HomeMy WebLinkAboutA001 - legal opinion, February 24, 1982 ��� till N �Ilflll
To: Don Setterberg, Chairman �►I�� �1J 0
FROM:
Utility Retirement Board L uu uu
John R. Klaus , City Attorneys`
DATE:, February 24, 1982
SUBJECT: Utility Retirement
This is in reply to your memo of February 12 , 1982 .
1. The revision you propose to Section 28. 74 is, as you
know, essentially the same as one of the alternatives
outlined ink October 10 , 1979 letter to the Boar on the
s ub je ct. The Federal Regulations and interpretations have
not changed since then. Therefore, what you propose would
be legally acceptable .
2 . You ask if it would be legal to amend the ordinance to
require the deduction from disability benefits of the Utility
System, any payments received by the recipient under the
social security law after age 61 . The "after 61" creates a
problem -- but I doubt there would be one if there were no
age specified, but just a proviso that the disability benefit
will be reduced by the amount of anh other disability bene-
fits received from other sources , or benefits received under
the social security law.
3. Obviously there is an economic consideration whether the
disability benefits should be expanded to include disability
from drug dependancy or alcoholism.
4 . Whether or not an employee is disabled and entitled to
receive disability benefits is not a discretionary decision
of the Board of Trustees but rather a function of whether
there has been :
a. The certification by two doctors that the
employee is disabled.
b. Certification by "the administrative officer"
that the employee is disabled.
Some times neither the doctors or the administrative officer
is really sure.
Another approach, as you suggest would be to have
the Board make the decision based on the testimony of the
administrator, supervisors , fellow workers , and the medical
reports .
There are pros and cons to either method.
cc B.J. Harker, Secretary