Jason A. Fishburn v. Indiana Public Retirment System
2014 Ind. App. LEXIS 42
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Fishburn, IMPD officer, was shot in the line of duty in 2008 and cannot return to police work.
- He applied for disability benefits under the 1977 Fund on April 7, 2011.
- Initial IMPD Pension Board and medical authority found a Class 1 impairment at 42%.
- INPRS issued an initial determination with a 42% impairment and 69.7% disability; later Dr. Markland revised impairment to 71%.
- Revised Determination: base 45% (Class 1) plus 34.85% (additional) equals 79.85% of first-class officer salary; total disability was set at 79.85%.
- Fishburn challenged the calculation method for the additional benefit under Ind.Code § 36-8-8-13.5(f), arguing the additional benefit should equal the degree of impairment; INPRS maintained a formula (linear interpolation) linking impairment to a 10–45% range, in use since 1989.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether INPRS's interpretation of the additional benefit formula is correct. | Fishburn argues the additional benefit equals the degree of impairment. | INPRS argues statutory ambiguity allows a formula converting impairment to a 10–45% range. | Ambiguity found; INPRS interpretation deemed reasonable. |
| Whether the statute authorizes a formula-based calculation rather than a direct match to impairment. | Fishburn contends no formula is authorized by statute. | INPRS maintains the statute allows a formula within 10–45%. | Statute ambiguous; formula upheld as reasonable interpretation. |
| Whether deference to INPRS and legislative acquiescence support the construction. | Fishburn argues for liberal construction favoring beneficiaries. | INPRS and legislature acquiesced in the longstanding interpretation. | Deference to agency and acquiescence support INPRS’s method. |
| Whether judicial review should overturn the agency’s determination given the statute’s ambiguity. | Fishburn seeks reversal, asserting the plain language favors 90% total. | Court should defer if agency interpretation reasonable. | Judicial review affirms agency determination. |
| Whether applying linear interpolation better aligns benefits with impairment than Fishburn’s approach. | Fishburn proposes direct equivalence to impairment with caps (10–45%). | Linear interpolation fairly scales benefits across impairment 0–100%. | INPRS's linear interpolation favored as reasonable and consistent with statute. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shepherd v. Pub. Emps.’ Ret. Fund, 733 N.E.2d 987 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (legislative acquiescence supports agency interpretation)
- Mance v. Bd. of Dirs. of Pub. Emps’ Ret. Fund, 652 N.E.2d 532 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (acquiescence principle applied to retirement statute interpretation)
- Glendale Glenbrook Assocs. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 429 N.E.2d 219 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982) (doctrine of legislative acquiescence applicable)
- Chrysler Group, LLC v. Review Bd. of Ind. Dep’t of Workforce Dev., 960 N.E.2d 118 (Ind. 2012) (great weight given to agency interpretation in ambiguous statutes)
- State v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., 964 N.E.2d 206 (Ind. 2012) (statutory interpretation de novo when language is ambiguous)