Moran v. Vt. State Ret. Bd.
| Decision Date | 11 September 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 14–108.,14–108. |
| Citation | 131 A.3d 212 |
| Parties | Roxanne MORAN v. VERMONT STATE RETIREMENT BOARD and Vermont State Treasurer. |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
Steven P. Robinson of Diamond & Robinson, P.C., Montpelier, for Plaintiff–Appellant.
William H. Sorrell, Attorney General, and Jacob A. Humbert, Assistant Attorney General, Montpelier, for Defendants–Appellees.
Present: REIBER, C.J., DOOLEY, SKOGLUND, ROBINSON and EATON, JJ.
REIBER
, C.J.
¶ 1. Claimant appeals from the Superior Court, Washington Unit, Civil Division's dismissal of her complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Claimant, a former employee of the Vermont State Hospital, separated from state service and applied for ordinary disability-retirement benefits in November of 2011. The Medical Review Board denied benefits, and claimant requested an evidentiary hearing pursuant to 3 V.S.A. § 461a
, after which benefits were again denied. Claimant then pursued an appeal to the superior court under Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 75, seeking relief in the form of an award for disability retirement benefits or a remand to the Board. The court dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction, and claimant appealed. We affirm.
¶ 2. On appeal, claimant argues that because the superior court had jurisdiction over the appeal the Rule 75
action should not have been dismissed. In the alternative, claimant argues that, even if the superior court did not have jurisdiction to review the Board's decision, her timely filed Rule 75 complaint is sufficient to preserve our jurisdiction under Vermont Rules of Appellate Procedure 3 and 4. In addition to its brief directly responding to claimant's arguments on appeal, the State has also filed a motion to dismiss a portion of the appeal as untimely. We consider that motion with the merits of the case.
makes judicial review available for actions by state agencies that are not reviewable under Civil Rule 74 or the Vermont Rules for Environmental Court Proceedings "if such review is otherwise available by law." V.R.C.P. 75(a). In granting the State's motion to dismiss, the superior court determined that proceedings under 3 V.S.A. § 461a are "contested cases" within the meaning of the Vermont Administrative Procedure Act (VAPA), 3 V.S.A. §§ 800 –849. Further, under VAPA, this Court is the proper forum for an appeal from a final decision in any contested case, "unless some other court is expressly provided by law." Id. § 815(a). The cases that claimant cited in support of her position did not persuade the superior court because they were either decided before the passage of § 461a or involved the retirement system administered by the City of Burlington as opposed to a state retirement system. Our review of the superior court's conclusions of law "is nondeferential and plenary." Hamilton v. Town of Holland, 2007 VT 133, ¶ 9, 183 Vt. 247, 950 A.2d 1183.
enables a state disability-retirement applicant, such as claimant, to request an evidentiary hearing if the application is denied. 3 V.S.A. § 461a(a). The statute provides that such hearings "shall be conducted by a hearing officer designated by the board and in conformance with rules adopted by the board." Id. § 461a(b). The rules adopted by the state retirement board "shall be consistent with [3 V.S.A. § 809 ]." Id. "The decision of the hearing officer shall constitute final administrative action." Id. § 461a(c). Reading these provisions together with VAPA reveals the Legislature's intent that someone in claimant's position should appeal directly to the Supreme Court from the state retirement board.
¶ 5. The state retirement board established under 3 V.S.A. § 471
is an "agency" within the meaning of VAPA.
3 V.S.A. § 801(b)(1)
(). This case is a "contested case" within the meaning of VAPA because the retirement board is required to give claimant a hearing to determine whether claimant has a right to disability retirement benefits. Id. § 801(b)(2) (). This classification is reinforced by the language in § 461a(b) expressly cross-referencing VAPA's rules for contested hearings, see id. § 809, as well as by the provision that these contested hearings "shall constitute final administrative action." Id. § 461a(c). VAPA provides, "A person who has exhausted all administrative remedies available within the agency and who is aggrieved by a final decision in any contested case may appeal that decision to the supreme court, unless some other court is expressly provided by law." 3 V.S.A. § 815(a). Because this is a contested case, § 815(a) directs that an appeal is brought to this Court.
statutorily mandate the appellate process for these contested cases, superior court review under Rule 75 is inappropriate. "Relief under Rule 75... is not available when the legislature has established a direct route of appeal." Bd. of Trs. of Kellogg–Hubbard Library, Inc. v. Labor Relations Bd., 162 Vt. 571, 577, 649 A.2d 784, 788 (1994).
