State Board of Retirement v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board
Massachusetts Appeals Court
1Opinion of the CourtDreben, J.
At issue in this case is whether the interpretation of G. L. c. 32, § 4(l)(s), by the Contributory Retirement Appeal Board (CRAB) was a reasonable one. See Foresta v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd., 453 Mass. 669, 676 (2009). CRAB determined that Claire Barker had the required ten years of creditable service with the State employees’ retirement system (SERS) to establish contract service under G. L. c. 32, § 4(l)(s). The State Board of Retirement (board) considered CRAB’s decision erroneous, and appealed CRAB’s decision to the *453Superior Court.2 Before us is CRAB’s appeal from the allowance…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Goldberg v. Board of HealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2005
- Berrios v. Department of Public WelfareMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1992
- Namay v. Contributory Retirement Appeal BoardMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1985
- Boston Retirement Board v. Contributory Retirement Appeal BoardMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2004
- Foresta v. Contributory Retirement Appeal BoardMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2009
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Megiel-Rollo v. Contributory Retirement Appeal BoardMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2012
- Parente v. State Board of RetirementMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2011
- JAMES LYDON v. CONTRIBUTORY RETIREMENT APPEAL BOARD & another.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 2022