Daniels v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd.
| Decision Date | 06 October 1994 |
| Citation | 640 N.E.2d 467,418 Mass. 721 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | Patricia DANIELS v. CONTRIBUTORY RETIREMENT APPEAL BOARD & others. 1 |
Nancy M. McLean, Boston, for plaintiff.
Robert J. Munnelly, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd. & another.
Thomas F. Gibson, Cambridge, for Middlesex County retirement board.
Before LIACOS, C.J., and WILKINS, ABRAMS, NOLAN and LYNCH, JJ.
The sole issue is whether the Superior Court judge correctly dismissed the plaintiff's request for judicial review under G.L. c. 30A, § 14 (1992 ed.), for failure to exhaust her administrative remedies. The plaintiff appealed. We transferred the case to this court on our own motion. There was no error.
The town of Weston employed the plaintiff as a bus driver for approximately seven months. She ceased working because of a claimed disability involving pain in her back and neck. She applied to the Middlesex County retirement board (MCRB) for accidental disability retirement benefits. A medical panel found her to be physically incapacitated but it found that her employment with the town did not cause her incapacity, as required by G.L. c. 32, § 7(1) (1992 ed.) (injury must be sustained "as a result of, and while in the performance of" duties).
After the plaintiff appealed, the Contributory Retirement Appeal Board (CRAB) assigned her case to the Division of Administrative Law Appeals for a hearing before an administrative magistrate who affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's application by the MCRB. It was at this juncture that error occurred. Instead of filing a written objection to the magistrate's decision which would have triggered a review by CRAB, the plaintiff filed in the Superior Court this action for review under G.L. c. 30A, § 14. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Mass.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), 365 Mass. 754 (1974), urging as the ground the plaintiff's failure to exhaust her administrative remedies. The motion was correctly allowed.
The statute is clear in requiring the filing of a written objection to the decision of the magistrate with CRAB which "shall then pass upon the appeal within six months after the conclusion." G.L. c. 32, § 16(4) (1992 ed.). There is no statutory directive which takes this case out of the rule that administrative remedies should be exhausted before resort to the courts. Wilczewski v. Commissioner of the Dep't of Envtl....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ryan v. Holie Donut, Inc.
...Bagley v. Moxley, 407 Mass. 633, 637–638, 555 N.E.2d 229 (1990) (application of issue preclusion); Daniels v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd., 418 Mass. 721, 722, 640 N.E.2d 467 (1994) (failure to exhaust administrative remedies); Babco Indus., Inc. v. New England Merchants Natl. Bank, 6......
-
State Room, Inc. v. Ma-60 State Assocs., L.L.C.
...of limitations); Bagley v. Moxley, 407 Mass. 633, 637–638, 555 N.E.2d 229 (1990) (issue preclusion); Daniels v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd., 418 Mass. 721, 722, 640 N.E.2d 467 (1994) (failure to exhaust administrative remedies). 2. Reviewability of appraisal. By common-law rule in Ma......
-
Aguoji v. Harvard Univ.
...rule 12(b)(6) dismissal. See, e.g., Bagley v. Moxley, 407 Mass. 633, 637-638 (1990) (issue preclusion); Daniels v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd., 418 Mass. 721, 722 (1994) (failure to exhaust administrative remedies); Babco Indus. v. New England Merchs. Natl. Bank, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 929......
-
TH Claims, LLCv. Town of Hingham
...of limitations); Bagley v. Moxley, 407 Mass. 633, 637 (1990) (claim preclusion); Daniels v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board, 418 Mass. 721, 722 (1994) (failure to exhaust administrative remedies); Babco Indus. Inc. v. New England Merchants Natl. Bank, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 929, 929 (1978) (......