or orally. Even after retiring, as noted below, Ms. Birch displayed ambivalence about whether she wanted to change her election. As a named defendant in Brenner I, on April 14, 2015, Respondent responded to the injunction against its enforcement or application of the Florida DOMA by issuing Information Release #2015-184 (Release). Sent to FRS members who retired prior to January 2, 2015, and elected Option 1 or 2, the Release states: . . . FRS retirees and . . . DROP participants who were in legally-recognized same-sex marriages at the time they retired or began DROP participation and chose Option 1 or Option 2 will have an opportunity to change benefit payment options in light of . . . Brennan. These retirees will be able to change their retirement payment option from their current selection to Option 3 or Option 4 to provide a continuing monthly benefit to their spouse. The retirees impacted by this change have an effective retirement date or DROP begin date on or before January 1, 2015. The Release provides that an eligible retiree interested in a second election must contact Respondent in writing, identify the retiree's spouse, and certify that the retiree and spouse were married in a state or country that allowed same-sex marriage when the FRS member retired. The Release states that Respondent will respond with an estimate of the new benefit payment under the option that the retiree intends to select and provide the retiree with the paperwork necessary to make the second election. Available on Respondent's website,6/ the Release provides the opportunity of a second election of Option 3 or 4 to any FRS member7/ who retired prior to January 2, 2015; chose Option 1 or 2 when she retired; and was in a same-sex marriage when she retired. The Release places no limit on how far in the past the retirement took place.8/ The thrust of Petitioner's case is directed toward backdating her lawful marriage to Ms. Birch to a point prior to Ms. Birch's retirement. As noted above, the timing of the lawful marriage is a problem under the Release, which requires a lawful marriage at the time of retirement, but another problem under the Release is the fact that the Release provides to the FRS retiree, not her surviving spouse, the opportunity for a second election, nor, as discussed immediately below, is this a technical requirement that can be overcome by Petitioner's serving as a representative of Ms. Birch--the second election is extended only to living FRS retirees. The virtue of the Release for Petitioner is that it confers the opportunity of a second election without any proof that, at the time of the first election, the FRS member would have elected Option 3 or 4. If Petitioner does not rely on the Release, she must also prove that Ms. Birch would have elected Option 3 or 4, which, as noted above, she has failed to prove. By limiting the second election to the FRS retiree, the Release limits the potential of adverse selection in allowing a second election, possibly years after the first election.9/ There are three possibilities at the time of the second election: both spouses are alive, only the FRS retiree is alive, and only the surviving spouse is alive. The Release's restriction of the right to make the second election to the FRS retiree means that the second and third possibilities do not result in second elections: respectively the FRS retiree would not reduce her payment to provide an annuity to a spouse who is already deceased10/ and a surviving spouse has no right to make an election under the Release. The couple may gain a minor financial advantage by the opportunity to revisit the payment option several years after the retirement of the FRS member, so that they may be better informed of the health of each of them. But the surviving spouse would gain a significant financial advantage by the opportunity to revisit the payment option after the death of the FRS member. Shortly after Respondent issued the Release, Ms. Birch filed with Respondent a Spousal Acknowledgement Form that she had signed on May 8, 2015. This form indicates that Ms. Birch is married, but nothing else. At about the same time, though, Ms. Birch contacted Respondent by telephone to discuss the Release and any choices that she may now have under the Release. By letter dated May 26, 2015, Respondent calculated monthly benefit amounts under Options 1 through 4, but the letter warns: "Your benefit option will not be changed unless you complete and return the required forms noted in this letter" and indicate a choice of repaying in a single payment or installments the excess benefits of Option 1 over the smaller benefits paid under Option 3 or 4. The May 26 letter requires further action on Ms. Birch's part and predicates any right to a second election upon a lawful marriage at the time of retirement. The record provides no basis for finding that any of Respondent's representatives misstated the lawful-marriage condition. To the contrary, in at least one conversation with Ms. Birch, Respondent's representative insisted on verification of a lawful marriage as of October 2012. Additionally, Ms. Birch was not requesting a right to make a second election; at most, she was gathering information to prepare to decide whether to ask to change her election. By June 26, 2015, pursuant to a note documenting a telephone conversation between Ms. Birch and a representative of Respondent, Ms. Birch decided to keep Option 1 rather than make a second election of Option 3.11/ In May 2016, Ms. Birch finally made a clear attempt to change her election to Option 3. By letter dated May 12, 2016, Ms. Birch stated that she was lawfully married to Petitioner on June 12, 2012, and asked for "the change in beneficiary for my pension, due to the one time option given" in the Release. Even at this late date, Ms. Birch was not yet ready to elect Option 3 because the letter concludes: "I would like to see the breakdown of monetary options to make an informed decision." However, on May 20, 2016, during a telephone call with a representative of Respondent, Ms. Birch provided the date of birth of Petitioner and asked Respondent to expedite her request because she did not have long to live. On the same date, Ms. Birch signed an Option Selection form electing Option 3. By letter dated July 18, 2016, Respondent acknowledged the death of Ms. Birch and informed Petitioner that all pension benefits ended at that time. By letter dated September 22, 2016, Petitioner asked for reconsideration and supplied copies of various documents, the relevant provisions of which have been referenced above. By letter dated October 20, 2016, Respondent denied the request for reconsideration.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order denying Petitioner's request for benefits under Option 3 from Ms. Birch's FRS account and dismissing Petitioner's Request for Administrative Hearing. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of January, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of January, 2018.
The Issue The issue is whether payment of Petitioner's retirement benefits should have commenced after the filing of an application to retire with the Division of Retirement, with an effective date of April 1, 2004, or be retroactively changed to the date of his termination of employment, July 1, 2003.
