Cioch v. Treasurer of Ludlow

• Decision Date: 10 August 2007
• Docket Number: SJC-09838.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
• Parties: Joanne CIOCH v. TREASURER OF LUDLOW & others.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>

871 N.E.2d 469

449 Mass. 690

Joanne CIOCH v. TREASURER OF LUDLOW & others.¹

SJC-09838.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Hampden.

Argued April 6, 2007.

Decided August 10, 2007.

Sandra C. Quinn, Boston, for the plaintiff.

Michael K. Callan, Springfield (David J. Martel, with him) for the defendants.

Patrick Neil Bryant, Boston, for Boston Police Patrolmen's Association, Inc., IUPA, AFL-CIO, amicus curiae, submitted a brief.

Present: MARSHALL, C.J., GREANEY, IRELAND, SPINA, COWIN, & CORDY, JJ.

MARSHALL, C.J.

This appeal brings us to the intersection of the statutory health insurance system for retired municipal employees² and municipal fiscal considerations.³ We are asked to consider whether G.L. c. 32B precludes a municipality from barring initial enrollment of an employee into its municipal health insurance plans after she has retired.⁴ We conclude that because the broad authority afforded to a municipality does not require it to enroll retirees who were not plan participants on retirement, a municipality may follow a policy precluding participation by retirees who, although eligible for "contributory insurance"⁵ on retirement, were not enrolled in one of the municipality's health insurance plans at that time.⁶

1. Background. After some twenty-two years as a Ludlow public school teacher, the plaintiff, Joanne Cioch, retired in June, 1994, at the age of fifty-five years. See G.L. c. 32, § 5. The record suggests that, at that time, Cioch "elected to continue her life insurance on retirement."⁷ With respect to health insurance, however, she did not enroll in the town's public employee group insurance plan. Rather, during her tenure as an active public employee and on her retirement Cioch was enrolled in her husband's health insurance plan. When Cioch's husband retired in 1997—about three years after her own retirement—the couple was no longer eligible for his employer's insurance program, and they purchased private health insurance.

After reading an article in a newsletter for retired persons,⁸ in October, 1999, Cioch inquired of the town treasurer whether she "could be enrolled in a Town health insurance plan." She received no response either to that query or to subsequent inquiries and, in December, 1999, requested and received enrollment forms for the town's retiree group health insurance program, specifically for the health maintenance organization, Health New England. On the form she submitted to the town, Cioch requested individual enrollment and indicated that "[i]f, in the future, spouses are allowed to join," her husband would elect coverage. She also indicated that neither she nor her husband was enrolled in Medicare.⁹ When Cioch learned in April, 2000, that the town had not acted on her application, she persisted in her enrollment efforts through the summer of 2000.

There is no dispute that Cioch made no preretirement inquiry concerning postretirement health insurance eligibility, or that she was not affirmatively told that, if she was not enrolled in the town's health insurance program on retirement, she would be eligible or ineligible to enroll thereafter. Nothing in the record indicates, however, that Cioch believed she was entitled to postretirement enrollment at any time before reading a publication of an entity not connected to the town some years after both she and her husband had retired; to the contrary, the couple had purchased private health insurance after her husband retired.¹⁰,¹¹ While the town appears to have had no written policy concerning postretirement enrollment at the time Cioch retired, there is no suggestion that it permitted such enrollments, or that its employees understood that it would do so.

By October 12, 1999, before Cioch either made any inquiries concerning, or submitted, her group health insurance application, the town's board of selectmen (board) formalized a written "Policy on Health Insurance,"¹² generally communicating that enrollment in the town's group health insurance program on retirement was a predicate to coverage during retirement.¹³ The policy provides, in pertinent part:

"Eligibility. Regular employees of the Town (whether employed, appointed or elected) whose normal workweek is twenty (20) or more hours per week are eligible for health insurance benefits provided by the Town.

"Enrollment. Enrollment in the health insurance plans offered by the Town is limited to eligible employees, the legal spouse, and their dependent unmarried children. . . .

"Retirees. Any employee retired by the Town under the current pension plan or who receives retirement income as a result of their employment with the Town shall be eligible to enroll in the Blue Cross/Blue Shield Blue Care 65 Plan, Blue Cross Blue Shield Medex Plan or Health New England MedWrap Plan upon attaining age 65, if they are eligible for Medicare. If a retiree is not eligible for Medicare, the employee will continue on the plan they were last enrolled in with the Town. The Town will pay 50% of the premium for the plan and the retiree will pay 50% of the premium."¹⁴

On October 1, 2001, Cioch filed a complaint against the town, as well as its treasurer, the board, and the board's chairman; she filed an amended complaint on July 17, 2004. She sought a declaration that the defendants had violated the "state public employee retirement law, in particular G.L. c. 32B, §§ 9 & 16, by [their] refusal to enroll [Cioch] in the Town's retiree group health insurance program," an order requiring that she be enrolled in the plan of her choice, and damages, as well as costs and attorney's fees pursuant to G.L. c. 231, § 6F.

