MORRIS SHELKOFSKY, APPELLANT,
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.
Morris Shelkofsky appeals the State Retirement Commission's dismissal of his reapplication for in-line-of-duty disability benefits on res judicata grounds. The court reverses, holding that while res judicata bars the in-line-of-duty claim, it does not bar claims regarding vesting or regular disability benefits, which were not decided in the prior proceeding.
Res judicata properly bars the reapplication to the extent it seeks in-line-of-duty benefits, but it does not apply to the issues of whether the appellant is currently vested or whether he is permanently and totally disabled, as the Commission did not decide these issues in the prior proceeding.
[1] Res judicata does not bar claims that were not actually litigated or decided in a prior proceeding.
[2] A reapplication for disability benefits may raise new issues not addressed in a previous denial, such as eligibility for regular disability benefits or current vesting st…
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 properly dismissed the reapplication on res judicata grounds as to the issue of in-line-of-duty benefits. However, the doctrine does not apply to the issues of whether the appellant is currently vested in the retirement system or whether he is permanently and totally disabled.”
Establishes the core holding distinguishing which claims are barred by res judicata and which are not.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceShelkofsky initially applied for in-line-of-duty disability benefits in 2001 based on an accident, which was denied because his disability arose prima…
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 Creditable Service cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Morris Shelkofsky appeals from an order of the State Retirement Commission dismissing with prejudice his reapplication for in-line-of-duty disability benefits as barred by res judicata. Because the doctrine of res judicata does not operate to bar all of the claims raised by the appellant, we reverse.
On September 30, 2003, the appellant reapplied for in-line-of-duty disability benefits based upon “new medical evidence” that was not considered by the Commission in the initial proceeding. He also asserted that due to his now eleven years of creditable service, his application also should be considered for regular disability benefits.
The sole issue raised by the 2001 application was whether the appellant was eligible for permanent and total disability benefits as a result of an in-line-of-duty accident or injury. The Commission concluded that the appellant’s disability arose primarily from an unrelated accident and denied his request. In doing so, the Commission explicitly did not decide whether the appellant suffered a permanent and total disability. The Commission further determined that the appellant was not vested because he had only eight years of creditable service at the time of the application. See § 121.091(4)(a)1.a., Fla. Stat. (2003) (requiring persons employed between July 1, 1980, and July 1, 2001, to have at least 10 years of creditable service to be vested). This order was affirmed on appeal. Shelkofsky v. State, Div. of Retirement, 846 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (unpublished table opinion).
The Commission properly dismissed the reapplication on res judicata grounds as to the issue of in-line-of-duty benefits. However, the doctrine does not apply to the issues of whether the appellant is currently vested in the retirement system or whether he is permanently and totally disabled.
If an employee is determined to be totally and permanently disabled, but is denied in-line-of-duty disability benefits for other reasons, he shall receive regular disability benefits, if eligible. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 60S-4.007(2)(d)4.b. “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.” § 121.091(4)(b), Fla. Stat. (2003); Fla. Admin. Code R. 60S-4.007(2)(d). Although all indications are that the Commission would have found the appellant was not permanently and totally disabled, the fact remains that this issue has not been decided.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the Commission to determine whether the appellant is eligible for regular disability benefits. We affirm without comment all other issues raised by the appellant.
BARFIELD, DAVIS and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.