• Ronald Sutkus v. State Board of Retirement, CR-09-837 (DALA, 2010)

    I conclude that the Petitioner’s major duties did require him to be involved in the care and instruction of mentally ill persons within the meaning of G.L. c. 32, §3(2)(g). The decision of the State Board of Retirement is hereby reversed. Mr. Sutkus’s group classification is hereby changed from Group 1 to Group 2 for retirement purposes.
  • Linda Antonucci v. State Board of Retirement, CR-07-1055 (DALA 2009)

    The State Board of Retirement properly denied the Petitioner's request for Group 4 classification. Her job title of Correction Program Officer is not specifically delineated in the statute, G.L. c. 32, s. 3(2)(g), as a job title included in Group 4.
  • Kathleen Bailey v. State Board of Retirement, CR-07-724 (DALA, 2008)

    Respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction was allowed as appeal was not timely filed.
  • William Barry v. State Board of Retirement, CR-07-1125 (DALA, 2009)

    Human Service Coordinator-C was properly classified in Group 1 pursuant to G.L. c. 32, § 3(2)(g), and is not entitled to Group 2 classification, because his regular and major duties are administrative and supervisory in nature. Occasional contact with mentally ill or mentally defective clients and exposure to occasional danger do not entitle Petitioner to Group 2 classification.
  • City of Boston v. Boston Retirement Board and Animal Control Officers and Inspectors, CR-07-407 (DALA, 2008)

    Intervenors, the Animal Control Officers and Inspectors, are not employed in any of the occupations set forth in Group 2. They are not police officers and they are not employees of the department of public safety. They are appropriately classified in Group 1 as "all others not otherwise classified."
  • Bradley v. Boston Retirement Board, CR-07-396 (DALA 2009)

    Petitioner is properly classified in a Group 1 position. He is not entitled to a Group 4 classification for his work as a direct supervisor of staff electricians and outside vendor electricians who work within the mechanical room at Boston City Hall on electrical generating and power distribution facilities and on a large emergency generator, because this work is not done at a municipal electric generating or distribution plant as required by the Group 4 language in G.L. c. 32, s. 3(2)(g).
  • Cremins v. State Board of Retirement , CR-08-627 (DALA 2009)

    The petitioner, a campus police officer, is not entitled to be classified in Group 2 or Group 4 for retirement purposes.
  • Mark Crosbie v. State Board of Retirement, CR-08-319 (DALA, 2009)

    Mark B. Crosbie is properly classified in Group 1, rather than Group 2, pursuant to G.L. c. 32, § 3(2)(g), because his regular and major duties do not require him to have the care, custody, instruction or other supervision of prisoners
  • Doreen Fay v. State Board of Retirement, CR-06-677 (DALA, 2008)

    The Petitioner does not meet the statutory requirements for inclusion in Group 2 for retirement purposes.
  • Jean Green v. State Board of Retirement, CR-06-1121 (DALA, 2008)

    The Petitioner was entitled to Group 2 classification as the majority of her time was spent in direct contact with mentally ill and mentally retarded students, counseling and instructing them.
  • Elizabeth Hanchett v. State Board of Retirement, CR-07-659 (DALA, 2010)

    Petitioner is not entitled to a Group 2 job classification upon retirement from her job at Western Massachusetts Hospital as a nursing assistant I rendering direct patient care primarily in a unit with patients who have intermediate, end of life, and respite care needs. Even with as many as four or five Alzheimer’s patients and possibly some mentally retarded respite care patients out of the nineteen total patients in her unit, she has not proven that her regular and major duties are providing direct care to predominately mentally ill or mentally defective persons as required for a Group 2 job classification. The decision of the respondent giving her a Group 1 job classification is affirmed.
  • Russell Hayes v. State Board of Retirement, CR-07-581 (DALA 2009)

    The Petitioner, former Assistant Director of Education in the Worcester County Sheriff's Department, has met his burden of proving that he is entitled to be classified in Group 2 for retirement purposes. He successfully demonstrated that his regular and major duties required him to have responsibility for the "care, custody, instruction or other supervision of…" the prisoners whom he selected and worked with in the educational program.
  • Deborah Herst Hill v. State Board of Retirement, CR-07-605 (DALA 2009)

    Petitioner, a clinical nurse employed by the Department of Mental Retardation in one of its Area offices, is not entitled to Group II status. Her regular and major duties do not require her to have care, custody, instruction or other supervision of persons who are mentally ill or mentally defective. Rather, her primary role is to assist Area Service Coordinators in managing the medical care being provided by third-party providers.
  • William Hunter, Sr. v. State Board of Retirement, CR-07-94 (DALA, 2008)