Findings Of Fact On July 19, 1995, Petitioner applied for membership in the Special Risk Division of the Elected Officers' Class of the Florida Retirement System ("FRS"). On August 14, 1995, Respondent sent Petitioner a letter admitting him into FRS. On September 6, 1995, Sarabeth Snuggs, Chief of the Bureau of Enrollment and Contributions for Respondent, sent Petitioner a letter revoking his membership in FRS. On December 17, 1996, Petitioner wrote to Sarabeth Snuggs responding to Respondent's decision to revoke his membership in FRS. Petitioner cited Section 121.052(2)(d), Florida Statutes, which provides that membership in FRS includes "any constitutional county elected officer assuming office after July 1, 1981, including any sheriff." The Consolidated City of Jacksonville was created by the Florida Legislature with the enactment of Chapter 67-1320, Laws of Florida. Section 1.01 of the Jacksonville Charter provides that the county government of Duval County and the municipal government of the City of Jacksonville are consolidated into a single body politic. The Charter further provides that the consolidated government succeeds to and possesses all of the properties of the former government. After being denied membership in FRS, Petitioner and other members of the consolidated government and its instrumentalities worked diligently to convince Respondent to admit Petitioner into FRS. During Petitioner's attempts to be included in FRS, Respondent repeatedly took the position that Duval County did not exist as a county agency. In a letter to Petitioner dated January 15, 1997, Ms. Snuggs wrote that the consolidated Duval County government "chose to consolidate as a 'city' government." Mr. Keane worked with the Duval County Legislative Delegation to amend Chapter 121 to specifically clarify the fact that the Duval County Sheriff and Clerk of Court are constitutional officers entitled to participate in FRS. In 2002, the Florida Legislature adopted language to clarify the Duval County Sheriff and Clerk of Court's status with respect to FRS. In a letter dated June 24, 2002, Petitioner thanked Ms. Snuggs for recognizing his right to elect membership in FRS. Petitioner observed that, since he was in the last year of his second term as Sheriff (Duval County allows only two consecutive terms), he wanted confirmation of his "right to connect the previous seven (7) years of service as Sheriff." The June 24, 2002, letter also asked for "guidance" from Respondent. The purpose of the June 24, 2002, letter was for Petitioner to learn how Respondent intended to treat his first six years of service. Petitioner sought to avoid any problems since his retirement date was rapidly approaching. On October 10, 2002, Petitioner and Mr. George Dandelake, the Chief of the Budget and Management Division of the Sheriff's Office, wrote to Ms. Snuggs requesting a calculation of the amount of employer contributions required on Petitioner's behalf. The October 10 letter also requested that Respondent "identify what documents are required, in addition to the contribution amount which will be paid by the City, that must be supplied to the Florida Retirement System." Petitioner re-applied for membership in FRS, which was granted on June 1, 2002, after the effective date of the legislation designed to specifically admit the Duval County Sheriff and Clerk of Court into FRS. On June 18, 2003, twelve days before the expiration of his term of office, still not having received confirmation of the status of his prior service, Petitioner sent a letter to Ms. Snuggs advising that FRS had not recognized his service from 1995 through 2002. Petitioner again stated in the letter that he was terminating his position as Sheriff on June 30, 2003. Less than a week prior to the termination of his term, Petitioner received two "Statement[s] of Account" dated June 24, 2003, indicating that "you have until retirement to pay the amount due on your account." The statements further indicated that "when you become vested for monthly benefits, we will provide you an estimate of benefits with and without this service." According to the first Statement of Account, Petitioner was entitled to purchase prior service at the 1.6 percent multiplier rate for the FRS regular class. According to the second Statement of Account, Petitioner was entitled to purchase prior service at the 2.0 percent multiplier rate for the FRS special risk class. Neither Statement of Account was correct, as both failed to permit Petitioner to purchase service at the 3.0 percent rate for special risk, despite the fact that Petitioner had served a continuous and uninterrupted term as Sheriff. The Statement of Account did not advise Petitioner that he must submit a separate retirement application, Form FR-11, in order to preserve his retirement date. The statement did advise Petitioner that interest would be assessed at a rate of 6.5 percent. This warning appeared in bold face on the Statement of Account. The June 24, 2003, statements were the first time that Petitioner was supplied with the amount due to purchase service credit. Since neither statement applied the correct multiplier rate (3.0 percent) for all eight years of Petitioner's service as Sheriff, neither statement was correct. Recognizing that only six days remained prior to the expiration of Petitioner's term as Sheriff, Mr. Keane advised Petitioner to submit payment to Respondent on an expedited basis. After receiving the June 24, 2003, Statements of Account, Petitioner prepared a letter dated June 26, 2003, to Cal Ray, the Director of the Department of Administration and Finance for the Consolidated City of Jacksonville. In this letter, Petitioner requested an employer contribution in the amount of $163,554.32 to purchase his prior service. Petitioner further requested an expedited preparation of the check to ensure delivery to Respondent by July 1, 2003. The letter to Mr. Ray requested payment of the amounts that would have been periodically contributed by the City of Jacksonville if Respondent had been acknowledged as a participant in FRS in 1995. On June 27, 2003, three days prior to the expiration of his term of office, Petitioner drove from Jacksonville to Tallahassee to meet with Respondent's representatives, including Ms. Snuggs, regarding Petitioner's retirement. Mr. Dandelake accompanied Petitioner on this trip. At the June 27, 2003, meeting, Petitioner personally delivered a check to Respondent in the amount of $163,554.32. Respondent accepted the check and issued a written receipt signed by Sarabeth Snuggs. Petitioner was never told during the June 27, 2003, meeting with Respondent that he would forfeit benefits if he failed to complete an application. Respondent knew that Petitioner was leaving office on June 30, 2003. Respondent never discussed the filing of an application for retirement benefits at any time during the course of its conversations and correspondence with Petitioner. Petitioner