Nicholas v. U.S. Dep't of Treasury
| Decision Date | 28 July 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 20-2088 (JEB) |
| Parties | ANNETTA H. NICHOLAS, Plaintiff, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Plaintiff Annetta H. Nicholas, a former District of Columbia Public Schools teacher, brings this action against the U.S. Department of Treasury and the District of Columbia Retirement Board seeking a reversal of their decisions regarding her retirement benefits. She is currently receiving a disability-retirement benefit effective from May 31, 2006, but instead desires a different and greater benefit effective from April 4, 2018. Each Defendant now moves for summary judgment, and the Court will grant those Motions.
The Court sets forth the statutory framework before turning to the factual and procedural background of Plaintiff's case.
DCPS employees are eligible to participate in the District of Columbia Teachers' Retirement Plan, for which the city and the Federal Government share financial responsibility. See Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-33, 111 Stat. 251, 715-31; D.C. Code § 1-701, et seq. While the District of Columbia Retirement Board (DCRB) administers the Plan and controls the Teachers' Retirement Fund, see D.C. Code § 1-711(a), the U.S. Department of Treasury funds Plan benefits based on service performed through June 30, 1997. See Alston v. Lew, 950 F. Supp. 2d 140, 141 (D.D.C. 2013); Miley v. Lew, 42 F. Supp. 3d 165, 167 (D.D.C. 2014).
The Plan provides for, inter alia, voluntary- and disability-retirement benefits, and it sets forth eligibility criteria for each. "Any teacher who completes 5 years of eligible service" and meets enumerated age and service requirements by the time of retirement is entitled to receive a voluntary-retirement benefit. See D.C. Code § 38-2021.03(a). Separately, "[a]ny teacher who completes 5 years of eligible service" is entitled to a disability-retirement benefit if she "acquires a physical or mental disability" "before becoming eligible for retirement" and is found "to be physically or mentally incapacitated for efficient service." Id. § 38-2021.04(a). Voluntary- and disability-retirement benefits are paid for the life of the beneficiary, but the latter can be terminated if the retiree recovers from a non-permanent disability, "is able to discharge [her] duties as a teacher" for DCPS, and is reappointed. Id. §§ 38-2021.03(b), (d)(3), 38-2021.04(b).
DCRB processes applications for Plan benefits, see 31 C.F.R. §§ 29.403, 29.404(a), and also reconsiders those initial benefit determinations. Id. § 29.404(b)-(d). Applicants claiming federal benefits for any service rendered through June 30, 1997, may appeal DCRB's reconsideration decision to Treasury's Office of D.C. Pensions (ODCP). Id. § 29.405(a); see also Miley, 42 F. Supp. 3d at 167. Finally, a party may then seek judicial review of both DCRB's and ODCP's decisions. See Rivera v. Lew, 99 A.3d 269, 274 (D.C. 2014); D.C. Code §§ 1-747(a)(1)(B), 1-815.01(a)(1), 1-815.02(a).
Separately, the District also provides temporary-total-disability (TTD) benefits — commonly known as workers' compensation — to employees who suffer job-related injuries andillnesses. See D.C. Code § 1-623.02b; ECF No. 23 (DCRB MSJ) at 4. Unlike the retirement payments at issue in this case, TTD benefits are not overseen by DCRB or drawn from the Plan. See D.C. Code § 1-623.42; DCRB MSJ at 4 n.3. Once granted, they can be modified when the "disabling condition" ceases or no longer prevents an employee's return to work, see D.C. Code § 1-623.24(d)(4)(A)-(B), and, in certain instances, when an employee retires. Cf. Baliles v. D.C. Dep't of Emp't Servs., 728 A.2d 661 (1999).
Moving to the particulars of this case, the Court draws the facts from the DCRB and ODCP administrative records. See ECF Nos. 31-1, 32-33, 33-1, 34, 34-1, 36-1 (DCRB AR); id. Nos. 35, 35-1 (ODCP AR). Nicholas began her tenure as a DCPS teacher in September 1982. See DCRB AR at 269; ODCP AR at 2. After suffering a physical injury in the classroom in 2001, she began receiving workers' compensation. See DCRB AR at 4; ODCP AR at 2, 74.
In March 2006, a physician performed a psychiatric evaluation and determined that Plaintiff "[would] not be able to return to the classroom" because of a "chronic, long-standing" mental illness. See DCRB AR at 59-60. He further found that the 2001 "work injury was not sufficient to have either caused or worsened her disorder." Id. at 60. Another physician then reviewed the psychiatrist's report and concluded that Plaintiff was "totally and permanently disabled from the job of a teacher in DC public schools." Id. at 299. These reports in tow, Plaintiff filed for retirement, asking for a disability benefit. Id. at 145-49. The District granted her application, effective May 31, 2006. Id. at 150-51; see also DCRB MSJ at 6. It then terminated her TTD benefits, and while the records are not particularly enlightening on the District's reason for doing so, this appears to be "because of her receipt of retirement compensation." DCRB AR at 288; see also id. at 17.
