· 2/1/2022

Crandle v. Connecticut State Employees Retirement Commission

Citations

  • 342 Conn. 67

Syllabus

The plaintiffs, C and R, former state employees who are members of Tier II and Tier IIA, respectively, of the State Employees Retirement System (SERS), appealed to the trial court from the ruling of the defendant, the State Employees Retirement Commission. C's last day of paid state employment was in October, 2012, and R's last day of paid state employ- ment was in October, 2015. Thereafter, C and R each submitted an application for disability retirement benefits to the Retirement Services Division, which received R's application in March, 2016, and C's applica- tion in April, 2016. The Medical Examining Board for Disability Retire- ment granted the plaintiffs' applications, and payment of their benefits commenced on the first day of the month following the Retirement Services Division's receipt of their respective applications. Accordingly, R's benefits became payable on April 1, 2016, and C's benefits became payable on May 1, 2016. The plaintiffs subsequently filed with the com- mission a petition for a declaratory ruling, claiming that, under the State Employees Retirement Act (§ 5-152 et seq.), payment of disability retirement benefits commences on the day after an employee's last day of paid state employment. The commission rejected the plaintiffs' claim, concluding instead that disability retirement benefits are payable on the first day of the month after the Retirement Services Division receives the employee's application. The commission noted that, although the act is silent as to when disability retirement benefits become payable, the attorney general had issued an opinion in 1981, in which he concluded that, under Tier I of SERS, such benefits are not payable from the date of the employee's termination of employment. Moreover, the commission observed that it had implemented that interpretation of the act on a number of occasions since 1981 and that the legislature had not overruled that interpretation. In the plaintiffs' administrative appeal before the 68

Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Kahn; Ecker; Keller

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.