178 A.3d 297
R.I.2018Background
- John Sauro (firefighter since 1991) received an accidental disability pension in 2000 for a 1998 on-duty right-shoulder injury.
- In 2011 and again in 2013 the Retirement Board ordered independent medical examinations (IMEs); Sauro initially refused the 2013 IME and the board suspended benefits after surveillance contradicted his bedridden claims.
- Sauro later submitted to an IME by Dr. Brian McKeon, who found the shoulder disability resolved but concluded Sauro was unfit for firefighting because of unrelated psychological and colorectal conditions.
- The board voted in April 2015 to discontinue Sauro’s accidental disability pension on the ground the work-related disability was removed; it did not place him on a reinstatement/waitlist. Sauro did not attend the board meeting.
- Sauro sued in Superior Court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief that, under Providence Code § 17-189(8)(a), he must be placed on a waiting list and continue receiving accidental-disability benefits while awaiting appointment; the trial justice granted summary judgment in Sauro’s favor. The city appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 17-189(8)(a) requires placing a pensioner on a reinstatement/waitlist and continuing accidental-disability benefits after an IME finds the work-related disability removed | Sauro: ordinance requires placement on an appropriate list and continuation of benefits while awaiting appointment (a “wait-and-see” approach) | City/Board: statute requires placement only for those prepared/qualified; board may refuse placement and discontinue benefits where IME shows other disabling, non-work-related conditions | Court: § 17-189(8)(a) is clear; it does not require the board to place a pensioner on a list or continue benefits where IME shows the work-related disability is removed but other unrelated disabilities leave the person unfit for duty — board acted within its authority; Superior Court judgment vacated |
| Whether the board may suspend benefits when pensioner refuses or fails to cooperate with IME process | Sauro: he ultimately submitted to IME and asserts rights under the ordinance | City/Board: refusal to attend IME justifies suspension; independent medical evidence may support discontinuation | Court: board properly suspended earlier for refusal; after IME the board could rely on doctor’s conclusion that plaintiff’s inability to return to work was due to non-work-related conditions and discontinue accidental-disability benefits |
| Proper forum / procedural posture for relief (brief) | Sauro sought declaratory relief in Superior Court under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act | City argued subject-matter jurisdiction concerns because municipal board decisions typically reviewable by writ to Supreme Court | Court: Superior Court exercised discretion to hear declaratory action; but merits review is de novo on summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Pierce v. Providence Retirement Board, 15 A.3d 957 (R.I. 2011) (apply statutory construction rules to ordinances)
- Sola v. Leighton, 45 A.3d 502 (R.I. 2012) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Iselin v. Retirement Board of Employees’ Retirement System of Rhode Island, 943 A.2d 1045 (R.I. 2008) (use legislative intent when ordinance ambiguous)
- Prew v. Employee Retirement System of Providence, 139 A.3d 556 (R.I. 2016) (Providence disability ordinance interpreted as not well drafted; remedial nature)
- Morse v. Employees Retirement System of Providence, 139 A.3d 385 (R.I. 2016) (avoid constructions that produce absurd results)