Case Name: In the Matter of the Denial of Disability Retirement Allowances of SUTTON et al, Petitioners, v. PUBLIC EMPLOYES' RETIREMENT BOARD, Respondent
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1985-07-31
Citations: 74 Or. App. 621
Docket Number: D-607, D-711 & S-38383; CA A30434
Parties: In the Matter of the Denial of Disability Retirement Allowances of SUTTON et al, Petitioners, v. PUBLIC EMPLOYES’ RETIREMENT BOARD, Respondent.
Judges: Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Warden and Newman, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 74
Pages: 621–622

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted March 18,
affirmed July 31,
reconsideration denied September 13,
petition for review denied October 15, 1985 (300 Or 162)
In the Matter of the Denial of Disability Retirement Allowances of SUTTON et al, Petitioners, v. PUBLIC EMPLOYES’ RETIREMENT BOARD, Respondent.
(D-607, D-711 & S-38383; CA A30434)
702 P2d 1171
Gary K. Jensen, Eugene, argued the cause and filed the brief for petitioners.
Philip Schradle, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and James E. Mountain, Jr., Solicitor General, Salem.
Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Warden and Newman, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Petitioners seek judicial review of the Public Employes' Retirement Board's order on reconsideration, which cancelled their disability retirement allowances. ORS 237.195(1).
Petitioners argue at length about the meaning of the disability retirement allowance statutes, ORS 237.171 et seq. However, under the express findings PERB made, the cancellation of petitioners' allowances is required by the statutes even as petitioners argue they should be interpreted. They do not challenge the findings.
Affirmed.