Opinion ID: 2204851
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The waiver form was clear.

Text: Kingik argues her waiver of survivor benefits is invalid because the waiver form she signed is confusing and misleading. Kingik testified that she thought the Application for Retirement Benefits form's waiver only affected her right to receive dental and vision coverage through PERS. She explained that her understanding of the waiver's effect was based on conversations she had with Welch where, she alleges, Welch assured her that she would receive surviving spouse benefits and medical coverage after he died. Kingik admitted that she [m]ost likely did not read the form before signing it. The Division argues that, despite Kingik's subjective misunderstanding, the waiver is objectively clear and effectively describes the rights spouses relinquish by signing it. The clarity of the Division's waiver form is a legal question we review de novo. [14] Both parties cite to ERISA regulations governing waiver and agree that the waiver language on the form Kingik signed was required to describe or explain the right the spouse is giving up and affirmatively state that the spouse is giving up a right rather than contain generalized and indeterminate language. [15] The ALJ concluded that the waiver form reasonably describes or explains the right the spouse is giving up and is very clear in categorizing three options as `Survivor Options.' Directly under the section where the member selects his or her retirement benefit option, the form cautions: IMPORTANT. . . ALL BENEFITS INCLUDING MEDICAL COVERAGE WILL CEASE UPON DEATH OF THE APPLICANT if a survivor option is not selected. (Emphasis in original.) Following this warning, the form contains a section entitled SPOUSE'S WAIVER OF SURVIVOR OPTION with a signature line for the spouse to acknowledge and approve the benefit selected and to freely waive entitlement to continuing survivor benefits . . . upon the death of the named applicant. (Emphasis in original.) Because the survivor options are clearly designated, because the form unambiguously warns that all benefits including medical coverage will cease on the applicant's death if a survivor option is not selected, and because the form contains a clearly-worded waiver clause, we agree with the ALJ that the waiver plainly and adequately describes both the rights and the effect of signing the form. Although we do not believe the Application for Retirement Benefits form's layout or language obfuscates the meaning of the waiver Kingik signed or the validity of Welch's election, we agree with the ALJ that the Division's forms could be improved. For example, some of the Application for Retirement Benefits form's language is arguably internally inconsistent. The form's waiver section states that [i]f you are married, the waiver below must be completed to select a regular income benefit. But the term regular income benefit is not an option; this phrase appears nowhere else on the form. The Division's forms could be improved, but we agree with the ALJ's conclusion that the Application for Retirement Benefits form describes the rights Kingik relinquished by signing the waiver. We are satisfied that the form adequately explained that Kingik's benefits would stop upon Welch's death if no survivor option was selected.