Hull Retirement Board v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-116-14)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us   13-P-1825                                       Appeals Court   HULL RETIREMENT BOARD  vs.  CONTRIBUTORY RETIREMENT APPEAL BOARD & others.[1] No. 13-P-1825.     September 16, 2014.     Contributory Retirement Appeal Board.  Municipal Corporations, Retirement board, Police.  Police, Retirement.  Public Employment, Paid leave, Accidental disability retirement, Retirement.  Retirement.     The Hull retirement board (board) appeals from a Superior Court judgment affirming a decision of the contributory retirement appeal board (CRAB) upholding a division of administrative law appeals (DALA) magistrate’s determination requiring the board to amend the effective retirement date of defendant David Leary.  We affirm.   1.  Background.  Leary was a police officer in the town of Hull (town).  On November 19, 2001, he sustained an injury on the job and was placed on accidental injury leave with full pay.  See G. L. c. 41, § 111F, as amended through St. 1990, c. 313.  Leary remained on § 111F leave until April 15, 2003, when the chief of police (chief) removed him from paid injury leave status and placed him on an unpaid leave of absence.  Leary believed the chief’s action did not comply with the law, and sought to have the town reinstate his § 111F benefits.  In the meantime, in July, 2003, Leary applied for accidental disability retirement under G. L. c. 32, § 7.  The board approved Leary’s application on January 30, 2004.  His disability retirement allowance became effective as of April 15, 2003, the last day that Leary received compensation in the form of his § 111F benefits.   Notwithstanding his application for retirement and the subsequent approval of that application, Leary continued to seek payment of § 111F benefits from the town, specifically for the period between April 15, 2003, and January 30, 2004.  An agreement for payment initially was reached but unraveled when, on the advice of defendant public employee retirement administration commission (PERAC), the board refused to change Leary’s effective retirement date from April 15, 2003, to January 30, 2004.  In 2006, Leary filed suit, seeking enforcement of his agreement with the town.   In March, 2008, Leary and the town entered into a settlement agreement, later reduced to a judgment, whereby the town would pay Leary $ 44,424.47 in additional § 111F benefits to cover the period from April 15, 2003, to January 30, 2004.  Pursuant to the agreement, the funds were placed in an escrow account, with release to Leary “pending the outcome of Leary’s efforts to get the […]

Read more...