MARIA L. OTERO, 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.
Maria Otero, a teacher who developed severe migraines after being assigned to teach an overcrowded class of students with learning disabilities without proper training, appealed the State Retirement Commission's denial of total and permanent disability benefits. The court reversed and remanded because the Commission applied an incorrect legal standard and made numerous unsupported factual findings.
The Commission erred by using only the 'substantial producing cause' standard without considering whether an illness was an 'aggravating cause' of total and permanent disability, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 60R-1.004. The Commission's decision is reversed and remanded because it violated its own rules and contained numerous factual findings unsupported by or contrary to the record.
[1] A state retirement commission must consider whether an illness was an aggravating cause of a disability, not solely whether it was the substantial producing cause, to com…
[2] A final order of a state retirement commission may be invalidated by numerous factual errors unsupported by or contrary to the record.
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 Commission used an incorrect standard to judge Otero's claim and because the numerous factual errors in the Commission's order invalidate its conclusion, we reverse and remand for a new hearing”
States the core basis for reversal—incorrect legal standard and unsupported factual findings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOtero was an elementary school teacher in Dade County who was assigned in 1990 to teach a special education class with 22-24 students (instead of the …
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 Competent Medical Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
GOSHORN, Judge.
Maria Otero appeals from the final order of the State Retirement Commission affirming the State Retirement Director’s denial of her application for total and permanent disability and in-line-of-duty disability benefits. Because the Commission used an incorrect standard to judge Otero’s claim and because the numerous factual errors in the Commission’s order invalidate its conclusion, we reverse and remand for a new hearing.
Otero was an elementary school teacher in Dade County. In 1990, she was offered the only vacant position, a teaching position in a class where students had learning disabilities, emotional handicaps, and behavioral problems. Otero was not trained or certified to teach these students. She was told there would be only seven to eleven children in the class, but in fact 22 to 24 ' children with varying exceptionalities were placed in her room. The children ranged from kindergarten to sixth grade. Otero was required to. write individual lesson plans for each child every day and keep extensive records of each child. Otero worked hard and was well-regarded by her supervisor, who was “very happy” with Otero’s work. Unfortunately, Otero suffered increasingly severe migraine headaches. The pain from the headaches eventually caused her to vomit and pass out. Otero was forced to take a leave of absence in June 1991 and was never able to return to teaching. She continues to suffer the debilitating migraine headaches to this day.
Otero’s neurologist, Dr. Macksoud, testified without contradiction that Otero was totally incapacitated due to the severity of her migraines. Dr. Macksoud ran a battery of tests on Otero to rule out possible causes for the headaches and concluded the pain was from migraines. It was her opinion within a reasonable degree of medical probability that Otero’s disability arose out of or was aggravated by her work. There was, she testified, a substantial causal relationship between Otero’s job environment and her condition. Within a reasonable medical probability, Ote-ro’s six-month occupational exposure to the stress of the exceptionalities class triggered or aggravated Otero’s headaches. She testified that even if Otero was predisposed to migraines, “with the workload and the conditions at work,” Otero’s condition was aggravated, leaving Otero completely and permanently disabled.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Commission vote was deadlocked. The transcript was submitted to three other Commissioners, who voted to sustain the State Retirement Director’s decision to deny benefits. The Commission’s order contains numerous findings of fact that are either unsupported by the transcript and record or are directly contrary thereto. The order further reflects that the standard used by the Commission to determine Otero’s case was whether her illness was the “substantial producing cause” of her total and permanent disability, without any consideration of whether the illness was an aggravating cause thereof. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 60R-1.00481.1 Because the Commission’s decision was not made in accordance with its own rules, we reverse and remand for a new hearing. See § 121.23(4)(b) and (e), Fla. Stat. (1997).
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.
DAUKSCH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. . Florida Administrative Code Rule 60R-1.00481, “Medical Evidence,” sets out the type of evidence necessaiy to establish eligibility for inline-of-duty disability benefits:
(1) Competent medical evidence of total and permanent disability is required for a determination of disability retirement eligibility.
(2) Competent medical evidence of total and permanent disability requires testimony by a licensed physician, either at the hearing, or in a deposition, in which the member and the Division of Retirement had an opportunity to participate.
(3) In cases of eligibility for in line of duty disability benefits, competent medical evidence shall be required showing that an injury or illness, arising out of and in the actual performance required by the member's employment, was the substantial producing cause or aggravating cause of the member's total and permanent disability.
(4) Medical records may be admitted as hearsay, but shall be insufficient for a finding of disability retirement eligibility.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miller v. State, 796 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…immy L. Miller, a retired state employee already granted regular disability retirement benefits, appeals denial of his petition for in-the-line-of-duty disability retirement benefits. See § 121.021(13), Fla. Stat. (1997); Otero v. State Ret. Comm’n, 720 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Pridgeon v. State, Div. of Ret., 662 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). We affirm. After listening to several witnesses’ testimony and considering certain depositions, including the deposition of one Alan Waldman, M.D., the State…
-
Sandie Johnson v. Dep't OF Mgmt. Servs., 24 So. 3d 792 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)…illness arose out of and in the actual performance of the duties required by her employment and was the substantial cause or aggravating cause of her total and permanent disability. See § 121.091(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (2008); Otero v. State Ret. Comm’n, 720 So. 2d 1147, 1148 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Blanton v. Div. of Ret., 480 So. 2d 134, 135 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). This is generally a factual determination, and the burden of proof is on the member seeking to show entitlement to the disability retirement benefits. See F…