WPCZ# # VUNa % 0(w@4 1 0l@ 0D  0J 0TB B 0^ 0h 0ry 0| 0g 0 1u} U, 0d D3U, 0@U>!U 6_B)DC AMU*N x7ZTv~dv AO!" 0D" D/# B=#HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0 (hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($ EFDGHDIJDKLDMӀY} 3|xY((3$ !      0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23   d2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ! ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)<  9p`(ModernP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X'dxd<  9p`(Monaco("$    <  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d00007Border 1dd-1C << G<  9p`(Arial  !#d##.  33   YYY FILED3X May22,1996CecilCrowson,Jr.3AppellateCourtClerk  - !#d##.   $       //SincewedeterminedinourearlieropinionthatNeblettewasentitledtoapensionandsincethatdecisionisnowfinal,itisthelawofthiscase.Cf. Bivinsv.HospitalCorp.ofAmerica, 910S.W.2d441,447(Tenn.App.1995); Jonesv.Jones, 784S.W.2d349,351(Tenn.App.1989)./X.  !#d##.   $       //Wereferredtotheearlierversionofthepensionplaninourfirstopinion;however,wedidnotexpresslydecidethattheearlierversionwasapplicabletoNeblettescase.  !#d##.   $       //Sincetheearlierversionofthepensionplanwasineffectatthetimeofinjury;whenthesixmonthperiodwassatisfied;andwhenNeblettesapplicationwasfiled,itisnotnecessaryforustodecideinthiscasewhichofthesethreedatesisdeterminativeoftheapplicableplan.  !#d##.   $       //Thisisnottosaythatanemployerandemployeecouldnotcontractuallyagreetoexactlythatarrangement,providedthosetermsareclearlyspelledoutinthepensionplan.Inthecontextofapensionplanwhichdoesnotprovideadateforpaymentstostart,however,wedeclinetointerprettheplantomeananemployeeisnotentitledtoreceivebenefitsuntiltheBoardactsuponhisorherapplicationwhentheemployeehasotherwisedoneeverythingrequiredtoholduphisorherendofthepension bargain./X.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'@Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Monaco   BA Op Monaco  BA Op Monaco -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . #&,,Xd&#,,Xd#.    P /\RA'\ћ7XXdd7ќINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE̛  CHRISTINEBRADLEYNEBLETTE,)C/ANO.03A019511CH00418ٜL241;+'h|X~`  `Lߛ      )HAMILTONCOUNTYCHANCERYCOURT  PlaintiffAppellee, )      )      )      )      )      )      )v.      )      )HONORABLER.VANNOWENS,       )CHANCELLOR      )      )      )      )THECITYOFCHATTANOOGA  )FIREMANSANDPOLICEMANS )INSURANCEANDPENSIONFUND ) BOARD,     )      )AFFIRMEDASMODIFIED  DefendantAppellant.)REMANDED̛̜ARVINH.REINGOLD,P.C.,Chattanooga,forAppellant.ROBERTL.MOON,JR.andMICHAELS.PRICHARD,Chattanooga,forAppellee.  OPINION̛          Susano,J.ӛ  Onremandfromthiscourt,thetrialcourtruledthattheplaintiffpoliceofficersdisabilitypensionpaymentswouldcommence,retroactively,asofApril14,1992,andthattheamountofthosepaymentswouldbedeterminedpursuanttothetermsofthepensionplanineffectpriortoJanuary1,1993.TheCityofChattanoogaFiremansandPolicemansInsuranceandPensionFundBoard(Board)appeals,arguingthattheawardshouldstart,andbecalculated,asofFebruary2,1993,underthetermsofthenewpensionplan.WeagreewiththetrialcourtsdeterminationthattheoldplanappliestoNeblettesdisability;however,wefindandholdthatthepaymentsshouldcommenceasofOctober15,1992.Thetrialcourtsjudgmentismodifiedtosoprovide.  