State of W. Va. Consolidated Public Retirement Board v. Ollie D. Hunting, 16-0628

Ollie D. Hunting (retired Lincoln County BOE employee) received a $70,000 lump-sum settlement in 2009 resolving wage grievances for employment years 1996–2001 (composed of $54,352 in past wages and $15,648 interest).
Parties did not state in the written settlement that the wage portion should be treated as wages for the 2009–2010 year only.
Hunting retired July 1, 2011, and sought retirement benefits from the State Teachers Retirement System.
The Retirement Board allocated the retroactive wage portion to the years in which the wages would have been earned (per W. Va. Code § 18-7A-3(12)), which affects average final salary and benefits calculation.
The Lincoln County Circuit Court reversed the Board, concluding the settlement should be attributed to the year paid (2009–2010) based on the parties’ intent; the Board appealed to the West Virginia Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court, holding the Board correctly allocated retroactive wages to the years they would have been earned under the plain language of the statute.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper year(s) to attribute retroactive wage settlement for retirement calculations	Hunting: allocate entire wage portion to the year of payment (2009–2010) reflecting parties’ intent	Retirement Board: allocate retroactive wages to the years they would have been earned per statute	Held for Retirement Board: allocate to the years wages would have been earned; circuit court reversed
Interpretation of “gross salary” in W. Va. Code § 18-7A-3(12)	Hunting: parties’ settlement intent controls allocation	Board: statutory language controls and mandates allocation to the periods work was/would have been done	Held statutory plain language controls; retroactive payments must be allocated to the periods when work was/would have been done
Whether applying payment to year received (creates income spike) is permissible	Hunting: allowed if parties intended it in settlement	Board: such a spike contradicts statute and legislative intent	Held spike is impermissible; would artificially inflate retirement benefits and contradict statute
Standard of review for appellate review of administrative order amended by circuit court	Hunting: circuit court’s factual/intent finding should stand	Board: appellate review is de novo on law; abuse of discretion for circuit court amendment of agency order	Held Court reviews questions of law de novo and circuit court’s amendment was erroneous (Muscatell standard applied)

Muscatell v. Cline, 196 W. Va. 588, 474 S.E.2d 518 (1996) (standard of review for appeals of administrative orders)
Smith v. State Workmen’s Comp. Comm’r, 159 W. Va. 108, 219 S.E.2d 361 (1975) (primary objective of statutory construction is to give effect to legislative intent)
Dan’s Carworld, LLC v. Serian, 223 W. Va. 478, 677 S.E.2d 914 (2009) (apply plain statutory language when legislative intent is clear)
Epperly, 135 W. Va. 877, 65 S.E.2d 488 (1951) (clear and unambiguous statutes are not subject to judicial interpretation)