THOMAS J. SPURLOCK/JACK R. LEARY, APPELLANTS,
v.
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.
Spurlock and Leary, state law enforcement officers, appealed denials of "special risk" classification in the Florida Retirement System. The court affirmed the denial of their claims based on supervisory status but remanded Leary's claim based on his duties of pursuit, apprehension, and arrest of law violators for clarification and specific findings of fact.
The court affirmed the denial of special risk status based on supervisory status for both appellants, applying the holding in Hillman. However, the court reversed and remanded as to Leary's claim based on pursuit, apprehension, and arrest duties, requiring the Commission to provide clarification and specific findings of fact regarding this denial.
[1] Supervisory status alone is insufficient to qualify for "special risk" classification in the Florida Retirement System.
[2] A denial of "special risk" classification based on supervisory duties may be affirmed if prior case law establishes that such duties do not meet the statutory requirement…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“The Retirement Commission correctly interpreted Hillman as holding that none of the appellants claiming "special risk" membership based on their supervisory status satisfied the requirements.”
Establishes the court's affirmance of the denial of special risk status based on supervisory status
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSpurlock and Leary were state law enforcement officers who applied for "special risk" classification under Florida Statutes section 121.0515(2)(a) for…
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
SHIVERS, Judge.
Appellants Spurlock and Leary appeal amended final orders of the State Retirement Commission denying them “special risk” classification in the Florida Retirement System. We affirm in part and remand in part.
Spurlock and Leary are state law enforcement officers. Pursuant to section 121.0515(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1984), they applied for “special risk” classification for purposes of early retirement in the Florida Retirement System. Spurlock sought “special risk” classification on the basis he was the supervisor of special risk members. Leary applied for special risk status on the basis his duties included the pursuit, apprehension and arrest of law violators, and that he was the supervisor of special risk members. Both were denied special risk classification by the State Retirement Commission and appealed.
On January 26, 1984, in Hillman v. Division of Retirement, 446 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), we affirmed the agency’s orders except for those cases specifically remanded to the agency for clarification or reconsideration. Upon remand the Division of Retirement affirmed Spurlock’s case and Leary’s case upon grounds that Hillman disposed of the issue of whether Spurlock and Leary qualified for special risk membership based on their positions as supervisors of special risk personnel. As to Leary’s qualification based on his duties of pursuit, apprehension and arrest of law violators, the Commission again denied special risk status. At neither rehearing did the Commission clarify the basis for its denial of special risk membership. Spur-lock and Leary have appealed again.
We affirm the denial of Spurlock’s and Leary’s special risk status based on supervisory status. The Retirement Commission correctly interpreted Hillman as holding that none of the appellants claiming “special risk” membership based on their supervisory status satisfied the requirements. Hillman, at 163-164.
However, we do not affirm the denial of “special risk” as to Leary, who based this claim on his duties of pursuit, apprehension and arrest of law violators. Based on Hill-man, we remand to the Commission for clarification of this denial and for inclusion in its amended final order of specific findings of fact in this regard.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
JOANOS and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.