Bueno v. Board of Trustees
27 A.3d 1237
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2011Background
- Bueno was denied ordinary disability retirement benefits on November 2, 2006 and was advised she could apply for service retirement within 30 days.
- Bueno filed for service retirement February 5, 2009; she sought retroactive dating to July 1, 2006 after Supreme Court denial of cert, arguing she had been told paperwork was in order in May 2006.
- Her counsel sent letters in June 2009 arguing the 30-day window was not clearly required by statute or regulation and that the rule was arbitrary.
- Division rejected retroactive service retirement dating, stating the earliest retirement date could be March 1, 2009 and relying on the 2006 notice and 30-day rule.
- Board denied Bueno’s appeal on August 6, 2009, and final decision on October 30, 2009; it held no retroactive date could be granted absent timely filing.
- The court reversed, holding the Board’s conversion rulemaking without APA compliance and the pre-issuance timing limits were improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board's 30-day conversion rule was an agency rule | Bueno argues the 30-day limit is an informal, unpromulgated policy, not a statutory requirement. | Board maintains the rulecomplies with statutes/regulations and controls conversion timing. | The Board's rulemaking was improper; the 30-day limit acted as a rule requiring APA compliance and was invalid without proper promulgation. |
| Whether retroactive service retirement could be granted despite pending appeal | Bueno contends she preserved her right to convert and could obtain retroactive dating while appealing. | The statutory/regulatory framework bars retroactive benefits without timely application and finality. | Retroactive dating cannot be granted without proper timely filing or rule-based authority; reversal of denial necessary based on rulemaking defect. |
| Whether Sobel v. Board of Trustees controls the outcome | Sobel supports preserving a retroactive date upon proper substitute application during appeal. | Sobel is distinguishable and does not support retroactive dating here due to lack of express rule. | Court distinguishes Sobel; nonetheless, the reliance on unpromulgated policy requires reversal for rulemaking defect. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sobel v. Board of Trustees of the Teachers' Pension & Annuity Fund, 139 N.J. Super. 55 (App.Div. 1976) (addressed retroactive service retirement when disability claim denied; not controlling here due to rulemaking issue)
- Metromedia, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation, 97 N.J. 313 (1984) (test for when agency action is rulemaking needing APA compliance)
- Doe v. Poritz, 142 N.J. 1 (1995) (courts weigh factors to determine rulemaking applicability)
- St. Barnabas Med. Ctr. v. N.J. Hosp. Rate Setting Comm'n, 250 N.J. Super. 132 (App.Div. 1991) (recognizes policy-based agency action may be rulemaking)
- Fiola v. State, Dep't of Treasury, 193 N.J. Super. 340 (App.Div. 1984) (liberal construction of pension statutes; remedial context)
- Wnuck v. N.J. Div. of Motor Vehicles, 337 N.J. Super. 52 (App.Div. 2001) (administrative action reviewed for arbitrariness; deference to agency interpretations)
- In re Hess, 422 N.J. Super. 27 (App.Div. 2011) (pension-related interpretation and remedial construction)
- George Harms Constr. Co. v. N.J. Tpk. Auth., 137 N.J. 8 (1994) (recitation of standard judicial review of agency decisions)