Justia Public Benefits Opinion Summaries

Several employees of the City and County of San Francisco who joined the city’s retirement system at age 40 or older and later retired due to disability challenged the method used to calculate their disability retirement benefits. The city’s retirement system uses two formulas: Formula 1, which provides a higher benefit if certain thresholds are met, and Formula 2, which imputes service years until age 60 but caps the benefit at a percentage of final compensation. Plaintiffs argued that Formula 2 discriminates against employees who enter the system at age 40 or above, in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).Initially, the San Francisco City and County Superior Court sustained the city’s demurrer, finding the plaintiffs had not timely filed an administrative charge. The California Court of Appeal reversed that decision, allowing the case to proceed. After class certification and cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court found triable issues and held a bench trial. At trial, plaintiffs presented expert testimony based on hypothetical calculations, while the city’s expert criticized the lack of actual data analysis and highlighted factors such as breaks in service and purchased credits.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the trial court’s post-trial decision. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove intentional age discrimination or disparate impact under FEHA. The court found substantial evidence that Formula 2 was motivated by pension status and credited years of service, not age. The plaintiffs’ evidence was insufficient because it relied on hypotheticals rather than actual data showing a disproportionate adverse effect on the protected group. The appellate court also affirmed the denial of leave to amend the complaint, finding no reversible error. The judgment in favor of the city was affirmed. View "Carroll v. City & County of S.F." on Justia Law

Catherine Baker was employed by San Mateo County as a Social Worker III but went on medical leave in 2009 due to back pain. In 2015, she returned to work in a different position as a screener trainee, which involved different duties but was compensated at the same pay rate as her original position. Her last paycheck was issued in January 2016. In 2017, Baker applied for a service-connected disability retirement, and the San Mateo County Employees Retirement Association (SamCERA) determined that the effective date for her retirement benefits should be January 22, 2016, the day after her last receipt of “regular compensation.”After SamCERA’s Board approved her application and set the effective date, Baker sought administrative review, arguing that her compensation as a screener trainee did not qualify as “regular compensation” under Government Code section 31724 because she had not returned to her original job. An administrative law judge recommended denial of her request to change the effective date, and the Board adopted this recommendation. Baker then filed a petition for writ of administrative mandamus in the Superior Court of San Mateo County, which denied the petition and confirmed the January 22, 2016 effective date.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One, reviewed whether “regular compensation” under section 31724 included Baker’s pay as a screener trainee. Exercising independent judgment on statutory interpretation, the court held that “regular compensation” refers to regular salary or full wages, regardless of whether the position is the employee’s original job. Because Baker’s screener trainee pay matched her original position’s rate, it qualified as “regular compensation.” The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, upholding the effective date set by SamCERA. View "Baker v. San Mateo County Employees Retirement Assn." on Justia Law

A mother and father have an adult son, Schuyler, who has autism spectrum disorder and receives government aid, including Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and State Supplementary Program (SSP) benefits. The mother filed a request for order (RFO) for child support from the father, arguing that Schuyler is incapable of earning a living and without sufficient means to support himself. The father, who earns between $2 to $3 million annually, had not contributed to Schuyler's living expenses since 2009. The mother also sought attorney’s fees and costs.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County ruled that Welfare and Institutions Code section 12350 precluded the court from ordering the father to pay child support under Family Code section 3910, as Schuyler was receiving government aid. Consequently, the court did not order the father to pay any support and limited the attorney’s fees awarded to the mother.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. The court held that Welfare and Institutions Code section 12350 does not bar a parent from seeking a court order requiring the other parent to contribute to the support of an adult disabled child under Family Code section 3910. The court clarified that section 12350 is intended to prevent government actors from seeking reimbursement for the cost of government assistance from relatives of aid recipients, not to absolve parents of their financial responsibilities to their adult disabled children.The appellate court reversed the family court's decision regarding child support and vacated the attorney’s fees award, remanding the case for further proceedings to determine the appropriate amount of support and reconsider the attorney’s fees in light of the correct interpretation of the statutes. View "In re Marriage of Cady & Gamick" on Justia Law