After various preliminary proceedings, the Superior Court judge considered Cioch's motion for entry of judgment, and the defendants' request for findings of fact and rulings of law, on stipulated facts and exhibits. Treating the motion as one for summary judgment, he denied Cioch's motion, and entered judgment for the defendants, concluding that the town's regulations were properly adopted and that when Cioch first applied for enrollment in the town's health insurance programs in December 1999, she was ineligible under the terms of the town policy.¹⁵ Cioch filed a timely notice of appeal, and we transferred the appeal to this court on our own motion.¹⁶

2. Discussion. Where the Superior Court judge has decided the case on stipulated facts and agreed exhibits, all questions of law and fact are open to our decision on review. See American Lithuanian Naturalization Club, Athol, Mass., Inc. v. Board of Health of Athol, 446 Mass. 310, 322, 844 N.E.2d 231 (2006). Under the Home Rule Amendment, art. 89 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution, the Commonwealth's various municipalities may undertake certain health insurance obligations to their employees. G.L. c. 32B. See Yeretsky v. Attleboro, 424 Mass. 315, 316, 676 N.E.2d 1118 (1997). The town has voted to accept that responsibility and, among other provisions, has accepted G.L. c. 32B, § 16, thereby requiring it to "enter into a contract . . . to make available the services of a health care organization to certain eligible and retired employees and dependents ... of such active and retired employees, on a voluntary and optional basis, as it deems to be in the best interest of the governmental unit and such eligible persons. . . ." Id. See Ludlow Educ. Ass'n v. Ludlow, 31 Mass.App.Ct. 110, 113 n. 5, 644 N.E.2d 227 (1991). The town offers several group insurance plans for active and retired municipal employees, including teachers. The parties do not dispute that a town may regulate participation in such a plan, provided such regulations are both reasonable and properly adopted. See McDonald v. Town Manager of Southbridge, 423 Mass. 1018, 672 N.E.2d 10 (1996). The question here is whether a town may, consistent with its obligations under G.L. c. 32B, adopt a policy or regulation precluding postretirement enrollment of retirees in such a health insurance plan who were not enrolled in the plan on retirement.

The decision in McDonald v. Town Manager of Southbridge, 39 Mass.App.Ct. 479, 657 N.E.2d 1285 (1995), S.C., 423 Mass. 1018, 672 N.E.2d 10 (1996), provides a starting point for our analysis. There, the issue was whether a statute, G.L. c. 32B, § 9 (municipal obligations with respect to group indemnity health insurance programs), precludes a retired municipal employee from enrolling, postretirement, in a municipal indemnity group health insurance plan.¹⁷ The Appeals Court concluded that, "at least until the town issues regulations to the contrary, § 9 does not require participation by the employee at the time of retirement to obtain coverage thereafter." Id. at 483, 657 N.E.2d 1285. On further review, we clarified "that a municipality may adopt reasonable regulations, see G.L. c. 32B, § 14 (1994 ed.), as has been done under G.L. c. 32A, § 3 (1994 ed.), concerning participation in a municipality's program under G.L. c. 32B (1994 ed.) by a retiree who was not a participant in such a program at the time of retirement."¹⁸ McDonald v. Town Manager of Southbridge, 423 Mass. 1018, 1018, 672 N.E.2d 10 (1996).

Given that G.L. c. 32B establishes a sparse framework for provision of public employee insurance, there is nothing unreasonable about the town's defining eligibility for that insurance, or conditioning eligibility on preretirement or at retirement participation. When construing statutes such as c. 32B, we "attempt to ascertain and carry out the intent of the Legislature. Baker Transp., Inc. v. State Tax Comm'n, 371 Mass. 872, 877 n. 11, 360 N.E.2d 860 (1977). To that end we examine the whole statute with attention to the language used, the evil to be remedied, and the object to be accomplished by enactment." Hayon v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. of New England, 375 Mass. 644, 648, 378 N.E.2d 442 (1978). See Yeretsky v. Attleboro, supra at 319, 676 N.E.2d 1118. In enacting G.L. c. 32B, the Legislature generally intended to "en...