Home -> Law Blog Directory -> State Law Blogs -> Showmeblawgs

State Law

: Showmeblawgs

By stan_sipple

Retired worker compensation administrative law judge loses bid for an earlier retirement age. Judge Sinhold retired in 1989 when retirement was at 65. In 1999 the Missouri Legislature reduces the retirement age to 62. He sought retroactive retirement benefits, or for the Missouri Retirement System (MOSERS) to declare him a special consultant as the Missouri Supreme Court allowed for a teacher in State ex rel. Dreer v. Public School Retirement System of the City of St. Louis, 519 S.W.2d 290 (Mo. 1975). Missouri Supreme Court affirms Cole County Circuit Court ruling against the retired judge.
Robert H. Sihnhold, Appellant, v. Missouri State Employees' Retirement System, Respondent.: SC88813

The circuit court correctly held that applying the amended version of section 287.815 to Sihnhold would constitute a grant of extra compensation in violation of article III, sections 38(a) and 39(3) of the Missouri Constitution. Section 39(3) provides that the legislature "shall not have power ? [t]o grant ? any extra compensation, fee or allowance to an officer, agent, servant, or contractor after service has been rendered," and section 38(a) provides that the legislature "shall have no power to grant public money or property ? to any private person." This Court previously has held that a statute that retroactively granted benefits to previously retired judges violated article III, sections 38(a) and 39(3), State ex rel. Cleaveland v. Bond, 518 S.W.2d 649 (Mo. 1975), and that a statute retroactively giving cost-of-living adjustments to previously retired police officers constituted a grant of "extra" or "add on" compensation in violation of article III, section 39(3), Police Retirement System of Kansas City v. Kansas City, 529 S.W.2d 388 (Mo. 1975). The rationale of these cases demonstrates that a retroactive award of three years of extra pension benefits to Sihnhold would be unconstitutional. Although generally the legislature can enact a statute that waives the state's right to object to retrospective application of a new statute, it does not have such authority here because of the separate constitutional limitations in article III, sections 38(a) and 39(3). Further, State ex rel. Dreer v. Public School Retirement System of the City of St. Louis, 519 S.W.2d 290 (Mo. 1975), which held that a statute permitting former employees to be employed as "special consultants" to increase their retirement compensation did not violate article III, sections 38(a) and 39(3), does not apply here because there is no statute that allows Sihnhold to be employed as a special consultant. Sihnhold's eligibility for retirement benefits is governed by the version of section 287.815 in effect when his employment as an ALJ terminated.

Full post as published by Showmeblawgs on April 09, 2008 (boomark / email).