Patrizia Prew v. Employee Retirement System of the City of Providence, 139 A.3d 556

Background

Patrizia Prew, a Providence police detective, injured her right hand/wrist during an on-duty incident and was diagnosed with post-traumatic carpal tunnel syndrome; she declined recommended surgery and chose conservative treatment.
The Providence Police Department removed her service weapon after tests showed she could not safely handle a firearm; Prew applied for accidental-disability retirement within the ordinance's timeline.
The city retained three independent medical examiners (IMEs); all diagnosed work-related right carpal tunnel syndrome and concluded the condition limited or prevented her performing full police duties absent surgery.
The Retirement Board denied Prew’s application, finding she "failed without justifiable cause to follow the treatment prescribed" (surgery) and thus could not be found disabled because the condition was correctable.
Prew petitioned for certiorari to the Rhode Island Supreme Court, which reviewed de novo whether the Providence ordinance requires an otherwise-eligible employee to undergo surgery (mitigate injury) to obtain accidental-disability retirement.
The Supreme Court quashed the board’s decision, holding the ordinance contains no mitigation/surgery requirement and the board erred as a matter of law by imposing one.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Providence's accidental-disability ordinance requires an employee to undergo surgery to mitigate a condition before receiving accidental-disability retirement	Prew: Ordinance contains no mitigation or mandatory-surgery requirement; declining surgery cannot bar eligibility	City: To protect system integrity, employees should be required to mitigate (e.g., have corrective surgery) or risk abuse of benefits	Held: No. The ordinance contains no such requirement; board erred by conditioning retirement on undergoing surgery.
Whether the Board had discretion to deny retirement once statutory criteria and IME certifications are met	Prew: Once statutory elements are met and physicians certify disability, board must grant retirement (mandatory language)	City: Board may consider mitigation and protect fiscal integrity, implying discretionary assessment	Held: The ordinance’s "shall retire" language is mandatory; board lacks discretion to deny when statutory elements are satisfied.
Whether later safeguards exist to prevent abuse if a retiree recovers after obtaining surgery	Prew: Ordinance includes annual certification and medical reexamination provisions to terminate pension if disability resolves	City: Argued potential for abuse justifies requiring mitigation up front	Held: Existing § 17-189(h) remedies (annual certification, exams, termination/reappointment if disability removed) address abuse; no upfront surgery mandate needed.
Proper standard of interpretation for Article VI (retirement ordinance)	Prew: As remedial, ambiguous provisions must be construed liberally in favor of employees	City: Emphasized fiscal sustainability concerns to justify reading in mitigation	Held: Article VI is remedial and must be construed liberally for employees; fiscal aims do not warrant importing omitted mitigation requirement.

Key Cases Cited

Pierce v. Providence Retirement Board, 15 A.3d 957 (R.I. 2011) (standard of certiorari review of retirement-board decisions)
Connelly v. City of Providence Retirement Board, 601 A.2d 498 (R.I. 1992) ("shall retire" language construed as mandatory)
Guilmette v. Humble Oil & Refining Co., 336 A.2d 553 (R.I. 1975) (medical advisability vs. legal question of forcing surgery)
Mancini v. Superior Court, 82 A.2d 390 (R.I. 1951) (distinguishable workers’ compensation precedent regarding refusal of surgery)
Asadoorian v. Warwick School Committee, 691 A.2d 573 (R.I. 1997) (remedial statutes interpreted liberally in favor of claimants)
McCarthy v. Environmental Transportation Services, Inc., 865 A.2d 1056 (R.I. 2005) (remedial statutes not to be construed to defeat their purpose)