Preston v. Burlington City Retirement System

Summary

The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed a superior court judgment reversing the Burlington City Retirement System’s termination of a former firefighter’s disability-retirement benefits. The Court held that the retirement board’s decision was reviewable under Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 75 because it was quasi-judicial and the ordinance’s “final say” language did not clearly bar judicial review. The Court also concluded that the record provided no reasonable basis for terminating benefits based on the claimant’s alleged failure to cooperate with a functional capacity examination.

Holdings

1. A Retirement Board's decision affecting a public employee's disability-retirement benefits is quasi-judicial and is reviewable under Rule 75 through the modern equivalent of common-law certiorari when no specific statutory appeal is provided.
2. The Burlington ordinance provision giving the Retirement Board the "final say" did not clearly and unambiguously foreclose judicial review; it meant that the Board's decision was final for administrative purposes.
3. The Retirement Board lacked a reasonable basis to terminate Preston's disability-retirement benefits for failure to cooperate because the record showed that his refusal to complete particular examination tasks was based on valid and reasonable concerns about reinjury.
4. A public employee's entitlement to disability-retirement benefits is a constitutionally protected property interest requiring, at a minimum, notice and an opportunity for a hearing before permanent termination.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the superior court had subject-matter jurisdiction under Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 75(a) to review the Retirement Board's decision terminating disability-retirement benefits.
2. Whether the Burlington ordinance stating that the Retirement Board had the "final say" on retirement decisions barred judicial review.
3. Whether the Retirement Board had a reasonable basis to terminate Preston's disability-retirement benefits for failure to cooperate with the functional capacity examination.

Disposition

affirmed