Justia Public Benefits Opinion Summaries

The petitioners, current and retired Natural Resources Police Officers employed by the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources (DNR), have been receiving a statutory "subsistence allowance" since 1996. This allowance was included in their reported "compensation" to the West Virginia Consolidated Public Retirement Board (the Board) for calculating retirement annuities under the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS). In 2014, the Board discovered this inclusion was erroneous and decided to correct it by refunding overpaid contributions to active and inactive officers and adjusting retirement annuities for retired officers.The Circuit Court of Kanawha County reversed the Board's decision, finding the subsistence allowance was pensionable compensation. On appeal, the West Virginia Supreme Court held in West Virginia Consolidated Public Retirement Board v. Clark (Clark I) that the subsistence allowance was not "compensation" for PERS purposes and that the Board failed to correct the error in a timely manner for retired officers. The case was remanded for further proceedings.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed two certified questions from the Circuit Court of Kanawha County. The first question asked if the holding in Clark I required the subsistence pay received by all retired and active DNR officers to be included in calculating their pensionable income. The court answered "no," clarifying that Clark I's holding was limited to retired officers and did not apply to active and inactive officers. The second question asked if the petitioners were entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees from the Board. The court declined to answer, stating that it did not present an issue of law but rather a question of fact. View "Clark v. West Virginia Consolidated Public Retirement Board" on Justia Law

Seven entities under contract to provide residential services to youth in the state (collectively, Petitioners) filed a petition for writ of mandamus requiring the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Services (DHHR), its Cabinet Secretary, the West Virginia Bureau for Medical Services (BMS), its Acting Commissioner, the Bureau for Children and Families (BCF), and its Commissioner (collectively, Respondents) to promulgate new or amended legislative rules prior to implementing changes to existing residential child care services policies. The Supreme Court granted a writ as moulded, finding it most appropriate to order this matter to be docketed in this circuit court as if it were an original proceeding in mandamus in that court. Remanded for further proceedings. View "State ex rel. Pressley Ridge v. W. Va. Department of Health & Human Resources" on Justia Law

Petitioner has been employed by the Raleigh County Board of Education as a physical therapist since 1987. Her initial “Teacher’s Probationary Contract of Employment” provided that she would be paid an annual salary “for an annual employment term of 120 days.” In 1989, petitioner executed a “Continuing Contract of Employment,” which likewise provided that she was to be employed “for an employment term of 120 days.” She requested enrollment in the Teachers’ Retirement System (TRS). Contributions on petitioner’s behalf were made to TRS continuously from 1987 through 1991, when she enrolled in the newly-created Teachers’ Defined Contribution System and froze her TRS contributions. In 1999, she transferred her TRS funds and service credit into TDC. In 2008, petitioner transferred back to the TRS. The Board ascertained that petitioner was ineligible to participate in either plan because she was only working 120 days a year and indicated that the money contributed would be returned to her and her employer. Petitioner testified that she believed that those working less than 200 days were not ineligible, but would merely receive fractional service credit for the year. The hearing examiner determined that West Virginia Code 18-7A-3 requires a 200-day contract before one may participate in TRS, but that there was no such 200-day requirement to participate in TDC. The circuit court affirmed. The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed, stating that it was “sympathetic," but could not confer statutory eligibility where none exists. View "Ringel-Williams v. W.V. Consol. Pub. Retirement Bd." on Justia Law