BILLY H. SHEPARD, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, 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.
Billy Shepard, a deputy sheriff who sustained a cervical injury while subduing a suspect, appealed the Retirement Commission's denial of disability retirement benefits. The court affirmed the denial, holding that disability benefits require the applicant be totally and permanently disabled from rendering useful and efficient service as any officer or employee within the retirement system, not merely unfit for their particular prior position.
Shepard is not entitled to disability retirement benefits. Being unable to perform one's particular prior position does not qualify an applicant for these benefits; the applicant must be medically disabled from rendering useful and efficient service in other positions reasonably available to one of his qualifications within the retirement system. Shepard's cervical injury did not render him unfit for decent work available to one of his qualifications at a reasonably convenient place.
[1] Disability retirement benefits are not available to an employee who is unable to perform the specific duties of their former position if they are still capable of perform…
[2] An employee's inability to perform duties due to an employer's specific job requirements does not qualify them for disability retirement benefits if the employee's physic…
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“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 'totally and permanently disabled' that governs eligibility for disability retirement benefits
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceShepard was a 40-year-old deputy sheriff with 2.4 years of creditable service whose employment was terminated in February 1977 due to a cervical injur…
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 Disability Retirement cases and more on FLexlaw
SMITH, Judge.
Shepard, whose employment by the Santa Rosa County sheriff was terminated in February 1977, petitions for review of an order of the Retirement Commission denying him disability retirement benefits. The question before the Commission, was whether Shepard was “totally and permanently disabled,” Section 121.091(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1977), that is to say, whether he was then “prevented, by reason of a medically determinable physical or mental impairment, from rendering useful and efficient service as an officer or employee.” Section 121.091(4)(b). Shepard was a 40 year-old deputy sheriff with 2.4 years of creditable service. His employment was terminated because a cervical injury, received in subduing a criminal suspect, made it dangerous for him to engage in physical combat. There was no medical or other evidence suggesting that Shepard was, in the ordinary sense of the words, “totally and permanently disabled.” Though Shepard was disabled to perform the particular combative duties to which he had previously been assigned, he remains able to perform other duties of public employment within the Retirement System. That his particular employer required all employees to perform combat duties does not qualify Shepard for disability retirement benefits. It is not his physical condition but his former employer’s job description which prevents Shepard from rendering useful and efficient service in that employment.
Reversal of the Retirement Commission’s decision would result in Shepard receiving disability benefits while remaining eligible for other employment as an “officer or employee” member of the Retirement System. Thus, while earning a salary for other useful and efficient service, thereby gaining additional years of creditable service toward another pension from the same system, Shepard would be paid benefits as one disabled. We will not attribute such a purpose to the legislature. An applicant for disability retirement benefits need not prove that his medically determinable disability prevents him from undertaking the most menial or insignificant job within the system far distant from his home; but Shepard, having no medically determinable disability rendering him unfit for decent work available to one of his qualifications at a reasonably convenient place, does not qualify for these extraordinary benefits. See Amico v. Division of Retirement, 352 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).
AFFIRMED.
BOYER, Acting C. J., and BOOTH, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Police Pension Bd. v. Gaines, 389 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…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 essential requirements of law. The petition for writ of certiorari is denied. CERTIORARI DE…
-
Oller v. Division OF Retirement, 415 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…rforming useful and efficient service within the state system. The fact that Oiler is incapable of returning to his duties as a policeman does not entitle him to the extraordinary benefits provided by this section. Shepard v. Division of Retirement, 361 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., C. J., and ERVIN, J., concur.…
-
The City OF Daytona Beach v. Caradonna, 456 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…h of service pensions, but the ordinance in effect here when appellees retired made no such distinction. Similarly, cases cited by appellant which discuss when an employee is totally or permanently disabled [Shepard v. Department of Administration, 361 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) ]; whether a plan may be amended as to employees who are still employed and who have not satisfied any of the statutory conditions entitling them to pension benefits [Grady v. Division of Retirement 387 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 1st DCA 1…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Amico v. Division OF Retirement, 352 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)