Scolardi v. City of Providence

• Decision Date: 19 May 2000
• Docket Number: No. 98-535-Appeal.,98-535-Appeal.
• Citation: 751 A.2d 754
• Parties: Joseph SCOLARDI et al. v. CITY OF PROVIDENCE et al.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

751 A.2d 754

Joseph SCOLARDI et al. v. CITY OF PROVIDENCE et al.

No. 98-535-Appeal.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

May 19, 2000.

Present WEISBERGER, C.J., and LEDERBERG, BOURCIER, FLANDERS, and GOLDBERG, JJ.

Lauren E. Jones, Providence, for plaintiff.

Richard G. Riendeau, Providence, for defendant.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

This case came before the Court on April 5, 2000, on the appeal of the plaintiff, Joseph Scolardi (plaintiff or Scolardi), from a Superior Court judgment in favor of the defendants, the City of Providence, Charles Mansolillo (Mansolillo) in his capacity as Providence city solicitor, Stephen T. Napolitano (Napolitano) in his capacity as Providence city treasurer, and Joseph Chiodo (Chiodo) in his capacity as Providence city controller (collectively defendants). We directed the parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided. After hearing the arguments of counsel and examining the memoranda submitted by the parties, we are of the opinion that cause has not been shown. Therefore, we shall decide the case at this time.

Facts and Procedural History

On November 25, 1997, the Retirement Board of the Employees' Retirement System of the City of Providence (the board) approved an accidental disability retirement pension for Scolardi basedupon a health condition that Scolardi claimed was caused during his employment as a firefighter for the city. However, the next day, Mansolillo drafted a letter to Chiodo in which he wrote,

"Upon review of Mr. Scolardi's retirement application and medical examinations pertaining thereto, and the board records, it is clear that the current evidence does not support the decision of the Board. Therefore, I am compelled to inform you that you are proscribed by Section 813(b)(4) of the Providence Home Rule Charter from approving any payment to Mr. Scolardi pursuant to the action of the Retirement Board."

Accordingly, no payments pursuant to the board's decision were made to Scolardi.

On December 24, 1997, Scolardi filed a complaint with the Superior Court¹ in which he argued that the city had exceeded its authority by failing to implement the decision of the board. He sought declaratory and injunctive relief and a writ of mandamus requiring the city to immediately begin paying to Scolardi the benefits that had been approved by the board. On May 14, 1998, a justice of the Superior Court made a bench decision in which he held that Scolardi's condition was "accidental" pursuant to a presumption created by a city ordinance. Thereafter, it was brought to the trial justice's attention that the ordinance had been amended and the presumption upon which he relied had been repealed. The trial justice thereupon reversed his decision of May 14, finding that Scolardi had not proven that his injuries were the accidental result of his employment as a firefighter for the City of Providence. Scolardi has appealed.

Discussion

Before this Court, Scolardi argued that neither the city solicitor nor the city controller has the power to review decisions of the board; the proper avenue for review of such decisions, he argued, is by way of a petition for certiorari pursuant to Rule 13 of the Supreme Court Rules of Appellate Procedure. In response, defendants argued that the controller's review of retirement benefit awards provides the city with a system of checks and balances that acts to prevent illegal payments, and is authorized under section 813(b)(4) of the Providence Home Rule Charter, whereby the city controller is empowered "[t]o audit before payment of all bills, invoices, payroll and other claims, demands or charges against the city, and approve the same only if proper, legal and correct."

In a similar case, Depault v. Paine, 526 A.2d...