Andrews v. Lombardi

• Decision Date: 30 November 2021
• Docket Number: C. A. KC-2013-1128
• Parties: MANUEL ANDREWS, JR., et al., Plaintiffs, v. JAMES J. LOMBARDI, in his capacity as Treasurer of the City of Providence, Rhode Island, Defendant.
• Court: Rhode Island Superior Court

MANUEL ANDREWS, JR., et al., Plaintiffs, v. JAMES J. LOMBARDI, in his capacity as Treasurer of the City of Providence, Rhode Island, Defendant.

C. A. No. KC-2013-1128

Superior Court of Rhode Island, Kent

November 30, 2021

For Plaintiff: Thomas M. Dickinson, Esq.; Lauren E. Jones, Esq. Kevin F. Bowen, Esq.; Thomas J. McAndrew, Esq.

For Defendant: William M. Dolan, Esq.; Kenneth B. Chiavarini Esq.; Matthew T. Jerzyk, Esq.; Jeffrey M. Padwa, Esq.

DECISION

TAFT-CARTER, J.

Before the Court for decision is Plaintiffs'^[1] Motion^[2] for Health Care Costs. The Defendant James J. Lombardi, in his capacity as Treasurer of the City of Providence (Defendant or the City) objects to the Motion. Jurisdiction is pursuant to G.L. 1956 §§ 8-2-13 and 9-30-1.

I Facts and Travel

Plaintiffs are retired members of the Providence police and fire departments. Andrews v. Lombardi, 233 A.3d 1027, 1029 (R.I. 2020). In 2011, a review of the City's financial status indicated that it faced a $69.9 million structural budgetary deficit that was projected to increase to $109.9 million by the following fiscal year. Id. at 1029. The City's continued obligations to its retired employees were a major factor in its burgeoning financial crisis: for example, as of June 30, 2009, the unfunded accrued actuarial liability of the City's retiree health care plan was $1.497 billion. Id.; see also Andrews, Jr. v. Lombardi, No. KC-2013-1128, 2017 WL 532353, at *2 (R.I. Super. Feb. 2, 2017) ("In addition to the issues involving the pension plan, medical costs for current employees and retirees represented more than 15% of the City's annual budget.").

As a result, on July 19, 2011, the City enacted Chapter 2011-32, Ordinance No. 422 (2011 Medicare Ordinance or Ordinance). Andrews, 233 A.3d at 1030. The 2011 Medicare Ordinance was enacted pursuant to G.L. 1956 § 28-54-1 (Medicare Enrollment Statute), a state law permitting municipalities to require retired employees to enroll in Medicare in order to continue receiving medical benefits. Id. at 1029. The Ordinance, as passed, required Medicare-eligible retirees and their spouses to enroll in Medicare and provided that, "[w]ith the exception of Medicare supplement or gap coverage," the City would not provide healthcare benefits to Medicare-eligible retirees. Id. at 1030 (quoting 2011 Medicare Ordinance). The cost of such supplement or gap coverage could be paid either by the City or the retiree. Id. After the Ordinance was passed, the City notified the affected retirees that, as of May 1, 2013, it would terminate City-paid health care coverage for those who were Medicare-eligible. Id. Retirees who were not yet eligible to enroll in Medicare would continue to receive health care coverage from the City until they became eligible. Id.

"[O]n October 12, 2011, the Providence Retired Police and Firefighter's Association (Retiree Association) and a number of individual retirees filed suit against the City challenging the constitutionality of the Medicare Ordinance." Andrews, Jr., 2017 WL 532353, at *4. Thereafter, this Court ordered the parties into mediation. Id. The mediation resulted in a settlement agreement between "the City, the Retiree Association, the Fire Union, and the Police Union[.]" Id. Under the terms of the settlement, eligible retirees would be required to enroll in Medicare, while the "City would pay for certain costs associated with Medicare coverage, including penalties associated with late enrollment, a Medicare supplement plan, and the premium for the prescription drug program with a $10/$20 copayment." Id. On April 12, 2013, this Court issued a final and consent judgment reflecting the terms of the settlement agreement (2013 Final and Consent Judgment or 2013 Judgment). Andrews, 233 A.3d at 1030-31.

Certain retirees, including the instant Plaintiffs, opted out of the settlement and filed suit against the City in October 2013. Id. at 1031. Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that

"(1) the City breached its contractual obligations to each plaintiff by 'unilateral[ly] terminat[ing] . . . the Health Care Benefits when Retirees reach[ed] the age of Medicare eligibility'; (2) the Medicare Enrollment Statute is both unconstitutional on its face and as applied because it violates the Contract Clause, Due Process Clause, and Takings Clause of the United States and Rhode Island Constitutions; (3) the 2011 Medicare Ordinance is both unconstitutional on its face and as applied because it violates the Contract Clause, Due Process Clause, and Takings Clause of the United States and Rhode Island Constitutions; and (4) plaintiffs are entitled to relief under a promissory estoppel theory." Id.