    Petitioner, who served as Tool Room Attendant/Janitor in the Essex County Sheriff's Department is not entitled to classification in Group 4. His position is not one of the job titles delineated within the statute.
  • Peter Millerick v. Boston Retirement Board, CR-07-370 (DALA, 2009)

    The Petitioner is not entitled to classification in Group 4 for retirement purposes.
  • Peter Millerick v. Boston Retirement Board, CR-07-370 (DALA, 2008)

    The Petitioner is not entitled to Group 4 classification as he was not employed in municipal gas, electric generating or distribution plant as required by statute for Group 4 classification.
  • Chabilal Neerghenn v. State Board of Retirement, CR-07-439 (DALA, 2009)

    Primary care and attending physician providing direct care to segregated hospital patients with a diagnosis of advanced dementia with severe disruptive behaviors, is entitled to a G.L. c. 32, s 3(2)(g) Group 2 job classification. Patients found to be "mentally ill" within the Group 2 language, as they meet Department of Mental Health criteria for being mentally ill and could be subject to involuntary hospitalization in a psychiatric facility.
  • Nichols v. State Board of Retirement, CR-06-919 (DALA 2009)

    The petitioner is not entitled to be classified in Group 2 for retirement purposes because she did not provide care, custody, instruction or other supervision to mentally disabled patients, as she had claimed.
  • LuAnn Nowill v. State Board of Retirement, CR-08-558 (DALA, 2009)

  • Mark Patton v. Falmouth Retirement Board, CR-07-597 (DALA, 2009)

    Falmouth Natural Resources officers are not entitled to re-classification in Group 4 because they are not “members” of a “police department.”
  • Stacey Perry v. Bristol County Retirement System, CR-07-422 (DALA 2009)

    The Petitioner is properly classified in Group 1, rather than Group 2, because her regular and major duties in her position of Head Administrative Clerk/Booking and Receiving in the Bristol County Sheriff's Department does not require her to have the care, custody, instruction or other supervision of prisoners as required under G. L. c. 32, s. 3(2)(g).
  • Matthew Serafin v. State Bd. of Retirement, CR-06-160 (DALA, 2008)

    An R.N. IV-Administrative Supervisor at Worcester State Hospital was properly classified in Group 1, where his regular and major duties were supervising charge nurses and other largely administrative duties and included very little time in direct patient care.
  • Bryan Silva v. State Board of Retirement, CR-06-641 (DALA, 2008)

    Petitioner is correctly classified in Group 2, as decided in a previous appeal. His request for reconsideration was denied on the basis of issue preclusion. He is not entitled to a second hearing on the merits.
  • Enzo Simmarano v. State Board of Retirement, CR-05-276 (DALA, 2008)

    Because Petitioner's major duties require him to be involved in the care and instruction of youths who fall within the categories outlined in G.L. c. 32, s. 3(2)(g), he is entitled to Group 2 status.
  • Susan Abele v. Newton Retirement Board, CR-08-495 (DALA, 2009)

    Susan D. Abele is properly classified in Category Three pursuant to the Newton Retirement Board’s June 1, 1987 creditable service supplementary regulation because Ms. Abele worked both full-time and part-time during her employment with the City, even where the full-time work lasted only five months.
  • Margaret Tudryn v. State Board of Retirement, CR-06-1104 (DALA, 2008)

    Ms. Tudryn's Dept. of Social Services Social Worker D job was properly classified in Group 1 despite working in crime-ridden office locations and often accompanying or covering for absent staff caseworkers on client visits involving violent clients and circumstances. Her Form 30 job description does not include a primary duty to have "care, custody, instruction or other supervision of . . . mentally ill, mentally defective, or defective delinquents or wayward children" as set forth in G.L. c. 32, § 3(2)(g) at Group 2.
  • Daniel Wheelan v. State Board of Retirement, CR-07-515 (DALA, 2009)

    The Petitioner, who was employed as a Social Worker C in the Department of Mental Health, did not meet his burden of proving that his "regular and major duties" required him to have the "care, custody, instruction or other supervision of...ersons who are mentally ill or mentally defective." As such, he was appropriately classified in Group 1.
  • Daniel Wheelan v. State Board of Retirement, CR-07-515 (DALA, 2009)

    The Petitioner, who was employed as a Social Worker C in the Department of Mental Health, did not meet his burden of proving that his “regular and major duties” required him to have the “care, custody, instruction or other supervision of…persons who are mentally ill or mentally defective.” As such, he was appropriately classified in Group 1.