GORDON NUCE AND MILTON R. SINGER, APPELLANTS,
v.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE CITY PENSION FUND FOR FIREMEN AND POLICEMEN IN THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, 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.
Appellants Gordon NUCE and Milton R. Singer sought certiorari review of the Pension Board's denial of their disability pension requests. The Florida appellate court affirmed the lower court's denial, holding that under the governing statute, employees are only entitled to disability retirement if totally disabled from performing all functions of their job classification, not merely unable to perform their usual duties.
The court held that under the Special Act creating the pension fund, there were no provisions for partial disability retirement. An employee is entitled to disability retirement only when totally disabled from performing all functions required in their job classification. Since the appellants could perform some designated duties of their position, they were not entitled to disability retirement benefits.
[1] A municipal employee is not entitled to a disability pension if they are capable of performing some of the duties of their job classification and the employing authority…
[2] A pension board's denial of disability benefits is proper if the employee is not totally disabled from performing all functions of their classification, even if medical e…
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“There were no provisions in the Special Act and supplements thereto creating the pension fund involved in this case, which provided for retirement for partial disability.”
Establishes that the statute only allows total disability retirement, not partial disability retirement
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNUCE and Singer were firemen who claimed total and permanent disability from performing the usual and ordinary work of a fireman. The Pension Board de…
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 Petition For Certiorari cases and more on FLexlaw
Involved in this case is the validity of a final order of the circuit court, denying a petition for certiorari seeking to review certain actions of the appellee in denying appellants’ request for a disability pension. The point, as framed by the appellants, is as follows:
“Whether the lower court properly denied the petition for writ of certiorari to the Pension Board when all the medical evidence indicated that the petitioners were totally and permanently disabled from doing the usual and ordinary work of a fireman hut the Pension Board refused the disability pensions on the ground that the petitioners were, capable of doing some work.”
There were no provisions in the Special Act1 and supplements thereto creating the pension fund involved in this case, which provided for retirement for partial disability. The evidence before the Board was in conflict, but it was apparent that the appellants could do (and had been doing for a period in excess of ten years) certain designated functions required of the class to which they belonged [Fireman I]. Until such time as the statute is changed, as long as an employee of the City is able to do some of the duties required to be done in his job classification; the employing authority is willing to permit the employee to perform limited duty with no reduction in pay [Personnel Board of City of Miami Beach v. Majewski, Fla.App.1968, 212 So.2d 888]; the employee not being totally disabled to do all of the functions provided for in his classification, he is not entitled to retirement. Hubbard v. Pueblo Firemen’s Pension Fund, 150 Colo. 495, 374 P.2d 492; 62 C.J.S. Municipal Corporations § 614(2), p. 1275.
The appellee has cross-appealed and assigned as error the failure of the trial court to dismiss the certiorari proceedings because the City of Miami Beach was not made a party-respondent thereto, contending it was a necessary or indispensable party. We find this position not to be well taken, because the provisions of the Special Act gives the appellee the responsibility for the administration of the fund, and if it finds an employee to be totally and permanently disabled its action in this regard entitles him to receive benefits from the fund.2 There was no necessity for the City to be a party.
*612Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the final order here under review be and the same is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pompano Beach Police & Firemen's Pension Fund v. Orestes J. Franza, 405 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…rticularly concerned over his ability to handle the responsibility factor. Thus, even the testimony of these three doctors fails to prove that Franza is totally disabled to perform the duties involved. As the court held in Nuce v. Board of Trustees, 246 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1971), the disability provision of the retirement system involved does not provide for partial disability and, thus, the appellant was not entitled to retirement for the service connected cardiac disease. However, even if the medical…
-
Police Pension Bd. v. Gaines, 389 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…inated from all duties on the day his disability application [*679] was denied. An employing authority which terminates an employee because of a disability is estopped from contending that the disability is not total. See, Nuce v. Board of Trustees, 246 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1971). But cf.: Shepard v. Dept. of Admin., Div. of Retirement, 361 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) (determining total disability requirements under the Florida Retirement System). Accordingly, the circuit court did not depart from the…
-
City OF Opa-Locka v. Woodard, 252 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…iously responsible for enforcement of code violations under his old job as a police sergeant. He is not required, under the new job, to perform all the duties formerly required of him as a police sergeant. In Nuce v. Board of Trustees, Fla.App.1971, 246 So. 2d 610, we held, “as long as an employee of the City is able to do some of the duties required to be done in his job classification; the employing authority is willing to permit the employee to perform limited duty with no reduction in pay; the employee no…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pers. Bd. OF the City OF Miami Beach v. Majewski, 212 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)