Benefits Appeal May Impact Illinois Pension Debate
From the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin
Among the 19 cases slated for Illinois Supreme Court oral arguments during its September term is a class-action suit that could affect the course of the state’s ongoing pension debate.
In Roger Kanerva, et al., v. Malcolm Weems, No. 115811, a group of retired state workers is challenging a 2012 law that ended free health insurance premiums on behalf of an estimated 80,000 retirees. The case will be heard on direct appeal from the Sangamon County Circuit Court, where Associate Judge Steven H. Nardulli allowed the state’s motion to dismiss all four class-action challenges against the law.
The court will also hear five criminal cases and 13 other civil cases.
Nardulli held that the state constitution’s pension clause — which says that public benefits shall not be diminished or impaired — does not apply to health-care premiums because they cannot be guaranteed in advance the way pension sums can.
“If one were to accept the premise that health insurance benefits are vested rights that accrue upon retirement, one must accept the premise that those benefits cannot be reduced, regardless of changing medical technology or the willingness of insurance providers to make a particular policy of health insurance available,” Nardulli wrote in his seven-page ruling in March.
“The fact that medical technology and contracts offered by insurance companies change lead this court to the conclusion that health insurance benefits are not the same as a pension protected by the Pension Protection Clause.”
Prior to the law’s implementation, state and university employees who retired after 20 years of service paid no health insurance premiums. Judges and legislators who had at least six and four years of service, respectively, received the same benefit.
Read more in our daily News Update...
From the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin
Among the 19 cases slated for Illinois Supreme Court oral arguments during its September term is a class-action suit that could affect the course of the state’s ongoing pension debate.
In Roger Kanerva, et al., v. Malcolm Weems, No. 115811, a group of retired state workers is challenging a 2012 law that ended free health insurance premiums on behalf of an estimated 80,000 retirees. The case will be heard on direct appeal from the Sangamon County Circuit Court, where Associate Judge Steven H. Nardulli allowed the state’s motion to dismiss all four class-action challenges against the law.
The court will also hear five criminal cases and 13 other civil cases.
Nardulli held that the state constitution’s pension clause — which says that public benefits shall not be diminished or impaired — does not apply to health-care premiums because they cannot be guaranteed in advance the way pension sums can.
“If one were to accept the premise that health insurance benefits are vested rights that accrue upon retirement, one must accept the premise that those benefits cannot be reduced, regardless of changing medical technology or the willingness of insurance providers to make a particular policy of health insurance available,” Nardulli wrote in his seven-page ruling in March.
“The fact that medical technology and contracts offered by insurance companies change lead this court to the conclusion that health insurance benefits are not the same as a pension protected by the Pension Protection Clause.”
Prior to the law’s implementation, state and university employees who retired after 20 years of service paid no health insurance premiums. Judges and legislators who had at least six and four years of service, respectively, received the same benefit.
Read more in our daily News Update...