15 A.3d 957
R.I.2011Background
- Pierce, a Providence firefighter with over 26 years of service, sustained multiple on‑the‑job right ankle injuries, with the latest in June 2006 leading to permanent disability.
- He applied for accidental-disability retirement under Providence Code § 17-189(5) on August 16, 2006.
- Three physicians examined Pierce in 2006 and opined that his permanent disability resulted from employment-related traumas; they attributed causation to cumulative injuries rather than a single incident.
- The board denied accidental-disability retirement on March 25, 2009, after subcommittee and board findings that there was no single accident causing the disability, and the written decision lacked formal findings.
- Pierce sought certiorari; this Court previously vacated the denial for lack of findings and remanded for a new decision with proper findings and conclusions.
- The Court held that the board misinterpreted the ordinance by requiring a single proximate accident and remanded with instructions to award benefits retroactive to his retirement date.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 17-189(5) require a single accident to proximately cause disability? | Pierce argues the term 'an accident' can include multiple accidents under the statute. | The board maintains disability must arise from a single accident within the scope of the ordinance. | No; multiple accidents can proximately cause disability under the ordinance. |
| What is the proper interpretation of 'a natural and proximate result of an accident' in § 17-189(5)? | The language should be read to include cumulative work-related injuries within the duty context. | The board view treats proximate causation as requiring a single accident. | A natural and proximate result may arise from multiple accidents; the board erred. |
| Was Pierce's June 2006 accident a proximate cause within the eighteen‑month window of application? | The June 2006 accident, within eighteen months, contributed as a proximate cause. | Pre‑June 2006 accidents were outside the eligibility window and not considered. | Yes; the June 2006 accident was within the window and proximate to the disability. |
| Did the board correctly apply proximate-cause law to medical opinions showing cumulative injuries? | Physicians supported a causal link between the accidents, including 2006, and disability. | Medical opinions were read to require a single causative incident. | The cumulative-causation view is supported; proximate causation need not be sole cause. |
| What is the remedy on remand? | Pierce should receive accidental-disability retirement benefits. | Remand would be necessary to reassess under correct legal standards. | Remand with instructions to grant accidental-disability retirement benefits retroactive to June 28, 2007. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bridgwood v. Board of Trustees of the New York City Fire Department Article 1-B Pension Fund, 204 A.D.2d 629 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994) (disability from multiple service-related injuries can be 'natural and proximate result' under similar pension provision)
- Hersl v. Fire & Police Employees’ Retirement System, 188 Md.App. 249 (Md. App. 2009) (line-of-duty disability may include prior non-work injuries when injury occurred during active duty)
- DiPetrillo v. Dow Chemical Co., 729 A.2d 677 (R.I. 1999) (proximate cause requires but-for causation and natural and probable consequence in tort‑analogy for causation)
- Murphy v. Zoning Board of Review of South Kingstown, 959 A.2d 535 (R.I. 2008) (interpretation of ordinances using rules of construction and plain language)