STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, DIVISION OF RETIREMENT, APPELLANT,
v.
HERBERT S. HISSOM, 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.
Florida's Division of Retirement failed to meet its burden of proving a disability retiree regained ability to render useful and efficient service within the Florida Retirement System, not merely outside employment, so the termination of benefits was reversed.
The Division of Retirement bears the burden of proving a retiree has regained the ability to render useful and efficient service in a regularly established position within the Florida Retirement System to terminate disability benefits, not merely the ability to engage in some form of outside employment.
[1] In a proceeding to terminate disability retirement benefits under Florida Statutes Section 121.091(4)(e), the Division of Retirement bears the burden of proving the retir…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Division of Retirement sought to terminate Hissom's disability retirement benefits, claiming he had regained the ability to work. The State Retire…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Florida Retirement System cases and more on FLexlaw
SMITH, Judge.
In the proceedings brought below by the Division of Retirement (Division) to terminate Hissom’s entitlement to disability retirement benefits, Section 121.-091(4)(e), Florida Statutes (1981), the State Retirement Commission (Commission) determined that the Division has the burden of proving that a retiree has regained the ability to render “useful and efficient service” in a “regularly established position” within the Florida Retirement System, and not merely that a retiree has the ability to engage in some form of employment outside the system.
We agree with this inter pretation of Section 121.091(4)(e) by the Commission in the context of a termination proceeding, finding it consistent with this court’s decisions in Oller v. Division of Retirement, 415 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), and Mauldin v. State, Department of Administration, Division of Retirement, 468 So. 2d 332, 335 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).
Taken together, Oiler and Mauldin stand for the proposition that the “useful and efficient service” standard, referring to useful and efficient service within the Florida Retirement System, applies both to initial applications for disability retirement benefits as well as to termination proceedings. We further find that the Division failed to carry its burden to establish grounds for termination under the standard, and that the Commission correctly applied its interpretation of Section 121.-091(4)(e) to the facts of this case to reject the Division’s decision to terminate His-som’s disability retirement benefits.
Accordingly, the final administrative order appealed from is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
MILLS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Oller v. Division OF Retirement, 415 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Mauldin v. State, 468 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)