Skip to main content

State Ex Rel. Shisler v. Ohio Public Employees Retirement System

OhioJune 4, 2009No. 2008-2102Cited 27 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Moyer, O'Connor, O'Donnell, Lanzinger, Cupp, Pfeifer, Stratton
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's denial of mandamus relief, holding that PERS properly denied the surviving spouse's request for joint-survivorship annuity benefits because the retiree's election to change pension plans was not effective until received by PERS, which occurred after his death.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** A public employee in Ohio changed his pension plan to include survivor benefits for his spouse, but he died before the pension system received his paperwork. His widow went to court asking for the survivor benefits, arguing that her husband had properly filled out the forms before his death, even though they arrived at the pension office after he passed away. **What the Court Decided** The Ohio Supreme Court ruled against the widow. The court said that simply filling out the pension change forms wasn't enough - the pension system had to actually receive the paperwork while the employee was still alive for the change to be valid. Since the forms arrived after the employee's death, the pension plan change never took effect, and the widow wasn't entitled to survivor benefits. **Why This Matters for Workers** This case shows how important timing is with pension paperwork. Workers who want to make changes to their retirement benefits - especially adding survivor benefits for spouses - need to make sure the pension office receives and processes their forms while they're still alive. Simply mailing the forms isn't enough; the pension system must have them in hand before death occurs.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

State ex rel. Haydocy v. Ohio Pub. Emps. Retirement Sys.
OhioMay 2026
Defendant Win
Sherman
OhioOct 2020

Ohio Public Employees Retirement System ("OPERS")—R.C. 145.38(B)(1)—R.C. 145.384—Reduction of health-insurance subsidy for a retiree reemployed by a state employer—Equal-protection claim—Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss—Retiree alleged sufficient facts to negate OPERS's argument that subsidy reductions for all OPERS-covered reemployed retirees are rational—OPERS's claim that it would incur additional costs in identifying retirees reemployed by an employer other than a state is not a sufficient rational basis requiring dismissal of retiree's complaint.

Plaintiff Win
State ex rel. AutoZone Stores, Inc. v. Indus. Comm.
OhioNov 2024

Workers' compensation—Temporary-total-disability compensation—R.C. 4123.56—Employee who had already been terminated for violation of employment policies before his shoulder surgery was not "unable to work" as "direct result of an impairment arising from an injury or occupational disease" under plain language of R.C. 4123.56(F) and thus was not entitled to receive temporary-total-disability compensation—Court of appeals' judgment reversed and writ granted.

Defendant Win
Shabazz
OhioNov 2024

Quo warranto—Mandamus—Appellants failed to challenge court of appeals' judgment dismissing their quo warranto claim on basis of laches and therefore waived that argument—Court of appeals' determination that appellants could not establish entitlement to city-council offices or that appellees were unlawfully holding the positions affirmed—Court of appeals' denial of request for writ of mandamus ordering continued payment of salaries and benefits as moot affirmed.

Defendant Win

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.