Price v. State of Delaware, Board of Pension Trustees / Warren v. State of Delaware, Board of Pension Trustees.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR KENT COUNTY BRIAN K. PRICE, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, BOARD OF TRUSTEES, Appellee. WAYNE H. WARREN, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, BOARD OF TRUSTEES, Appellee. : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : C.A. No: 08A-11-007 (RBY) C.A. No: 08A-11-008 (WLW) Submitted: December 7, 2009 Decided: March 22, 2010 Upon Consideration of Appellant s Appeal of the Decision of the Board of Pension Trustees AFFIRMED OPINION AND ORDER Young, J. Roy S. Sheils, Esq., Brown, Sheils & O Brien, LLC, Dover, Delaware for Appellant. Cynthia Collins, Esq., and Thomas H. Ellis, Esq., Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware for Appellee. Price v. State of Delaware, Board of Pension Trustees C.A. No: 08A-11-007 (RBY) Warden v. State of Delaware, Board of Pension Trustees C.A. No. 08A-11-008 (WLW) March 22, 2010 SUMMARY Appellants Brian K. Price ( Price ) and Wayne H. Warren ( Warren ) appeal a decision of the Board of Pension Trustees of the State of Delaware (the Board ). The Board concluded that Appellants individual letters to the State Pension Office (the SPO ) constituted applications for disability pensions within the contemplation of 11 Del. C. § 8376(a), rather than adjustments under 11 Del. C. § 8328(a). Because the Board s interpretation of these statutory sections comports with the language of the statute, the decision of the Board is AFFIRMED. FACTS The appeals of Price and Warren have been consolidated for decision, as they both seek determination of the same legal issue. The individual facts of each case are not in dispute, and will be addressed seriatim. Brian K. Price Price was employed as a Delaware State Trooper with the Delaware State Police ( DSP ) from September 3, 1985 until his retirement on April 7, 2006. At the time of his retirement, Price was receiving Workers Compensation benefits as a result of his service at the Delaware State Police Firing Range ( Firing Range ). Despite his qualifying injury, Price decided to apply for a service pension rather than a disability pension. He chose the service pension option because it provided for more expeditious and assured income replacement. Price s service pension was approved by the SPO with an effective date of April 7, 2006. 3 Price v. State of Delaware, Board of Pension Trustees C.A. No: 08A-11-007 (RBY) Warden v. State of Delaware, Board of Pension Trustees C.A. No. 08A-11-008 (WLW) March 22, 2010 On August 7, 2007, Price submitted a letter to the SPO requesting a modification to his service pension. In fact, Price sought a conversion of his service pension to a full disability pension. Price appears to have based his request, at least in part, on the experience of his supervisor at the Firing Range, Christopher Foraker ( Foraker ). On March 27, 2007, Foraker began receiving total dutyconnected disability payments for the same disability from which Price suffered. Both men s disabilities arose from their employment at the firing range. Price s August 7, 2007 letter specifically stated that [he] should be entitled to the same level of pension (disability at 75%) as was rendered to Mr. Foraker [in March of 2007]. Upon receipt of Price s August 7, 2007 request, the SPO did not ask Price to complete an application form for a disability pension. Instead, in an effort to expedite his request, the SPO had Price submit the required Eligibility Form to begin the process of evaluating Price s application for a duty-connected disability pension. Price submitted the Eligibility Form on September 6, 2007. On October 14, 2007, the SPO granted Price a partial disability pension with an effective date of June 1, 2007. The SPO fixed that effective date on the basis that 11 Del. C. § 8376(a) required that result. Price immediately appealed the partial disability determination, and requested a reconsideration of the SPO s award. At the SPO s behest, Price underwent an evaluation by a vocational expert. The expert s task was to investigate the extent of Price s disability. On January 23, 2008, Price s evaluation was completed. The vocational expert concluded that Price was, because 4 Price v. State of Delaware, Board of Pension Trustees C.A. No: 08A-11-007 (RBY) Warden v. State of Delaware, Board of Pension Trustees C.A. No. 08A-11-008 (WLW) March 22, 2010 of duty-connected events, totally disabled from working in any occupation for which he was reasonably suited by training or experience. On February 14, 2008, after a review of the vocational expert s report by the Medical Committee of the SPO, the SPO increased Price s disability pension from a 50% partial disability benefit to a 75% full disability benefit. The SPO further advised Price that the full disability benefit would have a retroactive date to June 1, 2007, again pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 8376(a). Price appealed the SPO s decision regarding the June 1, 2007 effective date to the Board.1 He argued that 11 Del. C. § 8328(a) required an effective date of April 7, 2006, the effective date of his original service pension. On July 9, 2008, a hearing officer heard Price s appeal. Upon consideration, the hearing officer recommended that Price s appeal for retroactive disability benefits to the time of his original service pension be denied. On October 31, 2008, the Board voted to approve and adopt the hearing officer s recommendation. The Board upheld the SPO s determination that the effective date was June 1, 2007, because Price s August letter constituted a new pension application rather than a modification of an existing pension. Price now brings the instant appeal. Wayne H. Warren The facts of Warren s case are nearly indistinguishable, except for a few chronological distinctions. First, Warren was employed as a Delaware State Trooper 1 Price did not, however, appeal the increase in his benefit. 