Ellis v. Utah State Retirement Board

783 P.2d 540, 121 Utah Adv. Rep. 3, 1989 Utah LEXIS 148, 1989 WL 135492
CourtUtah Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 6, 1989
DocketNo. 880333
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 783 P.2d 540 (Ellis v. Utah State Retirement Board) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Utah Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ellis v. Utah State Retirement Board, 783 P.2d 540, 121 Utah Adv. Rep. 3, 1989 Utah LEXIS 148, 1989 WL 135492 (Utah 1989).

Opinions

HALL, Chief Justice:

Petitioner seeks review of the decision of the Utah Court of Appeals which upheld the denial of disability retirement benefits by the district court and the Utah State Retirement Board. 757 P.2d 882 (Utah Ct.App.1988).

Prior to July 1, 1983, the provisions of the Utah State Retirement Act1 governed the eligibility requirements for receiving a disability benefit. On July 1, 1983, a newly enacted disability retirement program entitled “The Utah Public Employees’ Disability Act”2 became effective and governed all disabilities occurring on or after July 1, 1983.

Petitioner was employed by Provo City, which elected on January 1, 1985, to exempt itself from coverage under the Utah state retirement system as permitted by statute. Thereafter, on April 28, 1986, petitioner made application for disability retirement benefits under the provisions of the Utah State Retirement Act. Petitioner was denied benefits under the pre-1983 retirement act because his disability did not occur until 1986, three years after the effective date of the new disability act. He was also denied benefits under the new disability act because Provo City, his employer, had exercised its statutory option by electing not to participate in coverage under the new disability act.

We conclude, as did the Court of Appeals, that petitioner failed to satisfy the conditions precedent to become eligible for disability benefits under either of the applicable acts and therefore was not deprived of any vested rights.

Affirmed.

DURHAM and ZIMMERMAN, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Hom v. Utah Dept. of Public Safety
962 P.2d 95 (Court of Appeals of Utah, 1998)
Hom v. Utah Department of Public Safety
962 P.2d 95 (Court of Appeals of Utah, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
783 P.2d 540, 121 Utah Adv. Rep. 3, 1989 Utah LEXIS 148, 1989 WL 135492, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ellis-v-utah-state-retirement-board-utah-1989.