That termination sparked a multi-year conflict between Nicholas and DCPS, with Plaintiff seeking reinstatement of her TTD benefits (on top of the disability-retirement benefit that DCRB had granted). See DCRB AR at 14-20; ODCP AR at 73-75. She argued that the District had improperly terminated her workers' compensation, as she had yet to recover from her injuries incurred in the 2001 incident. See DCRB AR at 14-20. Ultimately, in February 2017, an administrative law judge agreed that the District should not have canceled her benefits. See DCRB AR at 285-90; ODCP AR at 72-77. The ALJ ordered the District to pay Plaintiff workers' compensation — reduced by the amount she had received in disability retirement — retroactive to May 2006 and ongoing into the future. See DCRB AR at 285-90; ODCP AR at 72-77. The District then reinstated Plaintiff's TTD benefits and, for reasons that are not fully clear from the records but are apparently tied to her receipt of workers' compensation, also terminated her disability-retirement benefit. See DCRB AR at 72.
In December 2017, another physician — Dr. Stanley Rothschild — performed an independent medical examination, which resulted in a written report based on his review of her medical records and a physical examination. See DCRB AR at 42-45; ODCP AR at 52-53. He determined that the injuries from the 2001 incident no longer imposed a barrier to her return to work. See DCRB AR at 42-45; ODCP AR at 52-53. He further acknowledged that a "psychiatrist [had] determined that she was mentally not fit to teach." DCRB AR at 43, 45 (); ODCP AR at 52-53. Because of these conclusions, the District notified Plaintiff in January 2018 that she was no longer eligible for workers' compensation. See DCRB AR at 4-5; ODCP AR at 52-53. It appears from the records that, in the period following that decision, Plaintiff was not receiving any benefits.
Lest that be the end of the parties' benefits dispute, Plaintiff then applied for voluntary retirement, which would be effective April 4, 2018, and thus would include 12 more years of service than the retirement benefits she had received starting in 2006. See DCRB AR at 162-65; ODCP AR at 49. Nicholas explains in briefing that she submitted her application following "a settlement agreement . . . which made her eligible for voluntary retirement." ECF No. 28 (Pl. Opp.) at 1.
After receiving her application, DCPS returned Plaintiff to "pay status" effective April 3, 2018. See DCRB AR at 156. (No party explains to the Court exactly what "pay status" means, but they agree that it does not reflect Plaintiff's return to the classroom.) The District then granted her voluntary-retirement benefits, effective April 4, 2018, and ordered her to pay back $370,534 that she had received in disability benefits following her previous retirement in 2006. See DCRB AR at 125, 132, 156-57; ODCP AR at 18-19, 45. Recouping that sum was necessary, according to the District, in order to avoid Plaintiff's receiving a double benefit for the 2006-18 period. See DCRB AR at 132.
After further review, however, DCRB determined that it had erred in finding Plaintiff eligible for voluntary retirement. See DCRB AR at 37-38; ODCP AR at 18-19. It issued a Correction Decision, canceling the voluntary benefit effective April 4, 2018, and reinstating her previously terminated disability benefit effective May 31, 2006. See DCRB AR at 37-38; ODCP AR at 18-19.
In that Correction Decision, the Board noted that Plaintiff had "retired under the Plan in 2006 based on a mental disability" — "not related to [her] 2001 work-related injury" — "that prevented [her] from satisfactorily performing [her] teaching duties." DCRB AR at 37; ODCP AR at 18. It explained that "[b]ecause [she had] retired under the Plan due to a disability thatprevented [her] from satisfactorily performing [her] teaching duties, [she was] not eligible for voluntary retirement." DCRB AR at 38; ODCP AR at 19. As there was "no record showing that [she had] recovered from [her] disability under which [she had] retired in 2006 or that [she had been] reinstated to [her] teaching job after [her] 2006 retirement," the Board found that it had "erroneously stopped her disability-retirement-benefit payments in 2017 and erroneously paid [her] voluntary retirement benefit payments [she was] not eligible to receive." DCRB AR at 38; ODCP AR at 19. DCRB thus reinstated her disability retirement and informed her that, because of this reclassification, she did not owe $370,534 after all. See DCRB AR at 37-38; ODCP AR at 18-19.
Plaintiff requested reconsideration of this determination and sought restoration of her voluntary-retirement benefits as well as a declaration that she would still not owe...
To continue reading
Request your trial