Fitzpatrick v. Vermont State Retirement System, 50-78
| Decision Date | 31 October 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 50-78,50-78 |
| Citation | 136 Vt. 510,394 A.2d 1138 |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
| Parties | Raymond S. FITZPATRICK v. VERMONT STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Vermont State Treasurer, and State of Vermont. |
Raymond S. Fitzpatrick, pro se.
M. Jerome Diamond, Atty. Gen., and Louis P. Peck, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Montpelier, for defendants.
Before BARNEY, C. J., and DALEY, LARROW, BILLINGS and HILL, JJ.
The controlling question before us is the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain an attempted direct appeal by the plaintiff from a decision of the Vermont State Retirement Board, denying his request to add credit to his retirement account. The issue was raised in a motion to dismiss the appeal filed by the state.
The plaintiff concedes that there is no express statutory authority for an appeal to this Court from the actions of the Retirement Board, but contends that his right to appeal derives from 3 V.S.A. § 815. That provision of the Administrative Procedure Act permits a person who has exhausted all administrative remedies and is aggrieved by a final decision in any contested case to appeal that decision to this Court, unless some other court is expressly provided for by law. A "contested case," within the meaning of the statute, is a proceeding "in which the legal rights, duties, or privileges of a party are required by law to be determined by an agency after an opportunity for hearing." 3 V.S.A. § 801(2).
The general administration and responsibility for the operation of the retirement system is vested in the Retirement Board. 3 V.S.A. § 471(a). The statute makes no provision for a hearing upon any issue or determination which might arise under its terms. This means that the proceeding is not a contested case within the definition in 3 V.S.A. §§ 801-816, and is not appealable under V.R.C.P. 74.
In such a circumstance V.R.C.P. 75 must be considered. In order to ascertain its application, it must first be determined under statutory authority whether review of the agency action can be had. Byrd v. Kehoe,136 Vt. ---, 388 A.2d 834, 835 (1978). Nothing in the applicable retirement system laws bars such review. However, V.R.C.P. 75 contemplates a proceeding in superior court, followed by appeal to this tribunal. Byrd v. Kehoe,supra, 136 Vt. at ---, 388 A.2d at 835.
Where no direct appellate jurisdiction exists, this Court's power of review is restricted to questions brought before it by procedural means such as V.R.A.P. 21 and related...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moran v. Vt. State Ret. Bd.
...not expressly provide retirement-benefit claimants with notice or the opportunity to have a hearing. See Fitzpatrick v. Vt. State Ret. Sys., 136 Vt. 510, 511, 394 A.2d 1138, 1139 (1978) ("The [state retirement system] statute makes no provision for a hearing upon any issue or determination ......
-
Barringer v. Griffes
...required and therefore no right of judicial review of Department of Public Safety employee grievances); Fitzpatrick v. Vermont State Retirement Sys., 136 Vt. 510, 394 A.2d 1138 (1978) (no hearing required and therefore no right of review of administrative decision not to credit retirement T......
-
Preston v. Burlington City Ret. Sys.
...of State Retirement Board decision requiring social-security offset of disability-retirement payments); Fitzpatrick v. Vt. State Ret. Sys., 136 Vt. 510, 511, 394 A.2d 1138, 1139 (1978) (holding that plaintiff's appeal route from State Retirement Board decision was to superior court under Ru......
-
Vincent v. Vermont State Retirement Bd.
...does not foreclose judicial review of the Retirement Board's decisions. 2 Defendant attempts to distinguish Fitzpatrick v. State Retirement System, 136 Vt. 510, 394 A.2d 1138 (1978), by asserting that the jurisdiction issue was neither properly presented nor briefed in that case. This, howe......