In Rodbart v. County of Union, 2009 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 3084 (December 21, 2009), Union County was sued by three retirees who expected the County to pay their Medicare Part B premiums for life if they accepted early retirement. Two of the retirees were former Union County assistant prosecutors and the other served as a prosecutor’s detective. All had served for more than twenty-five years and had retired in reliance upon an early retirement incentive program offered by the County. In explaining why they expected their Medicare Part B premiums to be paid for life, plaintiffs said that they relied on a survey that was sent to potential employees addressing, among other benefits, fully paid health benefits for life (family, parent/child, husband/wife, or single as applicable). This was followed by an application sent to the employees which included the following language describing the medical benefits the employees would receive in return for accepting early retirement: “[r]emoval of the existing cap on the retiree health benefit subsidy to provide fully paid health benefits for life.”
Relying on this documentation, the plaintiffs sought summary judgment against the County. The County cross-moved for summary judgment. The trial judge ruled against the plaintiffs, finding the record did not support an express or implied promise for payment of Medicare Part B premiums. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the decision of the trial judge, relying, first, upon N.J.S.A. 43:8C-2(c), the enabling legislation that permitted the creation of the retirement incentive program. That statute permitted the County to pay for the retirees health benefits coverage after retirement, but only for up to five years, or until Medicare Part B became available to the retirees, whichever occurred first. Second, the Appellate Division characterized the appeal as exposing “an interpretive rift” between a county government and retired government lawyers and law enforcement officers over a contract providing incentives for early retirement. The Court said that:
The reference to lifetime health benefits is plainly modified by and subservient to the opening phrase dealing with the “[r]emoval of the existing cap on the retiree health benefit subsidy.” It was not a blank check for free Medicare Part B health insurance for the retirees’ lifetime.
The case is attached here – Rodbart v. County of Union
Categories
- Affordable Care Act
- Alzheimer's Disease
- Arbitration
- Attorney Ethics
- Attorneys Fees
- Beneficiary Designations
- Blog Roundup and Highlights
- Blogs and Blogging
- Care Facilities
- Caregivers
- Cemetery
- Collaborative Family Law
- Conservatorships
- Consumer Fraud
- Contempt
- Contracts
- Defamation
- Developmental Disabilities
- Discovery
- Discrimination Laws
- Doctrine of Probable Intent
- Domestic Violence
- Elder Abuse
- Elder Law
- Elective Share
- End-of-Life Decisions
- Estate Administration
- Estate Litigation
- Estate Planning
- Events
- Family Law
- Fiduciary
- Financial Exploitation of the Elderly
- Funeral
- Future of the Legal Profession
- Geriatric Care Managers
- Governmental or Public Benefit Programs
- Guardianship
- Health Issues
- Housing for the Elderly and Disabled
- In Remembrance
- Insolvent Estates
- Institutional Liens
- Insurance
- Interesting New Cases
- Intestacy
- Law Firm News
- Law Firm Videos
- Law Practice Management / Development
- Lawyers and Lawyering
- Legal Capacity or Competancy
- Legal Malpractice
- Legal Rights of the Disabled
- Liens
- Litigation
- Mediation
- Medicaid Appeals
- Medicaid Applications
- Medicaid Planning
- Annuities
- Care Contracts
- Divorce
- Estate Recovery
- Family Part Non-Dissolution Support Orders
- Gifts
- Life Estates
- Loan repayments
- MMMNA
- Promissory Notes
- Qualified Income Trusts
- Spousal Refusal
- Transfers For Reasons Other Than To Qualify For Medicaid
- Transfers to "Caregiver" Child(ren)
- Transfers to Disabled Adult Children
- Trusts
- Undue Hardship Provision
- Multiple-Party Deposit Account Act
- New Cases
- New Laws
- News Briefs
- Newsletters
- Non-Probate Assets
- Nursing Facility Litigation
- Personal Achievements and Awards
- Personal Injury Lawsuits
- Probate
- Punitive Damages
- Reconsideration
- Retirement Benefits
- Reverse Mortgages
- Section 8 Housing
- Settlement of Litigation
- Social Media
- Special Education
- Special Needs Planning
- Surrogate Decision-Making
- Taxation
- Technology
- Texting
- Top Ten
- Trials
- Trustees
- Uncategorized
- Veterans Benefits
- Web Sites and the Internet
- Webinar
- Writing Intended To Be A Will
Vanarelli & Li, LLC on Social Media