08-5333 ROBERT H. CRYSTAL v. STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES, DIVISION OF RETIREMENT

State: Florida

Court: Florida First District Court

Docket No: 08-5333

Case Date: 11/05/2009

Preview:IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

ROBERT H. CRYSTAL, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES, DIVISION OF RETIREMENT, Appellee. _____________________________/ Opinion filed November 5, 2009.

CASE NO. 1D08-5333

An appeal from an order of the State Retirement Commission. Alice Myers, Chair. Richard A. Sicking, Coral Gables, for Appellant. Larry D. Scott, Assistant General Counsel, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

BROWNING, JR., EDWIN B., SENIOR JUDGE. Appellant seeks review of an order from the State Retirement Commission ("Commission") that denied his claim for disability retirement. Appellant claimed that his total and permanent disability due to hypertension was presumed to be by

accident suffered in-line-of-duty under section 112.18(1), Florida Statutes (2006). Because the Commission applied the incorrect standard specified in section 121.0515, Florida Statutes (2006), rather than section 943.10(2), Florida Statutes (2006), we agree and reverse the Commission's order. Facts and Procedural Background Appellant began employment with the Department of Corrections as an inspector. In May 2004, he transferred to a correctional institution as a

classification officer. He worked in this position for approximately five months before he left his employment after 2.91 years of service due to health reasons. In 2006, Appellant applied for in-line-of-duty disability benefits. As the sole reason for denying Appellant's disability claim, the Commission found that Appellant's position as a "classification officer" was not a special risk position under section 121.0515. Under such reasoning, Appellant could not By so doing, the

claim the statutory presumption in section 112.18(1).

Commission confused Appellant's entitlement to a disability retirement with his entitlement to special risk retirement. Analysis This court reviews the Commission's conclusions of law de novo and affirms findings of fact if they are supported by competent, substantial evidence. See Miller v. State, Div. of Ret., 796 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); see also

Download 08-5333 ROBERT H. CRYSTAL v. STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES