McKee v. Public Employees' Retirement System
Before: Evans
Opinion
EVANS, J. Plaintiff Larry G. McKee (McKee) appeals from a judgment denying a writ of mandate which sought to compel defendant, Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS), to enroll McKee in a health care program provided pursuant to the Public Employees’ Retirement System. We affirm.
Facts
McKee took office, as a superior court judge in Kings County, January 5, 1981. At the time of taking office he declined the opportunity to enroll in a health benefits plan under the Public Employees’ Medical and Hospital Care Act.1 Because of injuries he later sustained in an automobile accident, he applied for disability retirement and then attempted, for the first time, to enroll in the health benefits program by submitting a health statement to the carrier.2 The carrier declined to act on his application. McKee was there[1056]after granted retirement by the Commission on Judicial Performance. At the commencement of the open enrollment period after his retirement, McKee again attempted to enroll in the health benefits program. His application was rejected because he had not enrolled in a health benefits plan prior to his retirement.
On April 29, 1985, McKee filed a petition for a writ of mandate to compel PERS to enroll him in a PERS health benefits program. The court concluded that since plaintiff had not enrolled in a health benefits plan prior to his retirement, he did not then qualify for enrollment, and the petition for the writ of mandate was denied. McKee appeals the ensuing judgment.
Discussion
McKee argues that he is eligible to enroll in the health benefits plan administered by PERS without having been previously enrolled during his employment.
Health insurance is made available to state employees pursuant to the provisions of the Public Employees’ Medical and Hospital Care Act (the Act). Government Code section 22771 delegates the administration of the program to the Board of Administration of the Public Employees’ Retirement System (the Board). Coverage under the Act is restricted to employees and annuitants. (Gov. Code, § 22810.) For the purposes of the Act, an “annuitant” is any person who retired within 120 days of separation from employment and who receives any retirement allowance under any state or University of California retirement system to which the state was a contributing party. (Gov. Code, § 22754, subd. (e)(1).)
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)