Inthefirstappeal,weheldthattheplaintiff,ChristineBradleyNeblette,wasentitledtoadisabilitypensionbaseduponaninjuryshereceivedwhileemployedasaChattanoogapoliceofficer. Neblettev.TheCityofChattanoogaFiremansandPolicemansIns.andPensionFundBd., No.Ϝ03A019402CH00046,1994WL449101(filedatKnoxville,August22,1994,Goddard,P.J.).ThistimeweareaskedtoresolvetwoϜadditionalissues:first,thestartingdateofNeblettesϜdisabilitypayments;andsecond,theversionofthepensionplan͜underwhichtheamountofherpaymentsistobecalculated.Regardingthesecondissue,wearepresentedwithtwopossibilities:theplanineffectatthetimeNeblettewasinjured,ceasedworking,andfiledherapplicationforapension,orthesubsequentlyamendedplan,whichtookeffectaftershefiledherapplicationbutbeforetheBoardactedonthatapplication.TheChancellorheldthatNeblettewasentitledtothemorebeneficialprovisionsoftheearlierplan,andthatherdisabilitypaymentsshouldstartasofthedateofherinjury,April14,1992.Weagreethattheearlierpensionplancontrols,butareoftheopinionthatNeblettesbenefitpaymentsshouldϜstarteffectiveOctober15,1992,thedateonwhichsheceasedtoreceiveherregularpaycheck.̜  I                Thefactsrelevanttoadeterminationoftheissuesnowbeforeusareessentiallyundisputed.Nebletteincurredaworkrelatedinjury 5   כonApril14,1992.Accordingtoherbrief,Neblettecontinuedtowork sporadicallyoverthenextsixmonths.ShestoppedworkingpermanentlyonOctober15,1992.Regardingherpayduringthatperiod,herbriefassertsthefollowing:Ӝ̛8 8 atmostshereceivedonlypartofher injuryondutypayortookpersonalsickdaysshehadpreviouslyaccumulated.Atothertimeswhenshewasunabletoworkshewascarriedonthepolicerollasabsentwithoutpay.TherecordcontainsNeblettes employeehistoryreportsalarydetailfor1992,theaccuracyofwhichisnotchallenged.ThatreportclearlyshowsthatNeblettereceivedherregularsalaryϜduringthesixmonthsbeginningApril15,1992andendingOctober15,1992.ShereceivedherlastpaycheckforthepayperiodendingOctober15,1992.NeblettefiledanapplicationforadisabilitypensiononOctober15,1992.  AtallrelevanttimesuptoandincludingOctober15,1992,theChattanoogacityordinancedealingwithdisabilitypensionsprovided,inpertinentpart,asfollows:Ӝ̛8 8 Ifanyemployeeofthedepartmentoffireandpolicewhileengagedinthedischargeofhisdutiesshallreceiveinjuriesresultinginsuchemployeebecomingdisabledfromperforminghisduties,heshallbeplacedonafullpensionandpaidtheamountheretoforeprovided,regardlessofthelengthoftimeserved;provided,however,thatbeforesuchinjuredemployeeshallberetiredonapensiontheboardofdirectorsshallhavehimexaminedbycompetentphysicianstodeterminewhetherornotsuchdisabledemployeeisunabletodischargehisregularoranyotherdutythatmayberequiredofhimbyofficialsofthedepartmentoffireandpolice;provided,further,thatnodisabledemployeeshallberetiredonapensionbecauseofinjuryuntilsix(6)monthsaftersuchinjurywasreceived.Anyemployeeretiredonapensionbecauseofaninjury,ineventofrecoverytotheextentthatheisagainabletoperformanydutyrequiredofhim,shallberemovedfromthepensionrollandreinstatedinservice.ChattanoogaCityCharter,Section13.76.TheordinancewasamendedeffectiveJanuary1,1993.Theamendmenthadtheeffectofsignificantlyreducingthedollaramountofbenefitsdueadisabledofficer.  