CAROLYNN W. WALKER, ETC., PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DIVISION OF RETIREMENT, RESPONDENT
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.
This case concerns whether a deputy sheriff's death while driving home from work qualifies for "in line of duty" death benefits under Florida retirement law. The court affirmed the denial of benefits, finding the death did not occur in the actual performance of duty as required by statute.
No, Deputy Walker's death did not occur "in line of duty" because it did not arise out of and in the actual performance of duty required by his employment. The court found that the phrase "in the actual performance of duty" does not extend to the "going and coming" period after work, even for law enforcement officers.
[1] Death benefits under Florida retirement law are available only if death arises out of and in the actual performance of duty required by a member's employment during regul…
[2] The phrase "in the actual performance of duty" under Florida retirement law is concerned with the time, place, and circumstances of the injury or death.
Previewing 2 of 3 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““Death in line of duty” means death arising out of and in the actual performance of duty required by a member’s employment during his regularly scheduled working hours or irregular working hours as required by the employer.””
This quote provides the statutory definition of "in line of duty" that the court analyzed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRonnie Walker, a deputy sheriff, was killed in a car accident while driving home after his shift. His widow sought "in line of duty" death benefits un…
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 Arising Out Of Employment cases and more on FLexlaw
SMITH, Judge.
Ronnie Walker, a deputy sheriff employed by Leon County, was killed in a collision while driving his car home after completing his duty shift. The facts are as stated in Walker v. Life Ins. Co. of North America, 359 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). The widow’s claim for “in line of duty” death benefits under the Florida retirement law was denied by a Division of Retirement order reaching a different conclusion on facts found by a hearing officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings. The widow seeks reversal of the agency order. We agree with the Division that Deputy Walker’s death did not occur “in line of duty.” That phrase is defined for present purposes by Section 121.021(14), Florida Statutes (1977), as follows:
“Death in line of duty” means death arising out of and in the actual performance of duty required by a member’s employment during his regularly scheduled working hours or irregular working hours as required by the employer.”
We previously noted a similarity in the causative test employed in the workmen’s compensation law, Chapter 440, and in the retirement law. Bolinger v. Division of Retirement, 335 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). In Bolinger the principal issue was whether the retiree’s injury could be characterized as “arising out of” her employment, a causative test adopted from the workmen’s compensation law. Bolinger’s injury undoubtedly occurred “in the actual performance” of her duty, and there was no issue concerning that. Here that is the critical question. While “in the actual performance of duty,” like “in the course of employment,” is a test concerned with the time, place, and circumstances in which the injury or death occurred, those two tests are not identical. We do not conceive that the phrase “in the actual performance of duty” can reasonably be read to embrace the policeman’s exception to going and coming rule, established by decisions under the workmen’s compensation law. E. g., Warg v. City of Miami Springs, 249 So. 2d 3 (Fla.1971).
AFFIRMED.
BOYER, Acting C. J., and BOOTH, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Division OF Retirement v. Putnam, 386 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)…sufficient to qualify him for in-line-of-duty disability benefits. A compensably disabling illness, in contrast to injury, need not suddenly occur or manifest itself in the performance of employment duties. Contrast Walker v. Division of Retirement, 360 So. 2d 1291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), cert. den., 368 So. 2d 1375 (Fla.1979). And in contrast to the compensable injury occurring by “accident” in workers’ compensation parlance, a compensably disabling illness need not be precipitated by unusual [*825] strain or ex…
Authorities Cited
- Joycie T. Bolinger v. Division OF Retirement, 335 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Warg v. City OF Miami Springs, 249 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 1971)
- Carolynn W. Walker v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 359 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)