Sobanski v. Providence Employees' Retirement Board, 2007-377-M.P.
| Decision Date | 21 October 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 2007-377-M.P.,2007-377-M.P. |
| Citation | 981 A.2d 1021 |
| Parties | Wladislaw SOBANSKI v. PROVIDENCE EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT BOARD and the City of Providence. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
This Court granted a petition for certiorari filed by the petitioner, Wladislaw Sobanski (Sobanski), seeking review of a decision of the Providence Employees' Retirement Board denying his application for an accidental disability pension. This case came before the Court at a session in conference pursuant to Article I, Rule 12A(3)(b) of the Supreme Court Rules of Appellate Procedure. At this time, we proceed to decide this appeal without further briefing and argument.
Sobanski served as a police officer for the city of Providence for twenty years. During his employment, Sobanski suffered multiple back injuries. As a consequence of the back injuries, Sobanski was unable to return to work, and he applied for an accidental-disability pension under § 17-189 of the Providence Code of Ordinances (code). Subsequently, three physicians examined Sobanski and determined that he was permanently disabled from resuming his duties as a police officer. The physicians opined that Sobanski's back injuries were both work related and the cause of his disability. On October 24, 2007, the board denied Sobanski's application for an accidental-disability pension but granted him an ordinary disability pension. Thereafter Sobanski retired with a service pension.
"When deciding a case on certiorari, our task is `to discern whether any legally competent evidence supports the lower tribunal's decision and whether the decision[-]maker committed any reversible errors of law in the matter under review.'" Pierce v. Providence Retirement Board, 962 A.2d 1292, 1292 (R.I.2009) (mem.) (quoting Pastore v. Samson, 900 A.2d 1067, 1073 (R.I.2006)). "This Court will affirm the board's decision if there is competent evidence to support it and if there are no errors of law in the findings and conclusions." Id.
The board argues before this Court that Sobanski did not qualify for an accidental disability pension because he cannot point to a specific accident that triggered his condition. The board contends that under the code an accidental disability pension is only appropriate when an employee's disability is the result of a specific accident. However, the board did not issue a written decision with findings and conclusions of law. Thus, as in Pierce, it is not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Prew v. Emp. Ret. Sys. of Providence
...by “any legally competent evidence” and whether reversible errors of law were made. Id. (quoting Sobanski v. Providence Employees' Retirement Board, 981 A.2d 1021, 1022 (R.I.2009) (mem.)). A decision of the board must be quashed if it is not supported by “competent facts” or if it contains ......
-
Castro v. Employees' Retirement System of Rhode Island
... ... the Board of the Employees' Retirement System of Rhode ... Island ("Board" or ... findings of fact); see also Sobanski v. Providence ... Employees' Retirement Bd. , 981 A.2d 1021 (R.I ... ...
-
Pierce v. Providence Ret. Bd..
...by a writ of certiorari. See, e.g., Supreme Court Rules of Appellate Procedure, Article I, Rule 13(a); Sobanski v. Providence Employees' Retirement Board, 981 A.2d 1021, 1021 (R.I.2009) (mem.); Scolardi v. City of Providence, 751 A.2d 754, 755–56 (R.I.2000). In so doing, “our task is ‘to di......
-
Castro v. Employees' Ret. Sys. of Rhode Island
...376 A.2d 682, 687 (1977) (noting judicial review impossible without agency's findings of fact); see also Sobanski v. Providence Employees' Retirement Bd., 981 A.2d 1021 (R.I. 2009) (vacating agency decision because review impossible absent findings of fact or conclusions of law). Similarly,......