Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-01-11 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FIRE PENSION BOARD A meeting of the Fayetteville Fire Pension Relief Fund Board of Trustees was held on Friday, January 11, 1991, at 11:00 a.m. in Room 326 of City Hall. PRESENT: Chief Mickey Jackson, Firemen Michael Bonaduce, John Dill, Pete Reagan, Marion Doss, Retiree Darrell Judy, City Manager Scott Linebaugh, City Attorney Jerry Rose, and City Clerk Sherry Thomas. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by City Manager Scott Linebaugh. ROY SKELTON LAWSUIT Linebaugh stated that the purpose of this meeting was to make a decision regarding appealing the verdict of the recent lawsuit with Roy Skelton. He then turned the meeting over to City Attorney Jerry Rose. Rose stated that the judge felt that Skelton's injury was a "line - of -duty" disability, and he was therefore eligible for 65% retirement. The judge said that under the definition of "line -of - duty" that was contained in the statute, he had no choice but to rule that way. The statute, pertaining to "line -of -duty", reads: For purpose of this section, injured in the line -of -duty means a disabling injury or disease which occurred while conducting official fire department operations or while in training to become a firefighter. Rose stated that the he tried to convince the judge that "official fire department" was something different than general employment with the fire department. The judge reported that the definition was so broad that it is not limited to fire accidents or things that happened while doing something unique to firefighting. Rose stated there were two things that might be considered rather than an appeal. It appears that the law is vague on the definition. It was never intended to be interpreted the way the judge interpreted it. It was meant to be for injuries received while fighting fires, or something unique to the fire department, by way of disability, and not just a "general inability" of not being able to get along with people. Rose suggested that the Board might want to consider lobbying to change the statute. Rose stated that if the statute is read, it also says: "The Board shall determine whether this disability occurred in the line of duty and may require any medical evidence, • • • official reports, expert testimony, or other information to be supplied by the applicant in addition to the attending physicians examination report." He stated that the Board has the right to decide what the meaning is of a line of duty disability. Rose tried to convince the Court what line -of -duty was, and stated that the Board should know what "line -of -duty" is since it is comprised of firefighters. What the law gave by way of power to decide, it takes away by saying, "by under the law (as it is now written) that the judge has the right of a de novo hearing, and actually substitutes his judgment for that of the pension boards (as if your judgment had never taken place). Under most circumstances, when an administrative board decides something, the judge analyzes the decision, and decides whether or not the decision was reasonable or whether it was arbitrary and capricious. In this case, the judge did not do that. He followed the law as it is written and reviewed the case just as if the pension board had never decided anything. Rose stated that he did not agree with that, but that is the way the law reads and allows the judge to do. Rose stated that the appeal would have to be made within 30 days of the date the judgment is entered. He stated that the judgment has not been entered yet, but it has been sent over, and it orders the Fire Department to pay Roy Skelton's attorney fees. Rose stated that he did not feel the department was obligated to do that, and that would be contested if necessary as a separate issue. The issue on appeal would be that the judge misapplied the law concerning "line -of -duty" disability. The general rule is that the appeal is judged on the basis of whether or not there is any substantial evidence in the record which would support the judge's decision. This is why most appeals are lost. Generally, there is some substantial evidence in the record that support a judge's decision. Rose stated that Workers Compensation would not give an aggravation injury disability; that is a state law. He stated that the chances on an appeal were slim. Rose stated that this appeal would cost a minimal amount of money. He is willing to donate his time and the Department would be liable for the transcript and some minor expenses. Written briefs would be submitted to the Court of Appeals in Little Rock, with an option for oral argument, and then a decision would be rendered. If it is decided to appeal the case, any payments to Roy Skelton will probably be suspended until after the appeal is heard. He will eventually get all of it if he is successful with the case, retroactive back to February 10, 1990, with interest. Any payments made before the appeal would have to be relinquished back to the Department by Skelton.