OnFebruary2,1993,theBoarddeniedNeblettespensionapplication.Thatactionsparkedthefirstroundoflitigation,resultinginthiscourtsaffirmanceoftheChancellorsreversaloftheBoardsdecisiontodenydisabilitybenefits. Neblette, supra.Onremand,theBoardawardedNeblettebenefitsretroactively,effectiveFebruary2,1993.TheBoardcalculated͜herbenefitsunderthetermsofthelessfavorableamendedϜordinance. 6   ׀Nebletterequestedthatherdisabilitybenefitsbecalculatedundertheearlierversionoftheordinance,andthattheybemaderetroactivetoApril14,1992,thedateofherinjury.AtahearingheldApril20,1995,theBoarddeniedbothrequests.NebletteappealedtheBoardsdecisiontotheHamiltonCountyChanceryCourt,and,onJune20,1995,ChancellorR.VannOwensorderedthatdisabilitypensionbenefitsbepaideffectiveApril14,1992,andthattheybecalculatedundertheearlierversionofChattanoogasordinance.Thisappealfollowed.  ӜII    OurstandardofreviewissetforthatT.C.A.45322(h),apartoftheUniformAdministrativeProceduresAct:8 8 Thecourtmayreverseormodifythedecisioniftherightsofthepetitionerhavebeenprejudicedbecausetheadministrativefindings,inferences,conclusionsordecisionsare:8 8 (1)Inviolationofconstitutionalorstatutoryprovisions;8 8 (2)Inexcessofthestatutoryauthorityoftheagency;8 8 (3)Madeuponunlawfulprocedure;8 8 (4)Arbitraryorcapriciousorcharacterizedbyabuseofdiscretionorclearlyunwarrantedexerciseofdiscretion;or8 8 (5)Unsupportedbyevidencewhichisbothsubstantialandmaterialinthelightoftheentirerecord.Id.Wereviewthiscasewiththisstandardinmind.  III    WefirstaddresstheBoardscontentionthattheChancellorerredinreversingtheBoardsdeterminationthattheϜamendedordinancecontrolledNeblettesbenefits.TheBoardarguesthatsinceitdidnotacttodenyNeblettespensionapplicationuntilaftertheamendedordinancetookeffect,herϜpensionmustbedeterminedpursuanttotheamendedordinance.Ontheotherhand,Neblettearguesthatsinceherinjury,disability,andthefilingofherpensionapplicationalloccurredbeforetheamendmentbecameeffective,sheacquiredavestedrightinthecontractualtermsoftheearlierversionoftheordinance.Weagreethattheearlierversionappliestoherdisabilitypension.   AlineofTennesseecasesstartingwith Weesnerv.ElectricPowerBd.ofChattanooga, 344S.W.2d766(Tenn.App.1961),iscontrollingonthisissue.In Weesner ,thecourtstatedthefollowing:Ӝ̛8 8 Aboardofdirectorscannotlegallystripanemployeeofthebenefitsofapensionplanwheretheemployeehascompliedwiththetermsoftheofferofapensionsincethepurposesoftheplancouldbereadilyfrustratedatthewhimofthedirectors.̛̜Id.at768,quotingfrom Birdv.ConnecticutPowerCo., 133A.2d894,897(Conn.1957).In1976,theSupremeCourt,inacasedealingwithapublicpension,cited Weesner asfollows:8 8 Thecaseof Weesner ...dealingwiththeprivatepensionofanelectricpowerboardinChattanooga,clearlyholdsthatanofferofapension,theacceptanceofsame,andthecompletionoftheserviceoftheemployee,createsavestedinterestinsaidpensionwhichwillnotbedeniedeithertotheparticipantorhisfamily.̛8 8   8 TheAppellantsinsistthattheGeneralAssemblyisempoweredtoreasonablymodifypensionbenefits,evenifvested.Wedonotagree.