was never told by Respondent to complete any forms to protect his rights to the 2.0 percent multiplier during the pendency of his dispute with Respondent. Petitioner was never provided any handbook, notice, statutes, or rules indicating he would forfeit benefits under any circumstances. When Petitioner left the June 27, 2003, meeting, both he and Mr. Dandelake understood that he was still engaged in a dispute with Respondent over his entitlement to the 3.0 percent multiplier. Petitioner knew that he was required to file an application in order to receive retirement benefits. Petitioner testified that if he had left the June 27 meeting with any indication that he would forfeit benefits by not filing an application, he would have filed something, with advice of counsel, to preserve his rights. Petitioner received an Estimate of Benefits via fax from Respondent on June 27, 2003, reflecting an annual benefit of $23,105.90. This statement valued 6.92 years of Petitioner's uninterrupted special risk service as Sheriff using the 2.0 percent multiplier, and 1.08 years of service as Sheriff using the 3.0 percent multiplier. The June 27, 2003, statement lists Petitioner's retirement date as July 1, 2003. The estimate does not warn Petitioner that he must do anything in order to preserve his July 2003 retirement date. The estimate states only that it is subject to "final verification of all factors." Petitioner's term of office as elected Sheriff ended on June 30, 2003. Petitioner's employment terminated when his term expired on that date. Respondent was aware of the dates of the expiration of Petitioner's term of office as well as his employment termination date. When Petitioner's employment terminated on June 30, 2003, it was unclear whether he would be credited with the 3.0 percent multiplier for his eight years of special risk service. Petitioner was not notified by Respondent prior to the expiration of his term as Sheriff on June 30, 2003, that he needed to submit a retirement application. The first time Petitioner was advised by Respondent of the need to file an application for retirement benefits was in the comment section of the Estimate of Retirement Benefits provided to him by letter dated March 4, 2004. The warning was printed in bold face type. The Estimate of Retirement Benefits dated June 27, 2003, did not include the bold face warning to file an application. Respondent was not provided with a Division of Retirement publication entitled "Preparing to Retire" prior to his leaving service on June 30, 2003. In fact, the copy of the publication offered into evidence by Respondent is dated "July 2003," subsequent to Petitioner's retirement. As the only member of FRS in his office in Jacksonville, Petitioner had no staff or employees trained in FRS or Florida retirement benefits. Petitioner was provided with a "Preparing to Retire" booklet in March 2004. On November 3, 2003, Florida Attorney General Opinion 2003-46 confirmed that Petitioner, as the elected Sheriff, was eligible for membership in the Elected Officer's Class of the Florida Retirement System. On December 31, 2003, and on January 16, 2004, Petitioner's counsel attempted to obtain clarification from Respondent regarding Petitioner's retirement benefits. The December 31, 2003, letter noted that the "extraordinary delay" in resolving the issue of Petitioner's benefits was at no time due to fault on the part of Petitioner. Respondent never refuted or disputed this statement. By letter dated March 4, 2004, Petitioner was finally advised by Respondent that he was entitled to be credited with the higher 3.0 percent multiplier for all eight years of his service as Sheriff. Petitioner noted that the March 4, 2004, Statement of Account, while properly applying the 3.0 percent multiplier, now had changed Petitioner's retirement date to April 2004 from the previous estimates showing a retirement date of July 2003. The March 4, 2004, statement included the bold face notice to Petitioner that he must file an application for retirement benefits. No prior notices or correspondence from Respondent had informed Petitioner that he must file Form FR-11 in order to retain his retirement date of July 1, 2003. After formally being notified that he would receive the 3.0 percent multiplier for all eight of his years of service as Sheriff, and after having received the notice that he must file Form FR-11, Petitioner submitted the form in April 2004. Respondent is a fiduciary charged with acting in the best interest of participants in FRS. Andy Snuggs, who travels around the state educating employers and employees in FRS, acknowledged that Petitioner was not responsible for the delay by Respondent in recognizing Petitioner's entitlement to the 3.0 percent multiplier. Mr. Snuggs acknowledged that he does not tell employees that they will forfeit benefits if they delay the filing of their applications. Petitioner received his first retirement check in May 2004 which was based upon the benefit established in March 2004 of $32,624.58 annually, not the $23,105.90 previously established by Respondent in June 2003. Petitioner has received no retroactive benefits for the period of July 1, 2003, through April 30, 2004. In a letter dated May 6, 2004, Petitioner stated that his acceptance of the first retirement check was not to be construed by Respondent of a waiver of his rights to retroactive benefits from July 1, 2003, forward.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner be awarded retirement benefits at the rate of 3.0 percent per year for his eight years of Elected Officer's Class of service, retroactive to July 1, 2003. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of July, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 21st day of July, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert D. Klausner, Esquire Klausner & Kaufman, P.A. 10059 Northwest 1st Court Plantation, Florida 33324 Robert B. Button, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Sarabeth Snuggs, Director Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Post Office Box 9000 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-9000 Alberto Dominguez, General Counsel Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Post Office Box 9000 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-9000
The Issue The central issue for determination is whether the Petitioner is entitled to retirement benefits which she claims as surviving spouse. Although she does not provide evidence that her husband earned sufficient creditable service to vest in the system, Petitioner claims entitlement based on two alternate theories: that approximately 480 hours of sick leave accrued at the time of her husband's death should be added to his creditable service to meet the ten-year requirement; and her husband should have been eligible for disability retirement prior to his death, but was prevented by his employer from making a timely application.
