Raymond J. Whalen v. Public School Employees' Retirement Board

Summary

Justice Dougherty concurred in the result, agreeing that the Public School Employees' Retirement Board could not be bound by a private settlement agreement and that the payment did not qualify as compensation under the Retirement Code. The concurrence disagreed with the Commonwealth Court and the Board's application of the parol evidence rule to exclude evidence concerning the Board's duties as a nonparty to the agreement. It nevertheless concluded that the claimant failed to establish that the payment was based on a standard salary schedule.

Holdings

1. A private contract between the employee and the school district could not bind the Retirement Board because the Board was not a party to the agreement.
2. The parol evidence rule should not have been applied to exclude evidence concerning the Board's own duties under the Retirement Code because the Board was a stranger to the settlement agreement.
3. Whalen failed to prove that the $15,000 payment constituted compensation under the Retirement Code because he did not produce a standard salary schedule establishing that the payment was based on such a schedule.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Board and Commonwealth Court applied the proper standard of review to the Board's adjudication and interpretation of the term "compensation" under the Retirement Code.
2. Whether the Board improperly excluded evidence concerning the nature and purpose of the settlement payment under the parol evidence rule.
3. Whether the $15,000 settlement payment qualified as "compensation" under the Retirement Code.

Disposition

other