Tanzler v. Wansley

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Tanzler v. Wansley

350 So. 2d 113, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 16766

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 20, 1977

DocketNo. DD-109

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 350 So. 2d 113 (Tanzler v. Wansley) 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

Tanzler v. Wansley, 350 So. 2d 113, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 16766 (Fla. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trustees of the Jacksonville City Employees Pension Fund appeal a declaratory judgment giving Mrs. Wansley disability benefits. We reverse on the authority of State ex rel. Hackney v. Pierce, 157 Fla. 464, 26 So.2d 186 (1946).

Mrs. Wansley is a 49 year old widow, an employee of the City for about 16 years. From February to August, 1975, she made three requests for a physical disability pension. All three were denied. A medical review board of the City, composed of independent medical doctors, heard Mrs-. Wans-ley’s appeal from the denial and also denied her request. This declaratory action was then brought in Duval County Circuit Court. The trial judge initially ruled Mrs. Wansley was not “totally and permanently incapacitated from the performance of any further duties for the City”, as set out in the rules and regulations for the pension fund. Upon rehearing, the trial judge found the correct standard to be whether Mrs. Wansley was “incapacitated for the performance of her duties”, as set out in Ch. 18610, Laws of Florida (1937). Mrs. Wansley was found under that standard to be disabled and entitled to pension benefits.

In State ex rel. Hackney v. Pierce, supra, the employee’s petition for mandamus was granted. The Supreme Court reversed, holding the recommendation or the approval of the advisory committee to the pension [114]*114fund trustees was essential before an employee would be eligible for disability benefits. In the absence of such approval, or the showing that the committee acted capriciously or arbitrarily, judicial relief should not be granted. Here Mrs. Wansley was examined by at least seven physicians. Six of the seven believed she could work in some capacity for the City. The determination by the medical review board was supported by competent substantial evidence and should not be subject to judicial disturbance.

Counsel for the City, during oral argument, advised us that should the judgment be reversed, the City would attempt to provide a position consistent with Mrs. Wans-ley’s physical capabilities. Being confident that this assertion was made in good faith, we assume the City will so provide.

The amended declaratory judgment is

REVERSED.

RAWLS, Acting C. J., and SMITH and ERVIN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The trustees of the Jacksonville City Employees Pension Fund appeal a declaratory judgment giving Mrs. Wansley disability benefits. We reverse on the authority of State ex rel. Hackney v. Pierce, 157 Fla. 464, 26 So.2d 186 (1946).

Mrs. Wansley is a 49 year old widow, an employee of the City for about 16 years. From February to August, 1975, she made three requests for a physical disability pension. All three were denied. A medical review board of the City, composed of independent medical doctors, heard Mrs-. Wans-ley’s appeal from the denial and also denied her request. This declaratory action was then brought in Duval County Circuit Court. The trial judge initially ruled Mrs. Wansley was not “totally and permanently incapacitated from the performance of any further duties for the City”, as set out in the rules and regulations for the pension fund. Upon rehearing, the trial judge found the correct standard to be whether Mrs. Wansley was “incapacitated for the performance of her duties”, as set out in Ch. 18610, Laws of Florida (1937). Mrs. Wansley was found under that standard to be disabled and entitled to pension benefits.

In State ex rel. Hackney v. Pierce, supra, the employee’s petition for mandamus was granted. The Supreme Court reversed, holding the recommendation or the approval of the advisory committee to the pension [114]*114fund trustees was essential before an employee would be eligible for disability benefits. In the absence of such approval, or the showing that the committee acted capriciously or arbitrarily, judicial relief should not be granted. Here Mrs. Wansley was examined by at least seven physicians. Six of the seven believed she could work in some capacity for the City. The determination by the medical review board was supported by competent substantial evidence and should not be subject to judicial disturbance.

Counsel for the City, during oral argument, advised us that should the judgment be reversed, the City would attempt to provide a position consistent with Mrs. Wans-ley’s physical capabilities. Being confident that this assertion was made in good faith, we assume the City will so provide.

The amended declaratory judgment is

REVERSED.

RAWLS, Acting C. J., and SMITH and ERVIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

350 So. 2d 113, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 16766, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tanzler-v-wansley-fladistctapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack