Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Division of Administrative Law Appeals

Feb 23, 2026

Retirement – Police detail

Where a police officer has filed an appeal challenging the Andover Retirement Board’s decision not to include pay that he earned for police detail work toward the $5,000 compensation threshold for the purchase of creditable service, the board’s decision must be reversed based on the unmodified word “compensation” in Section 4(1)(o) of Chapter 32 rather than “regular compensation” as us[...]

Feb 23, 2026

Licenses and permits – Day care – Spouse

Where the Department of Early Education and Care (EEC) revoked a petitioner’s day care license because it found her husband to be an unsuitable household member, the revocation should not be upheld, as the petitioner has presented clear and convincing evidence that her husband is suitable to be a household member.

Feb 23, 2026

Licenses and permits – Paramedic

Where the Department of Public Health issued a notice of agency action proposing to revoke a respondent’s paramedic license, the department has proven only some of the allegations against the respondent, but that is enough to warrant a sanction.

Feb 17, 2026

Retirement – Accidental disability

Where a respondent retirement board denied a petitioner’s application for accidental disability retirement without sending him to be examined by a medical panel, that was error, as there was sufficient prima facie evidence to establish the existence of a job-related injury claim that should be sent for medical panel review.

Feb 17, 2026

Retirement – Accidental disability

Where the Boston Retirement Board denied an application for accidental disability retirement filed by a petitioner who suffered PTSD after confronting three men who had just shot and killed a store employee and who later testified at the grand jury and at trial, the petitioner’s application for accidental disability retirement should have been sent to a medical panel, as she presented sufficient[...]

Feb 17, 2026

Retirement – Purchase of contract service

Where the State Board of Retirement denied a petitioner’s application to purchase contract service, the board’s decision must be reversed because the petitioner is entitled to purchase the service from Aug. 4, 2002, to Jan. 1, 2005, for which she was compensated by two third-party vendors.

Feb 17, 2026

Retirement – Suspension – Service credit

Where the State Board of Retirement denied a petitioner service credit for a two-year period when he was suspended without pay, the board’s decision must be reversed because the petitioner is entitled to service credit for the period of his unpaid suspension for which he received back pay and made the appropriate retirement contributions.

Feb 17, 2026

Retirement – Purchase of contract service

Where the State Board of Retirement denied a petitioner’s request to purchase contract service, that decision should be upheld because the petitioner’s prior work as an instructor for the Middlesex Sheriff’s Office was not substantially similar to her work for the Department of Developmental Services.

Feb 1, 2026

Retirement – Credit – Leave of absence

Where a teacher went from working full-time to working part-time from 2002 to 2009 in order to take care of her children, she is not entitled to credit for unpaid leave.

Feb 1, 2026

Appeals – Mootness

Where the Department of Public Health made a proposed finding charging a petitioner with failing to ensure that a nursing home resident was treated in a dignified and respectful manner, the petitioner’s appeal must be dismissed as moot since the department withdrew its proposed finding.

Jan 27, 2026

Retirement – Teacher – Purchase of service

Where the Massachusetts Teachers’ Retirement System denied a petitioner’s application to purchase creditable service, that decision should be affirmed because the positions for which the petitioner seeks to purchase creditable service were not full-time.

Jan 27, 2026

Retirement – Group 2

Where a petitioner applied for Group 2 classification, the denial of the application should be upheld because the petitioner did not spend more than 50 percent of his time caring for, having custody of or instructing people who were mentally ill.

Verdicts & Settlements

See All Verdicts & Settlements

Opinion Digests

See All Digests