5 Price v. State of Delaware, Board of Pension Trustees C.A. No: 08A-11-007 (RBY) Warden v. State of Delaware, Board of Pension Trustees C.A. No. 08A-11-008 (WLW) March 22, 2010 with the DSP from January 31, 1983 until his retirement in June of 2006. Second, Warren s original service pension became effective as of July 1, 2006, rather than April 7, 2006. Finally, Warren s initial partial disability pension was granted effective October 15, 2007, rather than October 14, 2007. For all other purposes, the facts of the two cases are identical. STANDARD OF REVIEW On appeal from a decision of an administrative agency[,] the reviewing court must determine whether the agency ruling is supported by substantial evidence and free from legal error. 2 Substantial evidence is that which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. 3 It is also defined as more than a scintilla, but less than a preponderance of the evidence.4 Absent an abuse of discretion, the decision of the agency must be affirmed. 5 The Court s review is plenary, however, where the issue is one of construction 2 Jordan v. Board of Pension Trustees of the State of Delaware, 2004 WL 2240598, at *2 (Del. Super. Ct. Sept. 21, 2004) (citing Stoltz Mgmt. Co., Inc. v. Consumer Affairs Board, 616 A.2d 1205, 1208 (Del. 1992)). 3 Olney v. Cooch, 425 A.2d 610, 614 (Del. Super. 1981) (citing Consolo v. Federal Maritime Comm n, 383 U.S. 607, 620 (1966)). 4 Breeding v. Contractors-One-Inc., 549 A.2d 1102, 1104 (Del. 1988) (citing DiFilippo v. Beck, 567 F.Supp 110 (D. Del. 1983)). 5 Jordan, 2004 WL 2240598 at *2. [original citation omitted]. 6 Price v. State of Delaware, Board of Pension Trustees C.A. No: 08A-11-007 (RBY) Warden v. State of Delaware, Board of Pension Trustees C.A. No. 08A-11-008 (WLW) March 22, 2010 of statutory law and its application to undisputed facts.6 A reviewing court may accord due weight, but not defer, to an agency interpretation of a statute administered by it. 7 A reviewing court will not defer to such an interpretation as correct merely because it is rational or not clearly erroneous. 8 DISCUSSION The question before this Court is whether the Board s interpretations of 11 Del. C. §§ 8376(a) and 8328(a) were free from legal error when the Board determined that Appellants August letters constituted applications for new benefits, rather than adjustments to existing benefits. This Court now holds that the Board s interpretations of these two statutory provisions were free from legal error, and that the term adjustment is intended to cover only calculation and computational errors. Therefore, the Board s decision denying Appellants request for an extended period of retroactivity for their total disability pension benefits is AFFIRMED. The Board s authority to grant pension, disability, and survivor benefits for members of the DSP is contained in Chapter 83 of Title 11 of the Delaware Code. Specifically, 11 Del. C. § 8396 provides that a: [b]enefit shall be due and payable under this chapter only to the extent 6 Id.. 7 Id. [original citation omitted]. 8 Id. (citing Public Water Supply Co. v. DiPasquale, 735 A.2d 378, 383 (Del. 1998)). 7 Price v. State of Delaware, Board of Pension Trustees C.A. No: 08A-11-007 (RBY) Warden v. State of Delaware, Board of Pension Trustees C.A. No. 08A-11-008 (WLW) March 22, 2010 provided in this chapter, and neither the State nor the New State Police Retirement Fund shall be liable for any amount in excess of such sums. Simply stated, the Board may not award pension benefits without compliance with the statutory requirements of Chapter 83. One of those statutory requirements is contained in 11 Del. C. § 8376(a). That section outlines when and how pension benefits are paid: [a] service pension, disability pension, survivor s pension, death benefit[,] or withdrawal benefit shall be paid only upon the filing of an application in a form prescribed by the Board. A monthly benefit shall not be payable for any month earlier than the second month preceding the date on which the application for such benefit is filed. This statutory language highlights two key points. First, the legislature clearly intended to afford the Board some latitude in the administration of its application procedures, as evidenced by the words in a form prescribed by the Board. In contrast, the legislature did not intend to afford the same flexibility with regard to the retroactive payment of benefits. The legislature s purposeful use of shall not is prohibitive and concrete. Nonetheless, in recognition of the fact that individual circumstances might dictate modification, the legislature granted the Board, and by extension the SPO, the authority to adjust pension benefits within a proscribed time period. The statute, 11 Del. C. § 8328(a) provides that, on and after July 1, 1972, no pension which has been in effect for 3 years shall be subject to adjustment. This statutory section implies 8 Price v. State of Delaware, Board of Pension Trustees C.A. No: 08A-11-007 (RBY) Warden v. State of Delaware, Board of Pension Trustees C.A. No. 08A-11-008 (WLW) March 22, 2010 that, so long as it has not been in effect