Findings Of Fact Robert L. Carruthers was a member of the Florida Retirement System (FRS) at the time of his death on May 26, 1988. His membership commenced on September 13, 1979, when he was employed by the Brevard County District School Board. On June 30, 1980, he transferred to the Orange County District School Board and remained in that employment until his death. Joy Ruth Carruthers is the surviving spouse of Robert L. Carruthers. During his employment with the two school boards, Mr. Carruthers earned 8.75 years of creditable service in the FRS. Mrs. Carruthers is unaware of any other employment which might be credited as service. The Division of Retirement has no information of other employment which might be credited as service in the FRS. As the result of a complaint by Carol Stearns, the mother of Joy Carruthers, Robert Carruthers was placed on "relief of duty, with full pay and benefits" as of February 18, 1988, by the Orange County School Board. Prior to that time he had worked as an ROTC instructor at Evans High school. He was on the "relief" status at the time of his death. Sometime in late February 1988, Robert Carruthers became paralyzed from the waist down, and could not walk, as the result of a progressive illness. He had formerly walked with a cane. He had worked at the school up through the day he was given his "relief from duty" papers. Mrs. Carruthers claims that when he was placed on relief status, her husband was forbidden to go anywhere near the school or school board offices and was thus prevented from filing an application for retirement disability benefits. No witness substantiated that claim, and the letter from Dennis Reussow, Assistant to the Superintendent for Employee Relations and Administrative Services, to Mr. Carruthers states, ". . . . During this time you are directed to remain away from the Evans High School campus and to avoid contact with students assigned to the school. . . ." (Petitioner's exhibit #4.) This prohibition appears to be limited to the school and would not include the administrative offices. In early May the school board received a statement from Robert Carruthers' doctor that he would not be able to return to work indefinitely. Shortly thereafter, John B. Hawco, the Orange County School Board Administrator for Employee Relations, went to Carruthers' home with insurance forms. They were able to communicate and Carruthers signed some forms. It is not clear from the record whether a disability retirement application was completed on that occasion, but at some point a scribbled, illegible signature for Robert Carruthers was obtained on an FRS application for disability retirement. The application is dated May 25, 1988. The employer's statement of disability attached to the application was completed by John B. Hawco on May 26, 1988. When he completed the form, John Hawco did not know that Robert Carruthers had died the same day. The application form was date-stamped at the Division of Retirement on May 31, 1988. The employer's statement of disability is stamped June 6, 1988. (Petitioner's composite exhibit #3.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Division of Retirement enter its Final Order denying Petitioner's request for benefits. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Joy R. Carruthers Post Office Box 680-151 Orlando, Florida 32858 Stanley M. Danek, Esquire Office of General Counsel 440 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Esquire General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Adis Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
The Issue Whether the effective date of Petitioner's retirement should be changed from May 1, 2002, to February 23, 2000, or, in the alternative, August 23, 2000, as requested by Petitioner.1
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole,2 the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is a retired member of the Florida Retirement System, who turned 62 years of age earlier this year. He worked for the State of Florida for approximately 11 and a half years. He last worked for the State of Florida in February of 1983. On May 2, 1994, the Division received the following written inquiry, dated April 11, 1994, from Petitioner: I was employed by the state from June 1971 until February 1983. Please advise me when I would be eligible to receive retirement benefits and approximately how much my monthly benefits would be. Your assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated. The Division responded to Petitioner's inquiry by sending Petitioner two "Estimates of Retirement Benefit," one based on a retirement date of May 1, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the "First Estimate") and the other based on a "deferred retirement at age 62" (hereinafter referred to as the "Second Estimate"), along with a pamphlet entitled, "Preparing to Retire" (hereinafter referred to as the "Pamphlet"). The First Estimate contained the following "comments" (at the bottom of the page): To retain a retirement date of 5/1/94, you must complete and return the enclosed application for service retirement, Form FR- 11, within thirty days of the date this estimate was mailed. The Second Estimate contained the following "comments" (at the bottom of the page): This estimate is based on a deferred retirement at age 62. Refer to the enclosed deferred retirement memorandum, DR-1, for additional information. The Pamphlet read, in pertinent part, as follows: If you are preparing to retire, you should take certain steps to ensure there will be no loss of benefits to you. Following are some suggestions. * * * 3. Apply For Retirement Benefits. Three to six months before your retirement complete an application for retirement, Form FR-11, which is available from either your personnel office or the Division of Retirement. Your personnel office must complete part 2 of the Form FR-11 and then they will forward the application to the Division. The Division will acknowledge receipt of your application for benefits and advise you of anything else needed to complete your application. * * * Effective Retirement Date- Your effective date of retirement is determined by your termination date and the date the Division receives your retirement application. You may make application for retirement within 6 months prior to your employment termination date. If your retirement application is received by the Division prior to termination of employment or within 30 calendar days thereafter, the effective date of the retirement will be the first day of the month following receipt of your application by the Division. You will not receive retroactive benefits for the months prior to the effective date of retirement. Remember, your application can be placed on file and any of the other requirements (such as option selection, birth date verification, payment of amount due your account, etc.) met at a later date. Petitioner did not "complete and return the enclosed application for service retirement." Petitioner next contacted the Division in April of 2002, this time by telephone. During this telephone conversation, he was advised that he could apply for retirement immediately. Petitioner requested a "Florida Retirement System Application for Service Retirement" form from the Division. Upon receiving it, he filled it out and sent the completed form to the Division. The Division received the completed form on April 26, 2002. On April 29, 2002, the Division sent Petitioner a letter "acknowledging receipt of [his] Application for Service Retirement" and advising him that his effective retirement date was "05/2002." In or around December of 2002, after receiving several monthly retirement payments from the Division, Petitioner requested that his retirement date be made retroactive to 1994 because he was not adequately advised by the Division, in 1994, that he was then eligible, upon proper application, to receive retirement benefits. By letter dated February 5, 2003, the Division advised Petitioner that it was unable to grant his request. By letter dated March 6, 2003, Petitioner "appeal[ed]" the Division's decision.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division issue a final order denying Petitioner's request that the effective date of his retirement be changed. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of July, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 15th day of July, 2003.
The Issue The ultimate issue is whether Julie E. Reeber, Alexander Reeber and Christine Tadry are entitled to receive survivor benefits payable under the Florida Retirement System (FRS) for Marjorie A. McCollum, deceased, under the facts and circumstances of the Case. The factual issue is whether Marjorie A. McCollum was incompetent when she made the designation of beneficiary and under the undue influence of her daughter Suzanne L. Benson.