A mother sought child support from the father for their adult son, who has autism and receives government aid. The mother argued that the father, who earns a substantial income, should contribute to their son's support. The father contended that the son's receipt of government aid under the State Supplementary Program for Aged, Blind, and Disabled (SSP) relieved him of any financial responsibility under Family Code section 3910, which mandates parental support for adult children who are incapacitated and without sufficient means.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County ruled in favor of the father, interpreting Welfare and Institutions Code section 12350 to mean that the receipt of government aid barred the mother from seeking child support from the father. The court also limited the attorney’s fees awarded to the mother, reasoning that the case presented a narrow legal issue that did not justify extensive litigation costs.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, reversed the lower court's decision. The appellate court held that Welfare and Institutions Code section 12350 only prevents government entities from seeking reimbursement from relatives for the cost of aid provided to recipients. It does not bar a parent from seeking child support from the other parent under Family Code section 3910. The court emphasized that the legislative intent behind these statutes was to prevent the public from bearing the financial burden of supporting individuals who have relatives capable of providing support.The appellate court remanded the case for further proceedings to determine the appropriate amount of child support and to reconsider the attorney’s fees award in light of its ruling. The court clarified that the family court must now address whether the son is incapacitated from earning a living and without sufficient means, and if so, determine the appropriate support amount. View "Marriage of Cady & Gamick" on Justia Law

Nancy Vargas, a bus driver for the Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit District, injured her foot at work in March 2018. She settled her workers' compensation claim with the district in December 2020, agreeing that the injury caused a 26 percent permanent disability. Vargas also applied for subsequent injury benefits from the Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (Fund), listing pre-existing disabilities and disclosing that she was receiving Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) payments.The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (Board) joined the Fund as a defendant in Vargas’s case. The Fund acknowledged Vargas’s eligibility for benefits but sought a credit for a portion of her SSDI payments, arguing that these payments were for her pre-existing disabilities. The workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) found that the Fund had not proven its entitlement to the credit. The Board upheld this decision, stating that the Fund failed to show that the SSDI payments were awarded for Vargas’s pre-existing disabilities.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, holding that the Fund bears the burden of proving its entitlement to a credit for SSDI payments under Labor Code section 4753. The court found that the Fund did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that Vargas’s SSDI payments were for her pre-existing disabilities. The court emphasized that the Fund must prove the extent to which SSDI payments are attributable to pre-existing disabilities to reduce subsequent injury benefits. The court also noted that the Fund had ample opportunity to gather evidence but failed to do so. The Board’s order denying the Fund’s petition for reconsideration was affirmed. View "Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board" on Justia Law

John Doe, a recipient of vocational rehabilitation services from the California Department of Rehabilitation, sought to have his rent covered while attending a law school outside commuting distance from his home. The Department agreed to cover his tuition and other expenses but refused to pay his rent, classifying it as a non-covered "long-term everyday living expense." Doe argued that rent should be considered "maintenance" under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and related California law, which the Department disputed.An administrative law judge (ALJ) upheld the Department's decision, interpreting the law to allow rent as "maintenance" only for short-term shelter, not for the three-year duration Doe required. The Superior Court of Orange County denied Doe's petition for a writ of mandate, agreeing with the ALJ that three years of rent did not qualify as "short-term shelter."The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court found that the term "maintenance" under the Rehabilitation Act and California law includes costs incurred in excess of normal expenses while receiving vocational rehabilitation services, without distinguishing between short-term and long-term costs. The court held that the Department's categorical refusal to cover long-term rent as "maintenance" was incorrect. The court reversed the lower court's decision and remanded the case, directing the Department to reconsider Doe's request for rental assistance based on his individual circumstances, rather than a blanket policy against long-term expenses. View "Doe v. Dept. of Rehabilitation" on Justia Law

James Morell, a retired research attorney for the Orange County Superior Court, was entitled to a pension under the County Employees Retirement Law of 1937 (CERL). The dispute arose over whether the $3,500 Optional Benefit Program (OBP) payments he received should be included in the calculation of his pension. The OBP allowed attorneys to allocate the $3,500 benefit to various options, including taxable cash or a healthcare reimbursement account. Morell allocated portions of the OBP to both cash and healthcare reimbursement in the years leading up to his retirement.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County initially ruled in favor of Morell, ordering the Board of Retirement for the Orange County Employees’ Retirement System (OCERS) to reconsider its decision excluding the OBP payments from Morell’s pension calculation. The court found that the board had improperly relied on a settlement agreement and a repealed statute, Government Code section 31460.1, which had excluded such payments from the definition of "compensation."The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court concluded that Resolution 90-1551, adopted by the Orange County Board of Supervisors, which excluded OBP payments from the definition of "compensation," remained valid despite the repeal of section 31460.1. The court found that Morell had elected to participate in the OBP by allocating the $3,500 benefit, and these payments reflected amounts that exceeded his salary. Therefore, the exclusion of the OBP payments from the pension calculation was proper.The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case with directions to deny Morell’s petition. The court held that Resolution 90-1551 was still valid and that the OBP payments were correctly excluded from Morell’s pension calculation. View "Morell v. Board of Retirement for the Orange County Employees’ Retirement System" on Justia Law

