# Morris v. PA. PUB. SCH. EMP. RET. SYS.

> Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · March 14, 1988 · 114 Pa. Commw. 369

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9696764

## Case

- **Full name:** Sidney Morris, Petitioner v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Public School Employees’ Retirement System, Respondent
- **Court:** Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** March 14, 1988
- **Citations:** 114 Pa. Commw. 369; 538 A.2d 1385; 1988 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 156
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Kalish
- **Judges:** Doyle, Palladino, Kalish
- **Cited by:** 9 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9696764

## Opinion text

Dissenting Opinion ry
Senior Judge Kalish:
I respectfully dissent.
Citing section 8304(a) of the Public School Employees’ Retirement Code (Code), as amended, 24 Pa. C. S. §8304(a), the Board concluded that petitioner had acquired a vested interest by simply restoring his contributions, and that therefore he would be able to purchase his service credit under that system. Consequently, he is ineligible to purchase military service in the Pennsylvania system.
*382 As the court indicated in Barcus, in interpreting section 8304(a) of the Code, 24 Pa. C. S. §8304(a), this section was designed to disqualify those persons who currently are eligible for benefits in an out-of-state retirement system, whether those benefits are currently being received or will be paid in the future.
It has been determined by the United States Merit Systems Protection Board that repayment of a refund by an employee does not affect “time credibility” in determining civil service annuity, provided claimant was otherwise qualified. Lloyd v. Office of Personnel Management, 19 M.S.P.B. 624 (1984).
In the instant case, petitioner was not otherwise qualified. Unlike the Lloyd case, petitioner withdrew all of his contributions and accepted a. state position. This conduct resulted in a complete separation from the federal service. He had no vested right. He was ineligible to receive any benefits under the federal system either now or in the future, unless he performed certain conditions precedent. There was no current eligibility. The language of the statute is clear and unambiguous.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9696764. Public record. Not legal advice.