1. A. A benefit claimant shall be notified in writing of a denial of a claim for benefits within thirty days of the denial. The notification shall give the reason for the denial. A claimant may appeal the denial and request a hearing. The appeal shall be in writing filed with the association within ninety days of the denial. The appeal shall contain a statement of the claimant's reason for claiming the denial to be improper. The retirement board shall schedule a de novo hearing of the appeal before the retirement board or, at the discretion of the retirement board, a designated hearing officer or committee of the retirement board within sixty days of receipt of the appeal. A final decision on the matter being appealed shall be made by the retirement board.
2. B. Appeals from a final decision of the retirement board may be filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 39-3-1.1 NMSA 1978.

History: Laws 1987, ch. 253, § 120; 1997, ch. 189, § 8; 1998, ch. 55, § 22; 1999, ch. 265, § 22.

ANNOTATIONS

Cross references. — For procedures governing administrative appeals to the district court, see Rule 1-074 NMRA.

The 1999 amendment, effective July 1, 1999, substituted "Section 39-3-1.1" for "Section 12-8A-1" in Subsection B.

The 1998 amendment, effective September 1, 1998, rewrote Subsection B.

The 1997 amendment, effective June 20, 1997, in Subsection A, rewrote the first sentence, and in the second sentence, inserted "de novo" and inserted "designated hearing officer or".

Burden of proof. — The burden of showing entitlement to benefits rests on the claimant. Johnson v. Pub. Emps. Ret. Bd., 1998-NMCA-174, 126 N.M. 282, 968 P.2d 793, cert. denied, 126 N.M. 532, 972 P.2d 351.

Plaintiffs must exhaust their administrative remedies. — Where plaintiff husband, a retired member of the public employees retirement association, sought declaratory relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 44-6-1 to -15 NMSA 1978 (1975) after he executed and delivered a one-time irrevocable option to deselect his wife as his survivor beneficiary and designate his daughter as the new survivor beneficiary, but later claimed that the deselection of wife and designation of daughter was a mistake, and where the public employees retirement board declined plaintiff’s request to void the action, the district court properly dismissed plaintiff’s action for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies, because 10-11-120 NMSA 1978 provides the exclusive remedy for the denial of benefits under the Public Employees Retirement Act and the declaratory judgment exception for the exhaustion of administrative remedies was not available to plaintiff. Gzaskow v. Public Employees Ret. Bd., 2017-NMCA-064.