̛̜ Milesv.TennesseeConsol.RetirementSystem, 548S.W.2d299,304(Tenn.1976).ThisrulehasbeenconsistentlyfollowedϜbytheSupremeCourtinaseriesofcasessince Miles.Blackwellv.QuarterlyCountyCourtofShelbyCounty, 622S.W.2d535,543(Tenn.1981)(adopting Pennsylvaniarule,whichpermitsreasonablemodifications...providedthatnosuchmodificationcanadverselyaffectanemployeewhohascompliedwithallconditionsnecessarytobeeligibleforaretirementϜallowance.); Robertsv.TennesseeConsol.RetirementSystem, 622S.W.2d544,545(Tenn.1981); Feltsv.TennesseeConsol.RetirementSystem, 650S.W.2d371,37475(Tenn.1983); Abernathyv.TennesseeConsol.RetirementSystem, 655S.W.2d143,145(Tenn.1983); KnoxCountyv.CityofKnoxville, 786S.W.2d936,941(Tenn.1990).  TheunderlyingrationalefortheruleistherecognitionthatӜ̛8 8 anoncontributorypensionandprofitsharingplanisnotagratuitybutisanofferofadditionaldeferredcompensationandtheofferisacceptedbytheemployeeremainingintheemploymentoftheemployerwhichissufficientconsiderationtosupporttheemployerspromisetopaythebenefitsandis,therefore,acontractenforceablebytheemployee. Simmonsv.Hitt, 546S.W.2d587,591(Tenn.App.1976).  WeexaminethetermsoftheearlierordinancetodetermineifNeblettecompliedwiththeconditionsprecedenttoherentitlementtodisabilitybenefitspriortotheenactmentofthenewplan.Insodoing,wekeepinmindtheprinciple,clearlyrecognizedinTennesseelaw,thatӜ̛8 8 thestatutescreatingpensionsareremedialintheirnatureandaretobeliberallyconstruedinfavoroftheapplicantsforpensions,asamatterofsoundpublicpolicy.̛̜ Collinsv.CityofKnoxville, 176S.W.2d808,811(Tenn.1944); Plessv.Franks, 308S.W.2d402,405(Tenn.1957);Ϝ Miles, 548S.W.2dat304.  Theordinance,Section13.76oftheChattanoogaCityCharter,providedinpartasfollows:Ӝ̛8 8 Ifanyemployeeofthedepartmentoffireandpolicewhileengagedinthedischargeofhisdutiesshallreceiveinjuriesresultinginsuchemployeebecomingdisabledfromperforminghisduties,heshallbeplacedonafullpensionandpaidtheamountheretoforeprovided,regardlessofthelengthoftimeserved...̛̜Thus,bythetermsofthepensionplan,theconditionsprecedentϜtoreceiptofa fulldisabilitypensionare:(1)thesustainingofaninjury;(2)whileengagedindischargeofduty;(3)resultinginaninabilitytoperformpoliceduty.Wenotethatthereareseveralotherconditionsprecedenttobeing retiredonapension:Ӝ̛8 8 provided,however,thatbeforesuchinjuredemployeeshallberetiredonapensiontheboardofdirectorsshallhavehimexaminedbycompetentphysicianstodeterminewhetherornotsuchdisabledemployeeisunabletodischargehisregularoranyotherduty...Ϝprovided,further,thatnodisabledemployeeshallberetiredonapensionbecauseofinjuryuntilsix(6)monthsaftersuchinjurywasreceived.̛̜ӜTheapparentpurposeofthedoctorsexaminationandthesixmonthwaitingperiodistoinsureandprovethatthesubstantiveconditionsprecedenthaveactuallybeensatisfied,i.e.,theemployeehassustainedadisabling(asdefined)injurythatispermanentinnature.See Musicv.WesternConf.ofTeamstersPen.TrustFund ,712F.2d413,41820(9thCir.1983).Inanyevent,thereisnothingintherecordtendingtoshowthatNeblettedidnotcomplywiththerequirementsforbeing retiredonapensionbeforetheenactmentoftheamendment.Thus,weholdthatundertheexpressprovisionsofthepensionplan,NeblettecompliedwithallconditionsprecedenttoreceivingadisabilityϜpensionbeforetheordinancewasamended,andthereforetheBoardcouldnotapplythelessfavorabletermsoftheamendedordinancetocalculateherbenefitpayments.WeaffirmtheChancellorsjudgmentonthisissue. 