DocketNumber: No. 97-P-2304
Citation Numbers: 47 Mass. App. Ct. 920
Filed Date: 7/15/1999
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 6/25/2022
Claiming that he had experienced a rather amazing list of traumatic events while in the line of duty, which resulted in post-traumatic stress disorder, defendant police Officer John C. Litchfield applied for accidental disability retirement. The town of Southbridge (town) contested the claim, asserting that elements of Litchfield’s application for benefits were false. A regional medical panel found a disability. The retirement board of Southbridge approved it.
Relief in the nature of certiorari does not lie in these circumstances. The town must exhaust all administrative remedies before seeking judicial relief under G. L. c. 249, § 4. See Carney v. Springfield, 403 Mass. 604, 605 (1988). Cf. Daniels v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd., 418 Mass. 721, 722 (1994). The town should have taken an appeal to CRAB under G. L. c. 32, § 16(4). Contrast Georgetown v. Essex County Retirement Bd., 29 Mass. App. Ct. 272, 273 (1990); Superintendent of Pub. Works of Attleboro v. Attleboro Contributory Retirement Bd., 38 Mass. App. Ct. 130, 131 & n.5 (1995); Swansea v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd., 43 Máss. App. Ct. 402, 405 (1997). These cited cases stand for the proposition that certiorari is an appropriate remedy in particular instances (i.e., removal or discharge of an
Judgment affirmed.
In so doing, the retirement board found that a vast number of the events listed in Officer Litchfield’s “statement of personal injury or hazard undergone” had occurred, in substantial part, as Officer Litchfield reported them. This essentially disposes of the town’s fact-based arguments in opposition to the local board’s determination.