Free Newsletter
Retirement – Accidental disability
Where the Leominster Retirement Board denied a petitioner’s application for accidental disability retirement, the petitioner has presented adequate reasons to reject the negative reports of two of the three medical panelists, so the board’s decision should be reversed.
Retirement – Group 2 – Supervisor
Where the State Board of Retirement denied a petitioner’s application for Group 2 classification, that decision should be affirmed because the petitioner spent the majority of his time supervising other employees and working at the front desk, not caring for, having custody of, instructing or supervising prisoners or parolees.
Retirement – Contract service
Where the State Board of Retirement denied a petitioner’s application to purchase contract service for the time she worked at the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection while being paid by the New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission, the board’s decision should be affirmed because (1) the petitioner was not a state employee or a contract employee of the commonwe[...]
Retirement – Purchase of service – Substantial similarity
Where a petitioner who worked as a re-entry assistant II with the Hampden County Sheriff’s Department sought to purchase contract service for time that she worked as an adult basic education teacher for the same employer, a decision by the State Board of Retirement to deny that request should be affirmed because the petitioner has not sustained her burden of showing that the two positions are su[...]
Retirement – Group 2
Where the State Board of Retirement denied an application for Group 2 classification filed by a petitioner who was a human services coordinator for the Department of Developmental Services (DDS), the board’s decision should be affirmed because the petitioner did not prove that she spent more than half her work time providing direct care to the mentally ill and developmentally disabled individual[...]
Retirement – Accidental disability
Where a police officer’s application for accidental disability retirement benefits was denied, that decision must be reversed because the officer’s injury became disabling while he was still a member in service.
Retirement – Recoupment – Beneficiary
Where a petitioner has challenged the Boston Retirement System’s decision to recoup an overpayment from her late mother’s retirement allowance, the petitioner is entitled to summary decision based on Magarian v. Lexington Retirement Board, CR-22-0088, 2023 WL 9022702 (Div. Admin. L. App. Dec. 22, 2023).
Retirement – Repurchase of credit – Interest rate
Where (1) a petitioner who worked for municipal school systems from 2000 to 2004 relinquished her accumulated retirement credit by withdrawing her retirement contributions and (2) after returning to state service in 2005, the petitioner attempted to repurchase her original retirement credit, the repurchase is governed by the “actuarial assumed” interest rate rather than the “buyback” inter[...]
Retirement – Prior service – Purchase
Where the State Board of Retirement denied a petitioner’s application to purchase prior service for his work at Springfield Technical Community College, that decision should be upheld with respect to two of the petitioner’s prior positions with STCC but reversed as to a third.
Retirement – Medical benefits – Cost-sharing obligations
Where a plaintiff alleging that the defendants incorrectly calculated his cost-sharing obligations for his post-retirement medical benefits has moved for class certification, that motion should be denied because the plaintiff has not provided evidence that identical, or even substantially similar, misrepresentations concerning credit were made to all class members.
Retirement – Judicial estoppel – Interest
Where the State Board of Retirement decided not to pay 3 percent interest on a petitioner’s refunded accumulated deductions, the board’s decision should be upheld because the petitioner took the position in 2013 that he was terminated, which precludes him from now claiming that he voluntarily resigned, which is a statutory requirement for receiving 3 percent interest.
Retirement – HERO Act – Filing deadline
Where the State Board of Retirement denied a petitioner’s application to purchase retirement credit for a period of pre-membership military service, the board’s motion for summary decision should be allowed because the credit-purchase application was emailed the board one week after the deadline established by the Act Honoring, Empowering, and Recognizing our Servicemembers and Veterans (HERO [...]
