Foster v. Pension Board

California Court of Appeal Nov 22, 1937 No. Civ. 10622Published

Before: Spence

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a municipal pension ordinance limiting total combined compensation and pension payments to one-half of a member's salary is valid and that the pension board may recover prior overpayments by deducting them from future pension installments.

Issues

Whether a pension ordinance limits the total combined amount of disability compensation and pension payments to one-half of a member's salary.
Whether the pension board may recover overpayments made to a pensioner by deducting them from future pension payments.
Whether the ordinance's limitation on total payments conflicts with the Workmen's Compensation Insurance and Safety Act.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The amount of such compensation and the amount of pension allowed by the Board shall not in any event, exceed one-half of the member’s salary at the time of his injury.”

“It is immaterial whether said overpayments were made by respondent board under a mistake of fact or under a mistake of law. In either event, the respondent board was entitled to recover the amount of said overpayments from petitioner.”

SPENCE, J.

Petitioner sought a writ of mandate to compel respondents to make certain payments claimed to be due under a pension ordinance. From a judgment denying the writ, petitioner has appealed.

This controversy arose under a pension ordinance of the city of Alameda. Said ordinance was originally adopted in 1925 and was known as Ordinance 276, New Series. A pension fund was thereby created together with a pension board to administer the same. Provision was made for pension payments to members of the police and fire departments who might be retired from active service, voluntarily or involuntarily, after various specified periods of service. In the event of service for 25 years before retirement, the monthly pension was to be paid in an amount equal to one-half the monthly salary. Said ordinance was amended in 1933 by an ordinance known as Ordinance 503, New Series. The

[552]

main purpose of the amendment was to deal with pensions in those cases in which members of the police and fire departments might be retired on account of disability. It provided for payment of a monthly pension in such eases in an amount equal to ,one-half the monthly salary, regardless of the length of service prior to such retirement, but subject to the limitations hereinafter set forth. Section 3 (d) of said ordinance as amended read as follows:

“The monthly pensions payable under this ordinance shall not be additional to any monthly compensation insurance payable to any member of the police or fire department in case of accident resulting in the course of his employment,

unless the compensation payments are less than one-half

(%)

of the salary of the member,

provided that when the monthly compensation insurance has been fully paid, the monthly pension will thereupon and thereafter be payable,

except as herein provided.

“In case the compensation insurance awarded by the Industrial Accident Commission shall be payable in a lump sum, the Pension Board shall not make monthly payments of the pension to any member until the expiration of the period of time covered by the permanent disability rating, provided in the event said member be awarded compensation for life, said amount shall be payable to said member from the Compensation Fund.

Foster v. Pension Board

AI Brief

SPENCE, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief