Jackson v. STATE, DIV. OF RETIREMENT, 1D01-729.
Decision Date | 16 April 2002 |
Docket Number | No. 1D01-729.,1D01-729. |
Citation | 813 So.2d 281 |
Parties | Dorothy JACKSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, DIVISION OF RETIREMENT, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Stanley M. Danek, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Robert B. Button, Senior Attorney, Division of Retirement, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Dorothy Jackson appeals from an order of the State Retirement Commission dismissing her reapplication for permanent and total disability retirement benefits for the reason that it was barred by the doctrine of res judicata, and denying her motion for reconsideration. She raises two issues: (1) that the Commission erred in applying res judicata to her reapplication, and (2) that the order was improperly entered by the Commission chair's designee, rather than the full Commission. We reverse and remand on the second issue, and thus do not reach the first.
After the Division of Retirement denied Jackson's second application for benefits, she sought a formal hearing before the Commission pursuant to section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (2001). The Division moved to dismiss the case, arguing, among other things, that res judicata barred the proceeding. It appears from the record that the vice-chair of the Commission, acting on behalf of the chair, orally granted the motion, and when Jackson filed a motion for reconsideration, the vice-chair entered a written order articulating the reasons for dismissal and denying the motion for reconsideration. This was error, because a panel of the Commission, rather than the vice-chair alone, should have determined the Division's motions.
Section 121.23(2), Florida Statutes (2001), authorizes the Commission to hear appeals "on the merits of any written adverse decision of the administrator" of the retirement system. Section 121.24(1), Florida Statutes (2001), provides:
(Emphasis added.)
Because the proceeding below was Jackson's appeal of the administrator's adverse decision, a panel of the Commission should have decided the Division's motion to dismiss. The Division contends that subparagraph (...
To continue reading
Request your trial