Findings Of Fact In August of 1991, Ms. Marjorie A. McCollum, a member of the Florida Retirement System (FRS) applied for disability retirement benefits. (Deposition of Stanley Colvin). As part of her application for disability retirement benefits on Form FR-13 (Florida Retirement System Application for Disability Retirement), Ms. McCollum designated her daughter, Suzanne L. Benson, as her beneficiary. (Exhibit 1 of the deposition of Stanley Colvin). The designation reads, "All previous beneficiary designations are null and void. The beneficiary whom I designate to receive the benefit or refund at my death is Suzanne L. Benson." (Deposition of Stanley Colvin, Exhibit 1). According to the date on the form, Ms. McCollum signed the application on August 28, 1991, and was properly witnesses by a notary public, John T. West. (Testimony of Mary Shere). According to the application, Ms. McCollum was suffering from cancer. She selected the Option 2 retirement benefit. (Exhibit 1 of Stanley Colvin deposition). Ms. McCollum's application for disability retirement benefits, with the Option 2 retirement benefit, was approved by the Division of Retirement with an effective date of September 1, 1991. (Deposition of Stanley Colvin, Exhibit 9). Prior to receiving her first check, Ms. Marjorie McCollum died on September 23, 1991. (Deposition of Stanley Colvin, Exhibit 9). On November 4, 1991, the Division, by letter, notified Suzanne L. Benson that as designated beneficiary of Ms. Marjorie McCollum, she was entitled to the Option 2 benefit in the amount of $280.69 per month through August 31, 2001, for ten years. On November 19, 1991, the Division received a letter from Julia Reeber, another daughter of Ms. McCollum (the deceased), disputing the designation of her sister Suzanne L. Benson as the beneficiary. (Deposition of Stanley Colvin, Exhibit 16). As a result of the notice of dispute by Julia Reeber, the Division on November 26, 1991, notified Ms. Benson by letter that payment of the Option 2 benefit would not be forthcoming until the dispute was resolved. (Deposition of Stanley Colvin, Exhibit 12). The designation of beneficiary executed by Ms. McCollum was properly executed and filed with the Division of Retirement in accord with the Florida Statutes and rules pertaining to the designation of beneficiaries for Florida retirement benefits. (Deposition of Stanley Colvin). Suzanne L. Benson was the properly designated beneficiary, and the Division intended to pay the Option 2 benefit to Suzanne L. Benson in accord with the Division's rules. (Deposition of Stanley Colvin). Ms. McCollum suffered some deterioration of her mental faculties prior to her death because of her illness, she could no longer handle her financial matters, and needed aid from her children in the payment of her bills. However, at no time was the Petitioner legally declared incompetent. Testimony of Julie Reeber). Despite suffering from the ravages of the disease, Ms. McCollum was at times able to function in a normal matter without evidence of diminished mental capacity. (Testimony of Mary Shere). On August 23, 1991, the deceased came to the office of Ms. Mary Shere. Ms. McCollum had been a regular customer of Ms. Shere's beauty parlor and later her accounting service. Ms. Shere had known Ms. McCollum for over ten years. (Testimony of Mary Shere). On August 23, 1991, Ms. McCollum and Ms. Shere talked for an hour to an hour and a half regarding her illness and her application for disability retirement. Ms. McCollum expressed her desire for Ms. Shere to notarize the application for disability retirement benefits. Ms. McCollum told Ms. Shere that Ms. McCollum wanted her daughter Suzanne to be the beneficiary of her death benefits. However, they could not complete the designation of beneficiary because the form had not come. Another discussion concerning the arrival of the forms took place by telephone on August 24, 1991, between Ms. Shere and the Deceased. On August 26, 1991, Suzanne Benson telephoned Ms. Shere advising Ms. Shere that her mother had been hospitalized, and that she needed to come to the hospital in order to notarize the disability application. (Testimony of Mary Shere). On August 26, 1991, Ms. Shere accompanied by one of her employees, John West, visited Ms. McCollum in the hospital. In her presence, the application was signed by Ms. McCollum and notarized by John West. (Testimony of Mary Shere). Ms. Shere's very credible testimony was that Ms. McCollum knew what she was doing, was aware of what she possessed and knew she was terminal. Ms. McCollum made a knowing and rational decision to designate Suzanne L. Benson as her beneficiary.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Division holding that Marjorie McCollum retired with an Option 2 retirement benefit and that Suzanne L. Benson, her designated beneficiary, receive the Option 2 benefit. DONE and ENTERED this 29 day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 29 day of May, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Julie E. Reeber 133 Kirkwood Drive Debary, FL 32713 Larry D. Scott, Esquire Department of Administration Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1560 Rhonda B. Goodson, Esquire Post Office Box 4319 South Daytona, FL 32121 A. J. McMullian, III, Director Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2539 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 John A. Pieno, Secretary Department of Administration 415 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to receive retroactive retirement benefits from the Florida Retirement System account of her late husband for the period September 1999 through February 28, 2003.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Angela Roberts is the widow of Florida Retirement System (FRS) member Robert Randall Roberts. Mr. Roberts was employed by the Walton County Board of Commissioners and had approximately 25 years of creditable FRS service at the time of his death. Mr. Roberts died on August 20, 1999. At the time of his death, Mr. Robert’s most recent beneficiary designation on file with the Division of Retirement (Division) was made on August 15, 1980. That designation named Terri L. Roberts, who was married to Mr. Roberts at the date the designation was made. Sometime prior to June 25, 1997, Mr. Roberts and Terri L. Roberts were divorced. On June 25, 1997, Mr. Roberts and Petitioner were married. There is no dispute that at the time of his death, Mr. Roberts was married to Petitioner. According to the Division’s telephone records, Terri Ward, f/k/a Terri Roberts, contacted the Division and informed the Division that she and Mr. Roberts had divorced and that he remarried prior to his death. After being contacted by Terri Ward, Division employees contacted the Walton County Board of Commissioners and were given the last known address of Mr. Roberts: 718 Adams Street, Laurel Hill, Florida 32567. However, Petitioner and her five children were forced out of the Laurel Hill residence by her deceased husband’s father, Frank Eugene Roberts, shortly after the death of her husband. Frank Eugene Roberts also provided incorrect information to Evans Funeral Home in Florala, Alabama, regarding his son’s marital status at the time of his death. Because of this incorrect information, the death certificate indicated that Mr. Roberts was divorced at the time of his death. On December 7, 1999, Respondent sent a letter to Petitioner at the Laurel Hill address which read in pertinent part as follows: We are sorry to learn of the death of Robert Roberts on August 20, 1999. According to our records, Terri L. Roberts is the designated beneficiary. However, under present law, you would become the beneficiary if your marriage to the member occurred