¶ 7. Claimant cites Preston v. Burlington City Retirement System to support the proposition that § 461a
allows the superior court to hear appeals under Rule 75. 2013 VT 56, 194 Vt. 147, 76 A.3d 615. Our conclusion in Preston —that superior court jurisdiction under Rule 75 is available for a member of the Burlington Employees' Retirement System, id. ¶ 20—does not control in an appeal from a decision by the state retirement board in a contested case.
¶ 8. Preston involved the City of Burlington's retirement system, which was established under city ordinances rather than state statute. Compare City of Burlington Code of Ordinances §§ 24–14 to 24–42 (2014) [hereinafter Burlington Ordinances], http://www.codepublishing.com/VT/Burlington (establishing Burlington Employees' Retirement System), with 3 V.S.A. §§ 455
–495 (establishing Vermont State Retirement System), 16 V.S.A. §§ 1931 –1953 (establishing State Teachers' Retirement System of Vermont), and 24 V.S.A. §§ 5051 –5070 (establishing Vermont Municipal Employees' Retirement System). The city retirement board is not an "agency" for purposes of VAPA, which includes only state entities within its definition. 3 V.S.A. § 801(b)(1). Neither the city ordinances nor VAPA suggest that VAPA governs judicial review of a decision by the city retirement board.
¶ 9. Although we previously cited 3 V.S.A. § 461a
in Preston and concluded that superior court jurisdiction under Rule 75 was appropriate in that case, 2013 VT 56, ¶ 20, 194 Vt. 147, 76 A.3d 615 the outcome here is not inconsistent. We cited § 461a in Preston to support only the proposition that judicial review of a retirement board decision was available. See Preston, 2013 VT 56, ¶ 19, 194 Vt. 147, 76 A.3d 615 (). We did not cite § 461a to reach the more specific conclusion that Rule 75 provides the superior court with jurisdiction to review a decision from a state retirement board hearing.
¶ 10. Moreover, the Vermont cases we cited in Preston do not control here because those cases were all decided prior to the enactment of 3 V.S.A. § 461a
and, therefore, did not involve contested cases. See Preston, 2013 VT 56, ¶ 15, 194 Vt. 147, 76 A.3d 615 (). Prior to the enactment of § 461a, and like the city ordinance at issue in Preston, the Vermont State Retirement System statutes did 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 statute makes no provision for a hearing upon any issue or determination which might arise under its terms."). Compare 3 V.S.A. § 460 (1995), and 3 V.S.A. § 460 (Cum.Supp.2002), with Burlington Ordinances § 24–23.
¶ 11. Extraordinary relief through Rule 75
was appropriate in the pre-§ 461a cases because "a public employee's entitlement to disability retirement is a constitutionally protected property interest requiring minimal due process protections in the form of notice and an opportunity to respond." Preston, 2013 VT 56, ¶ 16, 194 Vt. 147, 76 A.3d 615 (quotation omitted). Without Rule 75, public retirement-system members in municipal systems, like the one at issue in Preston and in the pre-§ 461a state retirement system, had no way to contest their cases or seek judicial review of adverse decisions. It does not make sense for Rule 75 review to be available in this case because the current statutory scheme provides a sound procedure for contesting cases that affords notice, hearing, and judicial appellate review.
¶ 12. Superior court review under Rule 75
is appropriate "[w]hen legislation is silent on the mode of review," id. ¶ 13, but the legislation is not silent in this case.* Section 461a makes these proceedings contested cases under VAPA and, therefore, subject to VAPA's appeal provision. In doing so, and by establishing an ordinary channel for appeals under 3 V.S.A. § 815, the Legislature has eliminated not only the need for review under Rule 75, but also its availability in these cases. The superior court correctly recognized that under § 461a and VAPA the proper avenue for an appeal from a state retirement board decision is an appeal directly to this Court. We therefore affirm the superior court's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
¶ 13. Claimant argues in the alternative that,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chandler v. State
...Rule 75 is appropriate only “when legislation is silent on the mode of review.” Moran v. Vt. State Ret. Bd., 2015 VT 119, ¶ 12, 200 Vt. 354, 131 A.3d 212 (alteration and citation omitted). Here, the Legislature has spoken clearly in crafting a mechanism under § 7131 for individuals to colla......