FRED BOTNER, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, DIVISION OF RETIREMENT, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Botner appeals denial of line-of-duty disability retirement benefits as an elementary school teacher, arguing work stress contributed to his psychological breakdown. The court affirmed the Retirement Commission's denial, finding that Botner's underlying mental illness would have manifested regardless of his employment, and thus did not arise out of the duties of his specific teaching position.
Botner is not entitled to line-of-duty disability retirement benefits because his mental illness was not an injury or illness arising out of the actual performance of his teaching duties; rather, expert testimony established that his underlying condition would have worsened regardless of his employment and would have manifested in any job involving stress in dealing with people.
[1] A disability is not considered an injury or illness arising out of and in the actual performance of duty required by a member's employment if the stress encountered is es…
[2] A Retirement Commission's findings on ultimate facts are entitled to deference when the Commission itself heard the evidence.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“mental illness was of a type which could get progressively worse through the passage of time alone”
The Commission's finding regarding the nature of Botner's condition, establishing it was not work-related
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBotner worked as an elementary school teacher for the Dade County School Board and experienced psychological difficulties over several years, culminat…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., Judge.
Botner appeals from an order of the Retirement Commission denying him line-of-duty disability retirement benefits under section 121.021(13), Florida Statutes (1979). His contention is that the stress of working as an elementary school teacher for the Dade County School Board contributed to his psychological difficulties, otherwise evidenced in various ways over the years, and ended in the breakdown that brought about his retirement.
There is evidence in the record from which the Commission might have found, as its order states, that appellant’s “mental illness was of a type which could get progressively worse through the passage of time alone.” In his home life, in inter-racial experiences, and in other aspects of his life, as well as at work, appellant encountered unusually severe stress. While other psychiatric testimony supports appellant’s contentions in this case, Dr. Mutter testified that, with possibly “some slight variations” differentiating one work situation from another, the stress upon appellant in his teaching work was essentially that which he would have encountered in any work situation: “[Wjhether he was a teacher, whether he was working for Florida Power & Light or any other company, wherevér he had any kind of stress in dealing with people, because his underlying mental illness disorder has to do with that .. ., [he] would probably, no matter what he did, would probably have compounded his symptoms or aggravated them.”
By this view of the evidence appellant’s disability was not an “injury or illness arising out of and in the actual performance of duty required by a member’s employment . ..,” and is to be contrasted with the Commission’s decision, affirmed by this court, which awarded line-of-duty benefits to one who encountered unusual stress in a prison guard job that was itself characterized by unusual stress differentiating it from “most occupations.” Division of Retirement v. Allen, 395 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
In contrast with Bolinger v. Division of Retirement, 335 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), this is not a case in which the Commission relied upon an independent hearing officer to return essential findings of fact and then sought to overrule those findings. The Retirement Commission itself heard the evidence in the present ease. Its findings on the ultimate facts, accordingly, are entitled to the deference we would accord to any factfinder. There being a view of the evidence that supports the Commission’s ultimate finding, the order is
AFFIRMED.
SHIVERS and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dixon v. Dep't of Admin. Div. of Ret., 481 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…den to prove that he encountered unusual stress in his job which differentiates it from most other occupations. The Commission’s application of this burden was apparently based on a statement of this court in Botner v. State, Division of Retirement, 438 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), where we found that the evidence did not establish that Botner’s disability fell within the statutory requirement for in-line-of- [*55] duty benefits. Botner had contended that the stress of working as a teacher contributed to h…
-
Castiglia v. Division of Retirement, 442 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…rder denying in line of duty benefits. There being competent, substantial evidence to support such denial and the Commission being entitled to the deference we would accord to any factfinder, Botner v. State of Florida, Department of Administration, 438 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), we affirm the Commission’s denial of in line of duty benefits. Castiglia also appeals the Commission’s refusal to consider his claim that his disability retirement date set by the administrator of the Division of Retirement was…
-
Disanto v. State, 817 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…PER CURIAM. Because there was competent, substantial evidence to support the Commission’s findings of fact, we affirm. Botner v. State, Dep’t of Admin. Div. of Ret., 438 So. 2d 94, 95 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Division of Ret. v. Allen, 395 So. 2d 1192, 1192 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Kennedy v. Wiggins, 368 So. 2d 454, 455-56 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).…
Authorities Cited
- Joycie T. Bolinger v. Division OF Retirement, 335 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Division OF Retirement v. Allen, 395 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)