after the date the beneficiary was designated. In order for us to determine the beneficiary and the benefits payable from this account, we need a copy of your Marriage Certificate. We cannot take any further action until this is received. If you have any questions, you may call the Survivor Benefits Section at (850) 488-5207. At the time the letter was sent to her, Petitioner was no longer residing at that address and did not receive the December 7, 1999, letter. In May 2001, Petitioner received a hand-written letter from her former step-daughter, Nichole Roberts, dated May 10, 2001, informing her that Nichole received a call from the Division regarding Mr. Roberts’ retirement money. Her step- daughter informed Petitioner that Petitioner needed to call the Division if she still wanted to receive her deceased husband’s retirement money or to notify the Division if she did not. Petitioner contacted the Division by telephone on May 17, 2001. Petitioner informed the Division that her late husband’s death certificate was incorrect regarding his marital status at the time of this death. She was informed that she would have to get the death certificate changed. The Division gave Petitioner the phone number of the local circuit court. The Division’s record of the phone conversation indicates that Petitioner would call the Circuit Court to inquire as to how to get the death certificate changed. On August 24, 2001, the Division sent Petitioner a letter to an address in Saint Mary, Georgia, informing her of what documentation was required to begin receiving benefits effective September 1, 1999, the date of Mr. Roberts' death. The letter read in pertinent part as follows: This is in reference to the retirement account of Robert R. Roberts. According to our records, Terri L. Roberts is the designated beneficiary. However, under present law, you would become the beneficiary if your marriage to the member occurred after the date the beneficiary was designated. In order to determine the beneficiary, we need a copy of your marriage certificate. If it is determined that you are the beneficiary, you would be entitled to the Option 3 monthly retirement benefit. This benefit is payable for your lifetime and is approximately $585.43 effective September 1, 1999. To receive the Option 3 benefit, the following documents are needed: Copy of member’s death certificate. Proof of member’s date of birth. Proof of your date of birth. Completed application, Form FST-11B. Copy of your marriage certificate. The Division sent another letter to Mrs. Roberts on December 19, 2001, to the Saint Mary, Georgia address. That letter was entitled, "Request for Survivor Benefits Information" and again requested the same five documents that were referenced in the August 24, 2001, letter. A copy of the August 24, 2001, letter is also referenced as enclosed with the December 19, 2001, letter. No response was received by the Division to the letters of August 24 or December 19, 2001. Neither letter informed Petitioner of any deadline by which the information needed to be received by the Division. The Division sent another letter to Mrs. Roberts on March 15, 2002. That letter again requested the same five documents that were requested in the two previous letters and indicated that copies of the two previous letters were enclosed. Unlike the two previous letters, the March 15, 2002, letter also included a 30-day deadline if she wanted to receive retroactive benefits: If you will furnish this information within 30 days from your receipt of this letter, you may choose to have benefits paid retroactive to September 1, 1999. Otherwise, it will be your responsibility to contact us when you wish benefits to begin. Benefit payments will not be retroactive, but will be effective the month following receipt of the requested information. Ms. Stanley Colvin is the Benefits Administrator of the Survivor Benefits Section of the Division. She has worked at the Division for approximately 31 years. According to Ms. Colvin, when a letter is sent from the Division to members or beneficiaries indicating any missing form is needed, that blank form is automatically generated and sent to the recipient as an enclosure. Accordingly, a blank application form should have been included with the August 24, 2001, December 19, 2001, and March 15, 2002, letters sent to Mrs. Roberts. Mrs. Roberts acknowledges receiving the March 15, 2002, letter, but insists that no application form was enclosed. Further, Mrs. Roberts asserts that she and her friend, Nichole Tuttle, called the Division soon after Petitioner received the March 15, 2002, letter, using a speaker phone. Both Mrs. Roberts and Ms. Tuttle assert that Mrs. Roberts verbally received a two-year extension from an unidentified person at the Division in which to file the requested documentation. Ms. Tuttle’s telephone record does reflect a call that was made to the Division on April 30, 2002, which is not reflected in the Division’s records. Petitioner did not have the means to accomplish the task of correcting the death certificate on her own. She attempted to hire an attorney to get the death certificate corrected. However, Mrs. Roberts had serious financial difficulties as a result of having five children and, when able to find work, has not been able to maintain a good income. She also found it difficult to find an attorney who had not represented the deceased’s family. Because of these obstacles, she was unable to retain an attorney until January 23, 2003. Ms. Colvin acknowledges that extensions are sometimes given to people for filing documents but the longest extension granted is for 60 days. However, there is no record of a phone call or any other documentation in the Division’s records that a two-year extension was given. Only Ms. Colvin has the authority to grant such extensions. Ms. Colvin has a distinctive voice. Neither Mrs. Roberts nor Ms. Tuttle recalls hearing Ms. Colvin’s voice prior to the hearing. The next contact the Division had with Mrs. Roberts was a telephone call from Mrs. Roberts’ stepmother on February 24, 2003. The caller requested that the Division call Mrs. Roberts at a particular phone number,as Mrs. Roberts could not make long-distance calls from her phone. At this time, the caller supplied a new address for Mrs. Roberts in Bay Minette, Alabama, and informed the Division that Mrs. Roberts has an attorney attempting to get the death certificate corrected. A Petition to Correct Death Certificate was filed with the Walton County Circuit Court on or about March 10, 2003. An Order was signed by Judge Lewis Lindsey on March 24, 2003, directing the Bureau of Vital Statistics to correct the death certificate. On March 20, 2003, the Division sent a letter to Mrs. Roberts requesting a copy of her marriage certificate and the death certificate. No reference is made in this letter to any other document. Mrs. Roberts again called the Division on March 24, 2003, informing the Division that her attorney was still waiting to receive the corrected death certificate and that she was in possession of a marriage certificate indicating her marriage to Mr. Roberts. Mrs. Roberts also inquired about the retroactive payment of the retirement benefits. On April 14, 2003, Mrs. Roberts sent a letter to the Division requesting benefits retroactive to September 1, 1999. On April 14, 2003, the Division received the required proof of birth for Petitioner and for Mr. Roberts. On May 14, 2003, the Division sent another letter to Mrs. Roberts. This letter included the following: As the surviving spouse and joint annuitant, you are entitled to the Option 3 monthly retirement benefit. This benefit is payable for your lifetime and is approximately $561.35 effective March 1, 2003. To receive