"The plaintiffs also requested a permanent injunction directing the City's treasurer to provide the health care benefits that had allegedly been wrongfully withheld and prohibiting the City from terminating or suspending the health care benefits to which plaintiffs were allegedly entitled." Id.

On March 16, 2016, this Court granted "the City's motion for summary judgment with respect to plaintiffs' claims for violation of the Takings Clause and promissory estoppel." Id. The Court held a bench trial in April 2016 with respect to the Plaintiffs' remaining claims for breach of contract and violation of the Contract Clauses of the federal and state constitutions. Id.

Following the bench trial, in February 2017, this Court issued a written decision that denied and dismissed Plaintiffs' claims for "breach of contract and violation of the Contract Clause of the Rhode Island and United States Constitutions." Id. at 1032. Final judgment was entered for the City, and Plaintiffs filed a timely appeal in which they advanced four primary arguments:

"Specifically, plaintiffs argue[d] that the trial justice erred by: (1) dismissing plaintiffs' claim for breach of contract; (2) dismissing plaintiffs' claim for violation of the Contract Clauses of the Rhode Island and United States Constitutions; (3) granting summary judgment in favor of the City on plaintiffs' claim that the 2011 Medicare Ordinance violated the Takings Clause of the Rhode Island and United States Constitutions; and (4) granting the City's motion for summary judgment regarding plaintiffs' claim for promissory estoppel." Id. at 1033.

Plaintiffs did not challenge this Court's ruling that "'the Medicare Ordinance amount[ed] to a substantial impairment of [their] contractual rights[.]'" Id. at 1035.

On appeal, the Supreme Court noted that the dismissal of Plaintiffs' claim for breach of contract rested on this Court's finding that the City intended the 2011 Medicare Ordinance to "preclude the availability of damages as a remedy for its breach," with the result that "there can be no breach of contract but instead a constitutional claim for impairment of the contract." Id. at 1034. "After carefully reviewing the trial justice's decision and the voluminous record," the Supreme Court concluded that

"two critical findings in the court's Contract Clause analysis [were] constructed upon the faulty premise that plaintiffs who have retired were in fact receiving supplemental medical benefits under the hybrid plan. The two findings are that (1) the City did not impair its contractual obligation to plaintiffs covered by CBAs or IAAs, and (2) the City presented sufficient credible evidence that no more moderate course was available to address the City's financial condition." Id. at 1038-39.

Conversely, the Supreme Court sustained this Court's findings that "the 2011 Medicare Ordinance was passed for a significant and legitimate public purpose, that the City did not consider the change to retirees' health care benefits on par with other policy alternatives, and that the change was reasonable under the circumstances." Id. at 1039. Opining that "little [is] to be gained by further litigation on the issue of health care benefits for these plaintiffs[, ]" the Supreme Court concluded that

"the controversy ought to be resolved by awarding the plaintiffs the same remedies for health care as provided in the 2011 lawsuit's settlement agreement approved in the 2013 Final and Consent Judgment. It is nothing more than what the City has agreed to provide for the opt-in retirees and indeed is contemplated in the 2011 Medicare Ordinance, which allows for the City's payment of 'Medicare supplement or gap coverage' when 'otherwise provided by ordinance or contract.' For the reasons set forth in this opinion, the judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed with respect to the plaintiffs' claims for breach of contract, violation of the Takings Clause of the Rhode Island and United States Constitutions, and promissory estoppel. The judgment of the Superior Court is vacated with respect to the plaintiffs' claim for violation of the Contract Clause. The case shall be remanded to the Superior Court with instructions to enter judgment consistent with the 'specific provisions pertaining to the Medicare Ordinance' as set forth in the Final and Consent Judgment entered in PC 11-5853 and PC 12-3590 on April 12, 2013." Id. at 1039-40.

Thereafter, the City began providing supplemental and prescription coverage for Medicare-eligible Plaintiffs as of October 1, 2020. See Pls.' Mem. 4; Def.'s Opp'n 1. The issue at bar is whether the City is obligated to reimburse Plaintiffs for the health care costs they incurred when the City was not providing them with that supplemental and prescription coverage.^[3]

II Standard of Review

The mandate rule "'provides that a lower court on remand must implement both the letter and spirit of the [Supreme Court's] mandate, and may not disregard the explicit directives of that [C]ourt.'" Hagopian v. Hagopian, 960 A.2d 250, 253 (R.I. 2008) (quoting RICO Corp. v. Town of...