Court Opinion

ID: 9752581
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 18:16:33.100758+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:17.722379
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING OPINION BY
Senior Judge McCLOSKEY.
I concur with the result reached by the majority in this case, but I write separately to address my concerns with the adequacy of the review, or lack thereof, conducted by the State Employees’ Retirement Board (the Board) with regard to the power of attorney at issue in this case. I agree with the majority’s conclusion that a review of the evidence of record in this case fails to establish a lack of good faith on the part of the Board or the State Employees’ Retirement System (SERS).1
Nevertheless, I note that the Board’s own regulations provide the following:
Ineligibility to select any benefit. When a member enters upon retirement, he shall either execute the application on his own behalf or, in the case where the member is mentally incompetent to do so, the application shall be executed by a guardian appointed by a court. In the case of a member who is physically unable to file the application, it may be filed by anyone possessing a power of attorney. In all instances, the Board will be furnished and shall review the legal documents designating persons who are eligible to act on behalf of eligible members.
4 Pa.Code § 249.7(e).
By its very terms, this regulation distinguishes between mental and physical incompetency, the former requiring a court-appointed guardian, and further mandates review of any legal document which purport to designate a person to act on another’s behalf. The power of attorney at issue in this case was merely executed with the mark of an “X” on the line designated for the signature of Petitioner. In light of the regulation cited above, it is impossible for this member of the Court to believe that a power of attorney executed in this manner would not raise a red flag and mandate closer scrutiny by the Board/ SERS. Unfortunately, Petitioner failed to raise an issue with respect to this regulation before the hearing examiner or the Board and, hence, this issue was not ripe for review by this Court.

. I further agree with the majority insofar as it enters its decision without prejudice to any remedies Teresa M. Vine (Petitioner) may have against her attorney-in-fact.