MARY HASSLER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE RETIREMENT COMMISSION, ETC., 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.
Mary Hassler appeals denial of disability retirement benefits from the State Retirement Commission. The court reversed and remanded, holding that the Commission improperly applied "maximum medical improvement" concepts from workers' compensation law rather than focusing on whether Hassler was totally and permanently disabled from rendering useful and efficient service.
The court held that the "maximum medical improvement" standard from workers' compensation law is inappropriate in the context of state retirement disability benefits. The sole question is whether the member is prevented by a medically determinable impairment from rendering useful and efficient service. The Commission must determine whether there is reasonable probability that Hassler could lose weight to alleviate her disabilities through good faith effort.
[1] A member of the state retirement system is considered totally and permanently disabled if a medically determinable physical or mental impairment prevents them from render…
[2] Concepts and definitions from worker's compensation law, such as "maximum medical improvement," should not be transplanted into the law governing the state retirement sys…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“A member shall be considered totally and permanently disabled if, in the opinion of the administrator, he or she is prevented, by reason of a medically determinable physical or mental impairment, from rendering useful and efficient service as an officer or employee.”
The statutory definition of total and permanent disability under Florida Statutes section 121.091(4)(b), establishing the applicable legal standard
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHassler, a state retirement system member, applied for early retirement benefits due to total and permanent disability. She suffers from multiple seri…
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.
THOMPSON, Judge.
Mary Hassler appeals the order of the State Retirement Commission denying her disability retirement benefits. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Hassler applied for early retirement benefits pursuant to section 121.091(4), Florida Statutes, which authorizes payment of early retirement benefits if a member of the state retirement system is “totally and permanently disabled.” Section 121.091(4)(b) defines total and permanent disability:
(b) Total and permanent disability. — A member shall be considered totally and permanently disabled if, in the opinion of the administrator, he or she is prevented, by reason of a medically determinable physical or mental impairment, from rendering useful and efficient service as an officer or employee.
(Emphasis supplied.)
Hassler is afflicted with myriad medical conditions including heart disease, diabetes, asthma, morbid obesity, degenerative arthritis, and allergies. She has had a myocardial infarction, six heart bypasses, and the partial removal of the sternum. She testified that she could not walk or stand for more than five or ten minutes, and her three treating physicians agreed with this assessment. Her cardiologist recommended “aerobic” exercise for her. That is, he thought she could walk for five or ten minutes at a time without being overcome with exhaustion.
Hassler’s treating physicians also testified that Hassler’s weight, which ranged between 300 pounds and 400 pounds during Hassler’s years of service, contributed to her symptoms and ailments, and the commission denied her request for benefits based on its conclusion that she had not reached “maximum medical improvement.” We find it is not appropriate to try to transplant concepts and definitions such as “maximum medical improvement”1 from worker’s compensation law into the law governing the state retirement system. As the instant case illustrates, the practice serves to obfuscate the only matter at issue, which is whether Hassler is “totally and permanently disabled ... from rendering useful and efficient service as an officer or employee.”
The commission has determined that Hassler is not at maximum medical improvement, but it has not determined whether she is totally and permanently disabled. We remand for the commission to make that determination. Further, we agree with Has-sler that the commission should not assume that she has the ability to lose enough weight to alleviate her conditions. Rather, the commission should determine whether there is any reasonable probability that Hassler, through a good faith effort, could lose enough weight to alleviate her disabilities and to provide “useful and efficient service.” Because of the passage of time, on remand the parties may present additional evidence. Finally, the fact that Hassler did not provide vocational evidence is no basis for an affir-mance, since the commission did not require her to provide it. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 60R-1.003(4).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
HARRIS and PETERSON, JJ., concur. . See § 440.02(19), Fla. Stat. (1995).