West Virginia Consolidated Public Retirement Board v. Robert Clark

Summary

This document is a separate opinion by Justice Wooton, concurring in part and dissenting in part, in a West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals case concerning whether subsistence allowances paid to natural resources police officers constitute pensionable compensation under the Public Employees Retirement System. Justice Wooton agreed that the respondents’ retirement benefits should not be reduced because of the Retirement Board’s failure to act timely, but disagreed with the majority’s conclusion that the subsistence payments were not compensation. The opinion emphasizes the payments’ regular treatment as wages and applies statutory-interpretation principles to West Virginia Code § 5-10-2(8).

Holdings

1. The court's majority concluded that respondents could not then be stripped of retirement benefits calculated to include the subsistence payments because the Board failed to take timely corrective action.
2. The majority determined that the subsistence payments did not constitute compensation for purposes of Public Employee Retirement System benefits; Justice Wooton disagreed and would have held that the regularly paid subsistence allowance was compensation.

Questions Presented

1. Whether statutory subsistence payments made regularly to natural resources police officers constituted compensation under West Virginia Code § 5-10-2(8) for purposes of calculating Public Employee Retirement System benefits.
2. Whether respondents could be stripped of retirement benefits that had been calculated to include the subsistence payments after the Board failed to take timely corrective action.

Disposition

other