7   כ  IV    TheBoardssecondissueiswhethertheChancellorerredinawardingdisabilitypaymentsretroactivelytothedateofNeblettesinjury,April14,1992.Thepartiesagreethattheordinancedoesnotexplicitlyspecifywhendisabilitypaymentsaretocommence.TheBoardarguesthatthepaymentsshouldnotbeginϜbeforeitfirstactedonNeblettespensionrequestonFebruary2,Ϝ1993.   WerejecttheBoardsargumentforthreereasons.First,thelanguageoftheordinancedoesnotsupporttheBoardsinterpretation;second,aspreviouslyindicated,itisourdutytoliberallyconstruethetermsofthepensionplaninfavoroftheϜemployee;and,finally,thedateonwhichtheBoarddecidestoactonadisabilitypensionapplicationispurelyarbitraryandlogicallyunrelatedtotheoccurrenceoftheofficersdisability.ToholdthatanapplicantcannotreceivebenefitpaymentsuntiltheBoardactswouldmean,asapracticalmatter,thatsimilarlysituatedapplicantscouldbeginreceivingdisabilitybenefitsatϜdifferent,andpossiblywidelyvarying,timesbasedsolelyuponwhentheBoardhappenedtoscheduleitshearings. 8   כWedeclinetointerpretthepensionplanordinanceinthatmanner.  However,underthepresentfacts,wedonotthinkthepaymentsshouldstartonthedateNebletteincurredherinjury,becauseshereceivedafullsalaryforsixmonthsaftertheinjury.Weagainlooktothetermsoftheordinancetodetermineifa doublerecoveryisinaccordancewiththeintentionoftheparties.In Fultzv.UnionCarbideCorp., 409S.W.2d541,544(Tenn.1966),thecourt,inconstruingapensionplan,appliedthefollowinggeneralprinciple:Ӝ̛8 8 TheanswertothisquestioniscontingentuponthemeaningtobederivedfromthetermsofthePensionPlan.Inordertodeterminethemeaningofthiscontract,wemustascertaintheintentionoftheparties;andsolongasitisnotinconsonantwithestablishedlegalprinciples,wemustgiveeffecttothatintention.̛̜Id.Accordingly,welooktotheplanstermstodetermineandeffectuatethepartiesintention.  Wefindtwoprovisionsintheordinancethatpersuadeusthattheintentionofthepartieswasthatanemployeeshouldnotreceiveadisabilitypensionwhilealsodrawingaregularsalary.Thefirstistherequirementthattheemployeebeexaminedbyadoctor todeterminewhether[the]disabledemployeeisunabletodischargehisregularoranyotherdutythatmayberequiredofhim...(Emphasisadded).Thesecondprovidesasfollows:Ӝ̛8 8 Anyemployeeretiredonapensionbecauseofaninjury,ineventofrecoverytotheextentthatheisagainabletoperformanydutyrequiredofhim,shallberemovedfromthepensionrollandreinstatedinservice.̛̜Theclearimportoftheseprovisionsisthatifanemployeeisabletoworkinthedepartment,heorsheisnotentitledtoadisabilitypension.Accordingly,sinceNebletteworked sporadicallyandreceivedafullregularsalarythroughOctober15,1992,wefeelthatherdisabilitypaymentsshouldnotbeginuntilthatdate.TheChancellorsholdingtothecontraryisnotsupportedby substantialandmaterialevidence.SeeT.C.A.45322(h)(5).  Fortheaforementionedreasons,thejudgmentoftheChancellorismodifiedtoprovidethatNeblettesdisabilitybenefitswillbeginasofOctober15,1992.Asmodified,thetrialcourtsjudgmentisaffirmed.Exercisingourdiscretion,wetaxthecostsonthisappealtotheappellantanditssurety.Thiscaseisremandedtothetrialcourtforenforcementofthejudgment,asmodified,andforcollectionofcostsassessedbelowpursuanttoapplicablelaw.       _____________________________       CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.CONCUR:____________________________HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.̜____________________________DonT.McMurray,J.