Eberhardt v. Fairfax County Employees' Retirement System, 721 S.E.2d 524

Eberhardt was a Fairfax County School Board employee (1991–2009) who sustained work-related back/neck injuries in 2007 and was totally disabled for periods in 2007 and 2008.
She was a member of the Fairfax County Employees’ Retirement System (FCERS), eligible for service-connected or ordinary disability retirement depending on whether the injury arose out of and in the course of employment.
In July 2008 she applied for service-connected disability retirement; the FCERS Board denied in November 2008 after medical examination.
In April 2010 the Board again denied service-connected benefits but awarded ordinary disability retirement.
In May 2010 Eberhardt appealed the Board’s determination in circuit court under Code § 51.1‑823, arguing circuit court jurisdiction; the Board moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The circuit court granted the motion; on appeal, the Virginia Supreme Court addressed whether § 51.1‑823 applies to counties with an urban county executive form of government and, specifically, whether “board” includes FCERS’s board.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 51.1‑823 authorizes a circuit court appeal of FCERS decisions	Eberhardt argues the statute grants a right of appeal.	FCERS contends § 51.1‑823 applies only to police retirement boards.	No jurisdiction; statute limited to police retirement boards.
What is the meaning of 'board' in § 51.1‑823	'Board' includes any county retirement board.	'Board' refers to the police retirement board only.	'Board' is limited to the police retirement board under the Recodification Act.
May legislative history be consulted to interpret the statute when unambiguous	Historical context supports broader application.	Statutory text is clear; legislative history not needed.	When language is clear, legislative history may not be consulted.
Does the Recodification Act’s text resolve the meaning of 'board'	Recodification text supports plaintiff’s broader interpretation.	Recodification text clarifies 'board' as the police board.	Recodification Act clarifies 'board' as police board; governing interpretation favors defendant.

Jones v. Williams, 280 Va. 635 (2010) (de novo standard for statutory interpretation)
Hubbard v. Henrico Ltd. P’shp, 255 Va. 335 (1998) (textual parsing governs when statute is clear)
Perez v. Capital One Bank, 258 Va. 612 (1999) (limits on external legislative history in interpretation)
Virginia Electric & Power Co. v. Board of County Supervisors, 226 Va. 382 (1983) (interpretation of statute in harmonious whole)
Alger v. Commonwealth, 267 Va. 255 (2004) (text diverging from enacted bill—reliance on enacted language)
Board of Supervisors v. Marshall, 215 Va. 756 (1975) (same meaning rule for terms used in multiple sections)