MATTHEW LONG v. CHATTANOOGA FIRE AND POLICE PENSION FUND - Articles

All Content

MATTHEW LONG v. CHATTANOOGA FIRE AND POLICE PENSION FUND

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Oct 13, 2025

Court: TN Supreme Court

Attorneys 1: Christopher A. Crevasse, James T. Williams, Robert F. Parsley, and Jessica M. Wolinsky, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for the appellant, Chattanooga Fire and Police Pension Fund.

Attorneys 2: Janie Parks Varnell and Logan Davis, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for the appellee, Matthew Long.

Attorneys 3: Nathan L. Kinard and Peter A. Newman, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for the Amicus Curiae, National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems.

Judge(s): WAGNER

Matthew Long applied for disability pension benefits from the Chattanooga Fire and Police Pension Fund. After a hearing by the Fund’s Board of Trustees, his application was denied. Mr. Long sought judicial review. The trial court reviewed the denial of benefits under Tennessee’s Uniform Administrative Procedures Act (“UAPA”) and held that the Board’s interpretation of the Pension Benefits Policy was arbitrary and capricious and unsupported by sufficient and material evidence. The trial court reversed the Board’s decision and awarded Mr. Long benefits. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, holding that the court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the case and that the Board’s decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Court of Appeals found the Policy ambiguous and construed it liberally in favor of Mr. Long. On appeal to this Court, the Fund challenges the reversal of the Board’s decision. We conclude that the Court of Appeals erred in finding the Policy ambiguous and in construing it liberally. We hold that under a fair reading of the Policy, the Board’s decision was not arbitrary and capricious, unsupported by sufficient and material evidence, or otherwise reversible under the UAPA. Accordingly, we reverse the judgments of the Court of Appeals and the trial court. We remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Attachments: