Spurlock v. Division of Retirement

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Spurlock v. Division of Retirement

486 So. 2d 18, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 671, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 6878

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 18, 1986

DocketNos. BF-287, BF-289

StatusPublished

This text of 486 So. 2d 18 (Spurlock v. Division of Retirement) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Spurlock v. Division of Retirement, 486 So. 2d 18, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 671, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 6878 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

SHIVERS, Judge.

Appellants Spurlock and Leary appeal amended final orders of the State Retirement Commission denying them “special risk” classification in the Florida Retirement System. We affirm in part and remand in part.

Spurlock and Leary are state law enforcement officers. Pursuant to section 121.0515(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1984), they applied for “special risk” classification for purposes of early retirement in the Florida Retirement System. Spurlock sought “special risk” classification on the basis he was the supervisor of special risk members. Leary applied for special risk status on the [19]*19basis his duties included the pursuit, apprehension and arrest of law violators, and that he was the supervisor of special risk members. Both were denied special risk classification by the State Retirement Commission and appealed.

On January 26, 1984, in Hillman v. Division of Retirement, 446 So.2d 158 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), we affirmed the agency’s orders except for those cases specifically remanded to the agency for clarification or reconsideration. Upon remand the Division of Retirement affirmed Spurlock’s case and Leary’s case upon grounds that Hillman disposed of the issue of whether Spurlock and Leary qualified for special risk membership based on their positions as supervisors of special risk personnel. As to Leary’s qualification based on his duties of pursuit, apprehension and arrest of law violators, the Commission again denied special risk status. At neither rehearing did the Commission clarify the basis for its denial of special risk membership. Spur-lock and Leary have appealed again.

We affirm the denial of Spurlock’s and Leary’s special risk status based on supervisory status. The Retirement Commission correctly interpreted Hillman as holding that none of the appellants claiming “special risk” membership based on their supervisory status satisfied the requirements. Hillman, at 163-164.

However, we do not affirm the denial of “special risk” as to Leary, who based this claim on his duties of pursuit, apprehension and arrest of law violators. Based on Hill-man, we remand to the Commission for clarification of this denial and for inclusion in its amended final order of specific findings of fact in this regard.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

JOANOS and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SHIVERS, Judge.

Appellants Spurlock and Leary appeal amended final orders of the State Retirement Commission denying them “special risk” classification in the Florida Retirement System. We affirm in part and remand in part.

Spurlock and Leary are state law enforcement officers. Pursuant to section 121.0515(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1984), they applied for “special risk” classification for purposes of early retirement in the Florida Retirement System. Spurlock sought “special risk” classification on the basis he was the supervisor of special risk members. Leary applied for special risk status on the [19]*19basis his duties included the pursuit, apprehension and arrest of law violators, and that he was the supervisor of special risk members. Both were denied special risk classification by the State Retirement Commission and appealed.

On January 26, 1984, in Hillman v. Division of Retirement, 446 So.2d 158 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), we affirmed the agency’s orders except for those cases specifically remanded to the agency for clarification or reconsideration. Upon remand the Division of Retirement affirmed Spurlock’s case and Leary’s case upon grounds that Hillman disposed of the issue of whether Spurlock and Leary qualified for special risk membership based on their positions as supervisors of special risk personnel. As to Leary’s qualification based on his duties of pursuit, apprehension and arrest of law violators, the Commission again denied special risk status. At neither rehearing did the Commission clarify the basis for its denial of special risk membership. Spur-lock and Leary have appealed again.

We affirm the denial of Spurlock’s and Leary’s special risk status based on supervisory status. The Retirement Commission correctly interpreted Hillman as holding that none of the appellants claiming “special risk” membership based on their supervisory status satisfied the requirements. Hillman, at 163-164.

However, we do not affirm the denial of “special risk” as to Leary, who based this claim on his duties of pursuit, apprehension and arrest of law violators. Based on Hill-man, we remand to the Commission for clarification of this denial and for inclusion in its amended final order of specific findings of fact in this regard.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

JOANOS and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

486 So. 2d 18, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 671, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 6878, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spurlock-v-division-of-retirement-fladistctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack