He wrote again on August 22, 1996. Thereafter, it appears that petitioner retained counsel and that his attorneys engaged in certain correspondence and contacts with respondent's counsel. Respondent refused to change its position, and this appeal was commenced July 17, 1997. Petitioner claims that shortly before the effective date of his resignation, he was told by Carolyn Price, respondent's Assistant Superintendent for Administration, that he would be able to change medical coverage after his retirement, and that relying upon this information he elected to continue individual coverage at the time of his retirement. Petitioner also states that he has offered to pay the entire difference in cost between individual and family coverage, so that respondent would not incur any additional expense.
Respondent asserts twenty affirmative defenses, both substantive and procedural.
Among them, respondent claims that its medical plan is self-funded, is not insurance, and is therefore not covered by the Federal and State statutes cited by petitioner. Respondent claims that, by its own terms, its medical plan does not allow changes after retirement, and that in fact petitioner's benefits have not been diminished in any way. Respondent further asserts that the appeal is untimely commenced, that petitioner has failed to file a notice of claim pursuant to Education Law 3813, that the Commissioner lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate a claim for money damages, and that petitioner has no standing, in that his spouse is the person who has been denied benefits. The appeal must be dismissed as clearly untimely. The Commissioner may, in his sole discretion, excuse a failure to commence an appeal within the time specified for good cause shown, set forth in the petition.