Preston
v. City of Burlington Retirement System, 2013 VT
56
Plaintiff worked for
the city of Burlington as a firefighter for over a decade. He filed for and was awarded disability
retirement by the City’s Retirement Board due to chronic back pain. (Those hoses are really heavy.)
A couple years later,
the City sent him a questionnaire, which he filled out and returned. Plaintiff indicated in his cover letter that
he was gonna learn to fly.
City then asked him to take a functional capacity medical exam. Plaintiff wasn’t able to make the first
appointment the City set up for him. He
sent a letter, though, noting that he was entitled to five years disability,
regardless. The City kicked it over to
its attorney’s office, which terminated Plaintiff’s benefits, but indicated
that it would reconsider the decision should Plaintiff submit to a functional
capacity examination.
Scheduling proved
problematic, but after the retirement administrator threatened to permanently
revoke Plaintiff’s benefits, he was able to schedule an appointment in
Texas. He did not complete a couple of
the tests due to fear of injury. The
evaluator discussed this issue with the retirement administrator by phone. The evaluator also noted that Plaintiff’s
concerns were “valid and reasonable” in the notes section. The evaluator concluded that Plaintiff could
not perform the essential duties of a firefighter due to his physical
limitations, but that he could pilot a plane.
Because Plaintiff did
not perform the two tests (that he was worried might injure him), the
Retirement Board terminated Plaintiff’s benefits, claiming non-cooperation and
an inability to determine the true extent of Plaintiff’s disability.
So Plaintiff appealed
to the superior court. The City filed
for summary judgment arguing that it had the “final say” according to it code
of ordinances, and thus, the trial court had no jurisdiction, and on the
merits, that Plaintiff didn’t cooperate.
Plaintiff prevailed. The trial
court reasoned that it had jurisdiction over the case despite the City’s
jurisdictional protestations, and that on the merits, Plaintiff had reasonably
cooperated. Some case law was tossed in for
good measure. The City appealed.
On review, the SCOV
agrees with the trial court. The SCOV
first discusses the traditional bases for judicial review of agency decisions,
including certiorari (the trial court’s basis of choice in this case). The SCOV concludes that this case meets the
standards and that the trial court’s exercise of jurisdiction was proper. The SCOV also rejects the City’s argument
that its “final say” language bars judicial review. “That’d be silly,” the SCOV says, “Because it
would effectively limit all access to the courts in this kind of situation and
we ain’t about to let that happen.”
(slightly paraphrased).
The merits are short
but sweet for the Plaintiff. The SCOV
agrees with the trial court’s conclusion that Plaintiff reasonably cooperated
with the City in completing the assessment.
The SCOV specifically notes the examiner’s conclusion that Plaintiff’s
concerns were “valid and reasonable.”
And there you have
it. Plaintiff flies solo—in the
courts—and prevails. Clear skies, to
you, sir.
That's not often the result for pro se parties.
ReplyDelete