O'Rourke v. District of Columbia Police & Firefighters' Retirement & Relief Board
2012 D.C. App. LEXIS 304
D.C.2012Background
- O’Rourke, MPD officer, injured in line of duty and recommended for disability retirement.
- Disciplinary action for misconduct proceeded concurrently, leading to termination before Board decision.
- Retirement and Relief Board later ruled he was ineligible due to not being a “member” at decision time.
- O’Rourke contested that termination should not bar eligibility for disability pension.
- Statutory framework provides POD and non-POD disability annuities under §§ 5-709 and 5-710 for a “member.”
- Court analyzes whether being an active member when the Board receives the recommendation is enough to preserve eligibility despite later termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether active membership when disability is recommended suffices post-termination | O’Rourke preserved right upon recommendation | Board requires current membership at decision | Yes; membership at recommendation suffices despite termination |
| Whether Board’s narrow interpretation of §§5-709, 5-710 is reasonable | Board’s reading incompatible with broader statute | Board’s interpretation aligns with statutory language | No;Board's interpretation rejected; deference not given |
| Whether remedial purpose and contextual statute support including former members | Remedial statute should liberalize benefits | Statutory text governs; no former-member entitlement | Yes; include former members to satisfy remedial purpose |
| Whether later related laws (Law 13-160) influence disability retirement interpretation | Conditional retirement framework supports disability benefits | Law 13-160 governs disciplinary investigations, not disability eligibility | Yes; later statute reinforces broader entitlement context |
Key Cases Cited
- Ridge v. Police and Firefighters Ret. and Relief Bd., 511 A.2d 418 (D.C.1986) (liberal construction of disability statutes; hierarchical context)
- Upchurch v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Employment Services, 783 A.2d 623 (D.C.2001) (misconduct immaterial to compensation unless specified defenses apply)
- Asylum Co. v. D.C. Dep’t of Employment Servs., 10 A.3d 619 (D.C.2010) (remedial workers’ compensation principles apply to benefits eligibility despite fraud/immigration issues)
- Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337 (Supreme Court 1997) (interpretive approach: context and purpose can overcome literal ambiguity)