State, ex rel. Manders v. Board of Trustees of Police and Firemen's Disability and Pension Fund
Decision Date | 25 November 1981 |
Docket Number | Nos. 81-644,81-645,s. 81-644 |
Citation | 22 O.O.3d 275,428 N.E.2d 151,68 Ohio St.2d 79 |
Parties | , 22 O.O.3d 275 (The STATE, ex rel.) MANDERS, Appellee, v. BD. OF TRUSTEES OF the POLICE AND FIREMEN'S DISABILITY AND PENSION FUND, Appellant. The STATE, ex rel. O'NEILL, Appellee, v. BD. OF TRUSTEES OF the POLICE AND FIREMEN'S DISABILITY AND PENSION FUND, Appellant. |
Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Clayman & Jaffy Co., L.P.A., and Walter Kaufman, Columbus, for appellee Manders.
Boggins, Centrone & Bixler and Lemuel R. Green, Canton, for appellee O'Neill.
William J. Brown, Atty. Gen., and Thomas W. Hess, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
The sole issue before the court is whether appellant is required to consider an application for permanent and total disability benefits filed by an individual who is receiving partial disability benefits from the fund.
Appellant contends that because R.C. 742.37 provides no procedure for changing an award of partial disability benefits to one for permanent and total disability benefits, it lacks authority to consider appellees' applications. In support, it relies on the general rule that a statutorily created board may not exceed the powers granted to it by statute. See, e. g., Consumers' Counsel v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1981), 67 Ohio St.2d 153, 423 N.E.2d 820; Cooke v. Kinney (1981), 65 Ohio St.2d 7, 417 N.E.2d 106.
R.C. 742.37(C)(2) provides in part: "A member of the fund who is permanently and totally disabled as the result of the performance of his official duties * * * shall be paid annual disability benefits * * *." (Emphasis added.)
R.C. 742.01(E) defines "(m)ember of the fund" as " * * * any person who is contributing a percentage of his annual salary to the police and firemen's disability and pension fund created under section 742.02 of the Revised Code or who is receiving a disability benefit or pension from such fund as a result of service in a police or fire department of a municipal corporation or township * * *." (Emphasis added.)
Thus, appellees are members of the fund within the purview of R.C. Chapter 742. The provisions of R.C. 742.37(C)(2) are mandatory and require that the board pay permanent and total disability benefits when "(a) member of the fund * * * is permanently and totally disabled as a result of the performance of his official duties." Under these provisions, appellant has a clear legal duty to consider appellees' applications.
For the foregoing reason, the judgments of the Court of Appeals are affirmed....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Richard v. Bd. of Trustees of Police & Firemen's Disability & Pension Fund
...disability benefits based upon a deterioration of their conditions. State ex rel. Manders v. Bd. of Trustees of Police & Firemen's Disability & Pension Fund (1981), 68 Ohio St.2d 79, 22 O.O.3d 275, 428 N.E.2d 151; see, also, Dumas v. Bd. of Trustees of Police & Firemen's Disability & Pensio......
-
State ex rel. John E. Richard v. the Board of Trustees of the Police and Firemen's Disability and Pension Fund,
... ... the Supreme Court of Ohio expressed that right to be in the ... statute in the case of State ex rel ... Manders-O'Neill v. Bd. of Trustees (1981), ... 68 Ohio St.2d 79. After the General Assembly enacted the ... amendment to R.C. 742.37(C), the ... ...
-
State ex rel. Dumas v. Bd. of Trustees of Police and Firemen's Disability and Pension Fund
...the fund" entitled to seek an increased disability award. This argument was addressed and rejected in State ex rel. Manders v. Bd. of Trustees (1981), 68 Ohio St.2d 79, 428 N.E.2d 151 . In that case, retired members of the fund sought a reconsideration of their partial disability awards cla......
-
Foster v. Ohio Police & Fire Pension Fund, 2008 Ohio 5497 (Ohio App. 10/23/2008)
...from partial to permanent total disability, the legislature responded by blocking such conversion. See State ex rel. Manders v. Bd. of Trustees (1981), 68 Ohio St.2d 79, and State ex rel. Richard v. Bd. of Trustees (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 409, respectfully. {¶9} The facts which are actually m......