Preston v. Burlington City Reitrement System, 76 A.3d 615

Preston sought judicial review of the Burlington City Retirement System's termination of his disability retirement as a City firefighter (1992–2005 employment; disability approved Dec 2006; benefits terminated Aug 2010).
The Board repeatedly requested disability-status updates and a functional capacity examination; Preston declined to complete parts of the examination, citing back-injury concerns.
The Board revoked disability benefits after finding Preston's noncooperation with the examination process; Preston appealed under Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 75(a).
The superior court held it had jurisdiction under Rule 75 and reviewed the merits; it concluded there was no reasonable basis for termination.
On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the grant of Rule 75 review and rejected the City’s precursor jurisdictional arguments, upholding the termination decision only if supported by the record.
The court analyzed whether the City ordinance unambiguously barred judicial review and concluded it did not; it then reviewed the termination for reasonableness and found it unsupported by the record.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 75 review is barred by the ordinance.	Preston argued finality barred review.	City asserted finality precludes review.	Rule 75 review available; ordinance not unambiguous bar.
Whether the Board’s termination was justified by noncooperation.	Preston cooperated; evidence shows partial cooperation.	Noncooperation based on incomplete examination justifies termination.	Termination not supported; record shows cooperation but no failure to cooperate.
Whether due process protected Preston’s disability benefits entitlement.	Entitlement to notice and hearing existed.	Process adequate under statute and due process.	Due process protections apply; review remains proper.
Whether the Board acted quasi-judicially and subject to certiorari review.	Board acted like a quasi-judicial body.	Board powers are administrative but reviewable.	Board decision subject to certiorari review under Rule 75.
What standard governs review of agency action under Rule 75.	Court should defer to agency findings.	Review limited to whether there is any reasonable basis.	Standard is narrow; need reasonable basis, but findings here lacked it.

Vincent v. Vt. State Ret. Bd., 148 Vt. 531 (1987) (recognizes Rule 75 review for retirement decisions)
Fitzpatrick v. State Ret. Sys., 136 Vt. 510 (1978) (provides hearing rights in disability-retirement appeals)
Nash v. Coxon, 155 Vt. 336 (1990) (retirement-board as quasi-judicial; certiorari review available)
Hunt v. Vill. of Bristol, 159 Vt. 439 (1992) (Rule 75 replaces extraordinary writs for review of agency action)
Mason v. Thetford School Bd., 142 Vt. 495 (1983) (finality provision; review can still be judicially reviewed)