the Option 3 benefit, we need the following: Completed application, Form FST-11b. (Emphasis supplied) A completed application Form FST-11b was received by the Division on May 21, 2003. Mrs. Roberts was added to the retirement payroll effective March 1, 2003. Ms. Colvin became involved in this case in May 2003 for the purpose of reviewing the file to see if retroactive benefits were appropriate. According to Ms. Colvin, Mrs. Roberts was added to the payroll effective March 1, 2003, instead of June 1, 2003 (the month following receipt of the completed application), because of the phone call Mrs. Roberts made to the Division on February 24, 2003. Ms. Colvin explained that she "bent the rule" in Mrs. Roberts’ favor by looking at the February 26, 2003, phone call as "starting a new folder." Ms. Colvin determined that retroactive benefits were not in order because the March 15, 2002, letter gave a 30-day deadline and the Division did not receive any of the required documents until approximately a year later. She did not find anything in the file to justify any change to the effective date. Some benefit recipients purposefully defer payments for a number of reasons, e.g., eligibility for public assistance programs. Mrs. Roberts never indicated to the Division that she wanted the benefits deferred. Mrs. Roberts was not aware that the Division would have accepted the requested documents in piecemeal fashion, but focused on getting the death certificate corrected.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a final order denying Mrs. Roberts’ request for an effective benefit date of September 1, 1999. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of April, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of April, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: James C. Campbell, Esquire James C. Campbell, P.A. 4 Eleventh Avenue, Suite 2 Shalimar, Florida 32579 Thomas E. Wright, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Erin Sjostrom, Director Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Monesia Taylor Brown, Acting General Counsel Department of Management Services Division of Retirement 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 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.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Timothy Green (Green), was born on April 19, 1941. Green was employed by Manatee County as a Highway Maintenance Technician on March 26, 1966. As a Highway Maintenance Technician, Green cleared ditches, brush and culverts. He also installed storm drainage pipe and operated chain saws and related tools. On September 24, 1984, Green was terminated from his job because of his inability to perform his assigned duties. Green referred to his termination as a "retirement." Having been promoted to Highway Maintenance Technician II, Green was earning $1,016.01 per month gross pay at the time he was terminated. He had accumulated 18.40 years of creditable service under the Florida Retirement System (FRS). Green is unable to read and has had no formal schooling other than the attendance of what he describes as "opportunity classes all his life." Green has not been found by any court to be incompetent to handle his personal affairs and generally paid his personal bills through money orders he purchased at convenience stores. However, Green's mental capabilities and ability to communicate are obviously quite limited, and his more complicated personal affairs were handled by his mother and sister. On September 28, 1984, Green sought out and met with Mr. A1 Chandler, Records Manager for Manatee County, at Chandler's office. Green thought that Manatee County already had "retired" him because of his disability and just wanted to get his retirement benefits. He did not understand the various optional benefits available to him as a member of the FRS. Green was able to communicate to Chandler only that he wanted to get all his money from retirement, or words to that effect. Chandler interpreted those words to mean that Green wanted to withdraw his contributions to the system. Based on his general familiarity with the FRS, Chandler discouraged Green from doing what he believed Green wanted to do (i.e.. withdraw his contributions from the system). Chandler believed intuitively that Green should not withdraw his contributions because he had accumulated 18.40 years of creditable service under the FRS. Chandler understood that Green's years of creditable service would entitle him to favorable benefits upon normal retirement at age 62. He therefore advised Green to wait and not to withdraw the contributions. Green, who never clearly understood the difference between getting his money (or benefits) out of the retirement system and withdrawing his contributions to the retirement system, decided that he did not want to wait as Chandler advised. Accordingly, Chandler gave Green a form to request a refund of his contributions to the FRS, and Green signed the form. The Request For Refund Form FRS-M81 Green signed contains the following information above his signature: TO THE DIVISION OF RETIREMENT: I hereby make application for refund of my accumulated contributions in the Florida Retirement Systems. I do hereby waive for myself, my heirs and assignees all rights, title and interest in the Florida Retirement Systems. However, Green could not read the refund language. He did not think there was any reason to ask Chandler to read it to him, and Chandler did not read it or explain it to him. Neither Chandler nor anyone else fully explained to Green what optional benefits he might be entitled to as a member of the Florida Retirement System other than to wait until normal retirement or withdraw his contributions. Specifically, neither Chandler nor anyone else explained to Green that his request for refund of his accumulated contributions would eliminate his right to apply for disability retirement benefits. In fact, on that same day, September 28, 1984, Green began completing an application for disability retirement benefits. On October 2, 1984, Green's Statement Of Disability By Employer was received by Manatee County's Personnel Office. The form was completed by Green's former immediate supervisors. On October 3, 1984, Green's Request For A Refund Form FRS-M81 was mailed to Respondent, Department of Administration, Division of Retirement (Division) by Manatee County. Sometime between October 18, 1984 and November 20, 1984, Green's completed Florida Retirement System Application For Disability Retirement, with his Statement Disability By Employer, was sent to and received by the Division. On October 29, 1984 the Division sent Green the refund of his accumulated contributions totaling $1,686.52. Until Green received the refund, he expected to receive monthly checks. When he received the refund, Green realized for the first time that he would not be receiving monthly checks and that his lump sum check would be in the amount of only $1,686.52. Green never had any actual intent to relinquish his right to apply for disability retirement benefits from the FRS.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that Respondent Department of Administration, Division of Retirement: (1) enter a final order granting the Petition For Formal Proceedings in this case and determining that Petitioner, Timothy Green, has not waived his right to apply for disability retirement benefits: and (2) process the application of Petitioner, Timothy Green, for disability retirement benefits. RECOMMENDED this 4th day of October, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Office Division of Administrative Hearings 309 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of October, 1985.
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.
