Summary
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed a Superior Court judgment upholding CRAB's determination that sick or vacation payments used to supplement workers' compensation benefits are not "regular compensation" under G. L. c. 32, § 1. The court held that such payments are not remuneration for services performed while the employee is unable to work and therefore do not determine the effective date of accidental disability retirement under G. L. c. 32, § 7.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether sick or vacation payments received under G. L. c. 152, § 69 to supplement workers' compensation benefits constitute regular compensation under G. L. c. 32, § 1.
- Whether those supplemental payments should determine the effective date of an involuntary accidental-disability retirement under G. L. c. 32, § 7 (2).
Holdings
- Sick or vacation payments received under G. L. c. 152, § 69 while an employee is receiving workers' compensation and is unable to perform services for the employer are not regular compensation under G. L. c. 32, § 1.
- Because Vernava's supplemental sick or vacation payments were not regular compensation, the latest qualifying date under G. L. c. 32, § 7 (2) was the date six months before the filing of the retirement application, August 1, 2011, rather than July 7, 2012, the last date on which he received supplemental pay.
Key quotations
“"regular compensation" is "ordinary, recurrent, or repeated payments not inflated by any 'extraordinary ad hoc' amounts such as bonuses or overtime pay."” (478 Mass. at 748)
“At the core of all three cases is the premise that supplemental pay received while an employee is no longer able to provide employment services for his or her employer does not constitute regular compensation.” (478 Mass. at 750)
Factual background
Robert Vernava worked for the Town of Swampscott's department of public works from 1985 until 2012. After sustaining a job-related injury, he received workers' compensation benefits and two hours per week of sick or vacation pay under G. L. c. 152, § 69 to maintain his union membership and life insurance. Swampscott involuntarily retired him for accidental disability, and the dispute concerned whether the supplemental payments continued to constitute regular compensation for purposes of determining his effective retirement date.
Procedural history
Swampscott involuntarily retired Robert Vernava for accidental disability. PERAC determined that his retirement date was July 7, 2012, because he received supplemental sick or vacation pay through that date. DALA reversed, concluding that the supplemental pay was not regular compensation and setting an earlier retirement date; CRAB upheld DALA's decision. A Superior Court judge affirmed CRAB, and PERAC appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court.