Estate of Burlingame v. Commonwealth
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
1Dissent
Dissenting Opinion by
Judge Doyle:
I respectfully dissent. The majority holds that the completion of the nomination beneficiary form together with certain parol evidence should be deemed legally sufficient for the Board to determine that an Option 1 designation should be honored. Although I have great sympathy for Cecelia and Jarvis and recognize the tragic circumstances of this case, I must reject the majority’s position. I do so for several reasons. First, I believe that the statute’s statement that an option designation form be in writing is clear. Second, while Mrs. Burlingame may have…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Estate of McGovern v. Commonwealth, State Employees' Retirement BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
- Dom v. State Employes' Retirement BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1942
- Myers v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
- Hargest v. State Employes' Retirement Board, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Dauphin County1951