The Issue Should Petitioner Alma Slocum receive either the Option 3 or Option 4 retirement benefits retroactive to the death of Clyde Slocum in March 1975?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: Clyde Slocum (Slocum), deceased, was a member of the State and County Officers Retirement System (SCOERS) under Chapter 122, Florida Statutes. Slocum was employed by the Suwannee County School Board as a school bus driver until he became physically unable to work in June 1970. Slocum married Alma Sanchez in October 1934, and was continuously married to her until his death on March 30. 1975. By letter dated May 6, 1968, Slocum made an inquiry to the Division regarding the benefits he would be eligible for if he retired from his employment as a school bus driver with the Suwannee County School Board. Slocum noted in the letter that he was not ready to quit work but wanted to know what benefits would be available, if and when he retired. The Division, by letter dated June 20, 1968, notified Slocum of the amount of his contributions on file and the benefits he would be eligible for under Options 1 through 4. It was pointed out that Options 3 and 4 would provide a smaller monthly benefit. However, these options would provide survivor benefits for his wife. It was also stated that proof of age for Slocum and his wife, Alma Slocum, would be required, if he selected Option 3 or 4. The following information was provided to Slocum: (a) Option 1 would provide $43.60 a month, but upon his death, no further benefits would be paid; (b) Option 2 would be 13 cents lower at $43.47, but in the event he died, his beneficiary would receive any balance of the amount of his contribution ($1,006.81) not paid; (c) Option 3 would provide a reduced monthly payment of $35.58 and one-half of that amount ($17.79) to his wife upon his death; and (d) Option 4 would provide for a payment of $30.08 and the same benefit to the wife upon his death. By letter dated August 5, 1970, Lavada Reuthinger, daughter of Slocum, sought information on the three different ways that Slocum could receive his retirement benefits. By letter dated August 7, 1970, Elizabeth Smith, Supervisor, Benefits Section, notified Slocum of the availability of an option election that would provide benefits for his wife after his death. The letter also notified Slocum that proof of his age was required, and if he chose benefits for his wife, then proof of her age was required as well. An estimate, dated September 22, 1970, of benefit amounts, similar to the estimate sent to Slocum in 1968, was prepared by the Division, and sent to Slocum. This estimate of benefits was for Options 1 an 2 only, and did not set forth a benefit amount for Options 3 and 4. The letter stated: "Only the first two options apply in your case." Apparently, the Division assumed that Slocum was retiring under disability. By letter dated October 2, 1970, the Division was notified by Dr. G. L. Emmel that Slocum was disabled and was not able to work. Elizabeth Smith notified Dr. Emmel of the statutory language requirement for an application for disability. Using a form provided by the Division, Slocum, on October 10. 1970, also under the assumption that he was retiring on disability, elected to receive benefits under Option 2. At this point, Slocum had been advised by the Division that neither Option 3 or Option 4 were available to him. Dr. Emmel provided the Department with the requested documentation that Slocum was permanently disabled. On October 26, 1970, Elizabeth Smith requested that Slocum submit proof of his age. By letter dated November 13, 1970, Elizabeth Smith advised Slocum that he had failed to furnish proof of his age, but instead he had furnished his wife's birth certificate. Slocum's wife's birth certificate was returned by letter dated November 13, 1970. By letter dated November 21, 1970, Elizabeth Smith advised Slocum that he could not retire under disability because he had reached normal retirement age, but that he could retire under Option 3 or Option 4 which would provide monthly payments to his wife upon his death, if he accepted a reduction in the amount of benefits. Smith further advised Slocum that he would need to furnish proof of his wife's age if he selected Option 3 or Option 4. Smith further stated that: "It was thought you were retiring under disability when proof [of your wife's age] was returned to you." Smith also advised Slocum that if he waited until June 30, 1970, he would receive the five-year average. The letter does not indicate what the payment amounts would be for the four different options, and the letter does not indicate that a option election form was included with the letter. Furthermore, the letter does not refer to the Option 2 selection form that Slocum had previously submitted to the Division. Slocum responded to Smith's letter on November 30, 1970, and enclosed a copy of his wife's birth certificate. Slocum also requested "the necessary forms concerning his retirement." Additionally, he notified the Division that since he had not worked since June 1970 he wanted retirement benefits to be paid as soon as possible. The Division did not comply with Slocum's request for the "necessary forms concerning his retirement." A warrant was mailed to Slocum on December 31, 1970, for retirement benefits from July 1, 1970, through December 31, 1970, at $59.17 a month. This benefit amount was the Option 2 retirement benefit amount furnished to Slocum on September 22, 1970, by the Division when it was assumed that he was retiring under disability. No explanation was given to Slocum if, or that, the Division was using Option 2 benefit selection that Slocum had signed and submitted to the Division on October 1970, prior to the time the Division had notified Slocum that he could choose Option 3 or Option 4. Slocum and his wife were both under the impression that since Slocum had furnished the Division a copy of his wife's birth certificate that she would receive retirement benefits after his death. Slocum died on March 30, 1975, five years after he retired. The Division advised Alma Slocum by letter dated May 19, 1975, that her husband had retired under Option 2 and, therefore, no benefits would be paid to her. A copy of his option election and the computation of his monthly benefits were enclosed in the May 19, 1975, letter from the Division. Thereafter, Petitioner repeatedly inquired of the Division why she was not entitled to retirement benefits as Slocum's widow. These inquires were made from the time of Slocum's death in 1975 through the present. In response to each inquiry the Division replied that Slocum had selected Option 2, and no benefits were payable to Petitioner under that option. In February 1999, Petitioner and her granddaughter, Theresa L. Crosby, visited the Division's office in Tallahassee, Florida and reviewed Slocum's file. After they reviewed the file, it was their position that Petitioner was entitled to receive survivor benefits and made a demand on the Division for Petitioner to receive those benefits. At no time prior to February 1999, had the Division advised Petitioner that she was entitled to a formal hearing on the matter. A final agency action letter dated March 26, 1999, was mailed to Petitioner which pointed out that her husband elected and received Option 2 benefits from 1970 until his death in March 1975 and there was no provision under SCOERS, Chapter 122, Florida Statutes, to change the option choice at this time. This letter is the first written notice to Petitioner that she was entitled to request a formal hearing if she disagreed with the Division's decision. A Petition for Formal hearing contesting the Division's denial of a survivor's benefit for Petitioner was received by the Division on April 19, 1999. When Slocum made the selection for Option 2 retirement benefits he did so because he was advised by the Division that only Option 1 or Option 2 were available to him since he was retiring under disability. Once Slocum became aware that his wife could receive retirement benefits after his death, it is clear that he intended to select an option which would provide his wife with benefits after his death. Furthermore, after it was determined that he could not retire under disability, which had limited his options, the Division failed to give Clyde Slocum an opportunity to make a selection of the options offered for retirement benefits, either initially in writing or verbally by telephone with a follow-up written option, notwithstanding any testimony to the contrary which, lacks credibility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Division enter a final order finding Alma Slocum eligible to receive retirement benefits under Option 3 retroactive to Clyde Slocum's death on March 30, 1975, making adjustments for the higher rate paid Clyde Slocum during the years 1970 through his death in 1975, and any adjustments for interest that may be applicable to the benefits paid Clyde Slocum or those benefits that should have been paid to Alma Slocum. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of December, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of December, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Sandra E. Allen, Esquire 314 West Jefferson Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 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 Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Paul A. Rowell, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