for more than three years, a pension may be adjusted. Furthermore, 11 Del. C. § 8375 mandates the level of liberality with which these adjustments are to be handled.9 As emphasized by Appellants, the word adjustment is not defined by the statute. Accordingly, since it is not a term of art, it retains its ordinary dictionary meaning.10 Merriam-Webster s Online Dictionary defines adjustment as a correction or modification to reflect actual conditions. This definition necessarily means that, in order for there to be an adjustment, there must first be an error or mistake. Furthermore, the Board has conformed its implementation of adjustments with this conventional definition by permitting adjustments only for mathematical and computational errors. Appellants urge the Court to adopt two reasonable alternative constructions of the word adjustment one limited to adjusting computations and the other expanded for adjusting the basis of pensions. If the Court were to adopt Appellants interpretation of adjustment within 11 Del. C. § 8328(a), however, the effect would be, as articulated by one of our contiguous jurisdictions, tantamount to giving 9 11 Del. C. § 8375 states that: [a] pension payable under this subchapter shall be adjusted no less liberally than adjustments made under the State Employees Pension Plan, taking into account adjustments to social security benefits payable to state employees. 10 Lehman Bros Bank, FSB v. State Bank Comm r, 937 A.2d 95, 103 (Del. 2007). 9 Price v. State of Delaware, Board of Pension Trustees C.A. No: 08A-11-007 (RBY) Warden v. State of Delaware, Board of Pension Trustees C.A. No. 08A-11-008 (WLW) March 22, 2010 employee errors the effect of amending the substance of a statute. 11 The Court is unwilling to endorse such a reading of the statute. By including an adjustment of benefits section of the statute, the legislature clearly intended to grant the SPO the ability to correct errors and to effectuate required modifications. The Court s review of the evidence presented revealed no error in Appellants initial filing. Appellants filed for service pensions, their applications were processed, and they ultimately began receiving their deserved benefits. In turn, for a period of time exceeding thirteen months for each applicant, the SPO paid Appellants exactly what they were due under the statute. There was nothing to modify because Appellants received what they requested service pensions. When Appellants finally sent their August 7, 2007 letters, it was proper for the SPO to consider Appellants correspondence as an application for new benefits. The original service pensions contained no errors or mistakes that needed correction. The only error in this case was arguably committed by Appellants. Appellants now realize that they could have received more money for a different type of pension. While the Court understands the Appellants desire to maximize their pension compensation, at the time Appellants applied for pension benefits, they were cognizant of their eligibility for disability benefits. They calculatingly chose, based on their assessment of the advantages and disadvantages, to file service pensions, rather than 11 Bittenbender v. State Employees Ret. Bd., 622 A,2d 403, 405 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1992) (citing Finnegan v. Public School Employment Ret. Bd., 520 A.2d 848, 851 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1989)). 10 Price v. State of Delaware, Board of Pension Trustees C.A. No: 08A-11-007 (RBY) Warden v. State of Delaware, Board of Pension Trustees C.A. No. 08A-11-008 (WLW) March 22, 2010 disability pensions. To allow Appellants to interpret the statutory term adjustment in a way that provides a remedy for their mistake is simply unwarranted. They are statutorily entitled to disability pension benefits effective June 1, 2007 no earlier. Appellants place a substantial amount of emphasis on the fact that, when they finally applied for disability pension benefits, they only filled out an Eligibility Form, rather than a separate application. It is Appellant s contention that, if their August 7, 2007 correspondence were considered a new application for benefits, they should have been required to submit an entirely new application. The Court does not find Appellant s argument persuasive. All parties involved, Appellants as well as the SPO, were aware of the already implemented service pensions. In an attempt to expedite the processing of Appellants new disability pensions, the SPO simply allowed Appellants to bypass a preliminary portion of the application process. This act of courtesy was within the authority issued by the statute.12 CONCLUSION This Court finds that the legal determination by the Board was free from legal error. The Board s decision fulfilled the legislative intent to recompense Appellants for their service, without compromising the integrity of the overall compensatory system. It would be a contravention of legislative policy for this Court to read Appellants meaning of the word adjustment into the statute. For that reason, the 12 See 11 Del. C. § 8376(a) (granting the Board the authority to determine its own application procedures). 11 Price v. State of Delaware, Board of Pension Trustees C.A. No: 08A-11-007 (RBY) Warden v. State of Delaware, Board of Pension Trustees C.A. No. 08A-11-008 (WLW) March 22, 2010 decision of the Board is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. /s/ Robert B. Young J. RBY/sal oc: Prothonotary cc: Opinion Distribution File 12

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.