Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
C.E. Robertson v. PSERS and Greater Johnstown Career and Technology Center
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Decided May 18, 2017No. C.E. Robertson v. PSERS and Greater Johnstown Career and Technology Center - 2156 C.D. 2015Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
CONCURRING/DISSENTING OPINION BY
JUDGE COVEY
I concur with the Majority’s rulings that Cathy E. Robertson’s (Claimant) due process rights were- not violated, and the Public School Employees’ Retirement Board (Board) did not base its decision on the application of the 90-day rule, i.e., the Public School Employees’ Retirement System’s (PSERS) Business Rule (Business Rule).1 However, I respectfully dissent from the Majority’s conclusion that Claimant was not entitled to collect retirement benefits for the period beginning January 31, 2009 because there was no bona fide termination of school…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Hammermill Paper Co. v. Rust Engineering Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1968
- Stepp v. RennSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1957
- Zimmerman v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
- Baillie v. Public School Employees' Retirement BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2010
- Tobey-Karg Sales Agency, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Department of Labor & IndustryCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2011