CLAUDETTE GRIFFIN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Claudette Griffin, a 19-year school teacher, appealed the denial of disability retirement benefits by the State Retirement Commission. The court reversed, finding that the Commission's determination that Griffin's disability resulted from post-employment injuries was not supported by substantial evidence, as the record did not establish a proper termination date.
The court reversed and remanded for a new hearing, holding that the Commission's finding regarding the termination date was not supported by substantial competent evidence. The court concluded that since a leave of absence constitutes continuation of the employment relationship under Florida law, Griffin's status as a terminated employee was improper without a proper determination of when her leave ended.
[1] A finding regarding an employee's termination date is not supported by substantial competent evidence if the employee testified to being on a leave of absence and having…
[2] A leave of absence constitutes a continuation of the employment relationship for the purposes of determining disability retirement benefits, absent specific inapplicable…
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“Griffin contends, and we agree, that the finding regarding her termination date is not supported by substantial competent evidence.”
Establishes the core holding that the Commission's key factual finding lacked evidentiary support
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGriffin worked as a school teacher for the Dade County Public School System for 19 years. She sustained injuries that rendered her unable to perform h…
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 Leave Of Absence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Claudette Griffin appeals an order of the State Retirement Commission denying her application for disability retirement benefits. We reverse.
Griffin was a school teacher with the Dade County Public School System for nineteen years. As a result of injuries, she became unable to perform the duties of her job and applied for disability retirement benefits.*
The State Retirement Commission heard Griffin’s appeal from the denial of disability retirement benefits by the State Retirement Director. The Commission concluded that Griffin was totally and permanently disabled. It denied benefits, however, based on the determination that her disability resulted from injuries sustained after her employment with the Dade County School Board was terminated. See § 121.091(4)(f), Fla.Stat. (1989). The Commission found that she was terminated in August, 1985.
Griffin contends, and we agree, that the finding regarding her termination date is not supported by substantial competent evidence. Griffin testified that after her injury she was on a leave of absence and was not terminated. She also testified that she had had conversations with the school system about returning to work if her physical condition allowed, and that those conversations occurred after August, 1985. A form completed by the school system in connection with Griffin’s application for benefits contained a question regarding date of termination, and the school system had indicated “not applicable.” The retirement systems specialist testified at the evidentiary hearing that she had established the termination date based on the form submitted by Griffin, but the information given by Griffin simply established the last date that she worked, and not a date of termination. Since “[a] leave of absence shall constitute a continuation of the employment relationship,” § 121.021(39), Fla. Stat. (1989), with exceptions inapplicable here, Griffin’s status would not have been that of terminated employee so long as the leave of absence status continued. There must therefore be a new hearing to determine, on a proper record, the correct date of termination. Only at that time will the Commission be in a position to determine whether the series of injuries experienced by Griffin occurred before, or after termination.
Because there must be a new hearing, Griffin will be able to cure the deficiencies which resulted in the exclusion of certain documentary evidence at the last hearing. As to Griffin’s final point on appeal, it may well be that Police Pension Board v. Gaines, 389 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), review denied, 397 So. 2d 778 (Fla.1981), should apply to this case, but we do not reach that contention at this time. Our ruling is without prejudice to Griffin’s raising the issue on remand.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
*
According to the appellee Division of Retirement, such benefits would be over and above such ordinary benefits as she would have under the retirement system by virtue of her years of service.