Petition of Gregory Malisos
166 N.H. 726
| N.H. | 2014Background
- Gregory Malisos retired July 1, 2008, and received NHRS medical subsidy for a two-person plan covering his wife.
- The couple obtained a Final Decree of Legal Separation on September 17, 2009; they remained married and could not remarry a third person.
- NHRS learned of the separation in March 2011 and, by letter dated April 18, 2011, informed Malisos it would cease paying the spouse portion of his subsidy retroactive to the decree date and recoup overpayments.
- NHRS relied on RSA 458:26, I (statute stating a legal separation "shall have in all respects the effect of a divorce") to treat a legally separated spouse as ineligible for the subsidy.
- Malisos administratively appealed; a hearings examiner and the NHRS board upheld NHRS staff’s decision; Malisos sought certiorari review in the Supreme Court of New Hampshire.
- The Supreme Court reviewed statutory interpretation de novo and reversed the board, holding that RSA 100-A:52, I(g)’s use of the term "spouse" includes a legally separated spouse absent express legislative language to the contrary.
Issues
| Issue | Malisos' Argument | NHRS/Board's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a legally separated spouse is a "spouse" under RSA 100-A:52, I(g) for NHRS medical subsidy eligibility | "Spouse" retains its plain meaning; legal separation does not end the marriage, so spouse remains eligible until death or remarriage | RSA 458:26, I makes legal separation "in all respects the effect of a divorce," so a legally separated spouse is not a spouse for subsidy purposes | Court held "spouse" includes a legally separated spouse; NHRS erred by treating separation as equivalent to divorce for this benefit |
| Whether NHRS properly applied RSA 458:26, I to interpret RSA 100-A:52 | Malisos: applying RSA 458:26 to change eligibility would add language the legislature did not include | NHRS: RSA 458:26 is clear and requires treating separation as divorce for all purposes | Court held RSA 458:26 is limited to the rights/responsibilities within chapter 458 and cannot rewrite RSA 100-A:52 absent legislative language |
Key Cases Cited
- Petition of State Employees' Assoc., 161 N.H. 476 (court reviews NHRS decisions for legality and abuse of discretion)
- State Employees' Assoc. of N.H. v. State of N.H., 161 N.H. 730 (statutory interpretation is reviewed de novo)
- Appeal of Town of Nottingham, 153 N.H. 539 (use plain and ordinary meaning when statutory term is undefined)
- Appeal of Stewart, 164 N.H. 772 (when statute is plain and unambiguous, courts do not look beyond its text)
- Desaulnier v. Desaulnier, 97 N.H. 171 (legal separation leaves parties married; separation effects limited to statutory scope)