Petition of David Eskeland
166 N.H. 554
N.H.2014Background
- David Eskeland retired from NH Department of Fish and Game on October 1, 2010, began receiving service retirement benefits, and had been an NHRS member since 1990.
- At pre-retirement counseling meetings (Dec. 2009 and Aug. 2010) NHRS specialists documented that the petitioner sought service retirement; disability options were marked "N/A," and petitioner did not request disability counseling.
- After retirement a friend told him he might have qualified for accidental disability retirement based on 2002 and 2004 work-related injuries; three months later (Jan. 2011) Eskeland applied for accidental disability retirement.
- NHRS denied the application; the hearings examiner recommended denial on jurisdictional grounds because Eskeland was a beneficiary (receiving service retirement) when he applied and NHRS lacked authority under RSA 100-A:6 to grant accidental disability benefits to nonmembers.
- Eskeland sought reconsideration and then judicial review via certiorari, arguing: (1) RSA 100-A:6,V permitted a one-year exception to apply after membership ceased; (2) NHRS breached a fiduciary duty by giving inaccurate advice about filing deadlines; and (3) NHRS’s misinformation constituted mutual or unilateral mistake warranting rescission of his service retirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Eskeland) | Defendant's Argument (NHRS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of RSA 100-A:6,V — membership requirement | The one-year waiver in RSA 100-A:6,V lets a former member apply within one year after contributions cease (so Eskeland could apply post-retirement) | The statutory waiver only permits tolling of the "in service" requirement, not the separate "member" requirement; Eskeland was a beneficiary, not a member | Court: RSA 100-A:6,V does not waive the membership requirement; Eskeland was precluded from applying because he was a beneficiary when he applied |
| Fiduciary duty to advise specific retirement options | NHRS had a duty to inform him he had to apply before retirement; its failure was a breach of fiduciary duty | NHRS’s fiduciary duty does not require individualized counseling on every option; no special fiduciary relationship arose because petitioner did not request disability advice | Court: No breach — NHRS not required to provide the detailed individualized advice petitioner claims, and record shows petitioner declined disability counseling |
| Rescission for mutual or unilateral mistake | Acceptance of the disability application post-retirement and NHRS employees’ mistaken statements justify rescission of service retirement and allowing a disability application | Any NHRS conduct accepting a late application occurred after petitioner retired and therefore did not cause his original retirement decision; petitioner failed to show ordinary-care-compliant mistake or unconscionability | Court: No relief — no causal connection for mutual mistake; unilateral-mistake doctrine not met (petitioner did not exercise ordinary care and did not show unconscionability) |
Key Cases Cited
- State Employees’ Assoc. of N.H. v. State of N.H., 161 N.H. 730 (2011) (statutory interpretation principles; plain meaning governs)
- Petition of Carrier, 165 N.H. _, 82 A.3d 917 (2013) (certiorari is the remedy for review of NHRS decisions; standard of review for board actions)
- Petition of Barney, 142 N.H. 798 (1998) (NHRS board owes fiduciary duty but not an obligation to counsel each member individually)
- Schneider v. Plymouth State College, 144 N.H. 458 (1999) (special fiduciary duty arises where confidence reposed and betrayed)
- Derouin v. Granite State Realty, Inc., 123 N.H. 145 (1983) (mutual mistake doctrine requires causal connection and material effect on the transaction)