HANS G. TANZLER, JR., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
VIRGINIA ORIAS WANSLEY, 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.
The Florida appellate court reversed a trial court's declaratory judgment awarding disability pension benefits to a 49-year-old city employee, holding that the medical review board's determination denying disability was supported by competent substantial evidence and should not be disturbed absent a showing of arbitrary or capricious action.
The court reversed the declaratory judgment, holding that the medical review board's determination was supported by competent substantial evidence and should not be subject to judicial disturbance absent a showing that the board acted capriciously or arbitrarily.
[1] A medical review board's determination regarding disability benefits, when supported by competent substantial evidence, should not be subject to judicial disturbance.
[2] Judicial relief for denial of disability benefits should not be granted in the absence of approval by an advisory committee to the pension fund trustees, or a showing tha…
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“the recommendation or the approval of the advisory committee to the pension fund 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.”
Establishes the controlling legal standard from Hackney v. Pierce requiring deference to the committee absent arbitrary or capricious action
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMrs. Wansley, a 49-year-old widow employed by the City of Jacksonville for approximately 16 years, requested a disability pension three times between …
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 Benefits Eligibility cases and more on FLexlaw
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 fund 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Amico v. Division OF Retirement, 352 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)…some “useful and efficient service” for his former employer, the Metropolitan Dade County Police Department. It was not necessary that the Division adduce evidence Amico could have returned to line duty as a patrolman. See Tanzler et al. v. Wansley, 350 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). This is not a proper case for our consideration of whether or in what circumstances disability retirement benefits may be refused under Section 121.091(4)(b) or terminated under Section 121.091(4)(d) on the ground that the empl…
Authorities Cited
- Chapman v. State, 157 Fla. 464 (Fla. 1946)
- State Ex rel. Robert Ross Hackney v. Pierce, 157 Fla. 464 (Fla. 1946)