Nancy Vargas, a bus driver for the Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit District, injured her foot at work in March 2018. She settled her claim against the district in December 2020, with a stipulated permanent disability of 26 percent. Vargas applied for subsequent injury benefits from the Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (Fund), listing pre-existing disabilities and disclosing that she was receiving Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) payments. The Fund acknowledged her eligibility but sought to reduce her benefits by the amount of her SSDI payments, claiming these were for her pre-existing disabilities.The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (Board) determined that the Fund was not entitled to this reduction, as the Fund had not proven that Vargas’s SSDI payments were awarded for her pre-existing disabilities. The Board found that the evidence provided, including an award letter from the Social Security Administration, did not specify the basis of the SSDI benefits. The Fund’s petition for reconsideration was denied by the Board, which maintained that the Fund needed to show the SSDI payments were for pre-existing disabilities to claim a reduction.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, holding that the Fund bears the burden of proving its entitlement to a reduction in benefits under section 4753 of the Labor Code. The court found that the Fund did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that Vargas’s SSDI payments were for her pre-existing disabilities. The court emphasized that the Fund must meet its burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence and that the stipulated disability rating in Vargas’s settlement with her employer did not automatically entitle the Fund to a reduction in benefits. The Board’s order denying the Fund’s petition for reconsideration was affirmed. View "Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund v. Workers Comp. App. Bd." on Justia Law

James Morell, a retired research attorney for the Orange County Superior Court, was entitled to a pension under the County Employees Retirement Law of 1937 (CERL). The dispute arose over whether the $3,500 Optional Benefit Program (OBP) payments he received should be included in the calculation of his pension. The OBP allowed attorneys to allocate the $3,500 to various benefits or receive it as taxable cash. Morell allocated portions to a healthcare reimbursement account and cash. The Orange County Employees’ Retirement System (OCERS) excluded these payments from his pension calculation, leading to prolonged litigation.The Los Angeles County Superior Court initially ruled in favor of Morell, ordering OCERS to reconsider its decision without relying on Resolution 90-1551, which OCERS argued required the exclusion of OBP payments. The court found that the resolution had been invalidated and that Morell could not waive his argument that OCERS’ calculation contravened CERL through a settlement agreement.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. The court concluded that Resolution 90-1551, which adopted the provisions of the now-repealed Government Code section 31460.1, remained valid due to a savings clause in Senate Bill 193. This clause preserved actions taken by counties under section 31460.1 before its repeal. The court found that Morell had elected to participate in the OBP and that the payments reflected amounts exceeding his salary.The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case with directions to deny Morell’s petition. The court held that Resolution 90-1551 was still valid and that OCERS correctly excluded the OBP payments from Morell’s pension calculation. View "Morell v. Board of Retirement of the Orange County Employees' Retirement System" on Justia Law

In the case before the Court of Appeal of the State of California First Appellate District Division Two, the appellant, Debra Abney, challenged the decision of the State Department of Health Care Services and the City and County of San Francisco to consider money garnished from her Social Security payments as income for the purposes of determining her eligibility for benefits under Medi-Cal.Abney's Social Security payments were being reduced by nearly $600 each month to satisfy a debt she owed to the IRS. The authorities considered this garnished money as income, which led to Abney being ineligible to receive Medi-Cal benefits without contributing a share of cost. Abney argued that the money being garnished was not income “actually available to meet her needs” under the regulations implementing the Medi-Cal program.The trial court rejected Abney's argument, and she appealed. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision. The Court of Appeal held that the tax garnishment was "actually available" to meet Abney's needs because it benefitted her financially by helping to extinguish her debt to the IRS. Therefore, the garnished money was correctly considered as income for the purpose of calculating her eligibility for the Medi-Cal program. View "Abney v. State Dept. of Health Care Services" on Justia Law