Bernard

Bernard v. City of Oakland

Good Law
136 Cal. Rptr. 3d 578·202 Cal. App. 4th 1553
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 30, 2012No. A127853; No. A127844California7,271 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Banke, J.

I. Introduction

Plaintiffs in these cases, retired firefighters or their surviving spouses, contend the City of Oakland and Union City were required to make additional payments toward their health care coverage on January 1, 2007, pursuant to an amendment to the Public Employees’ Medical and Hospital Care Act (PEMHCA; Gov. Code, § 22750 et seq.). The cities and the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS), which administers the PEMHCA, maintain they properly implemented the new formula as of January 1, 2007, resulting in increased payments being made in 2008. The trial court agreed with the cities and CalPERS, denied mandamus relief and dismissed the actions. We affirm.

II. Background

The City of Oakland and Union City are contractually obligated to make health care coverage available to current and retired employees under memoranda of understanding with various unions. The cities provide for such coverage through contracts with CalPERS under the PEMHCA (Gov. Code, § 22750 et seq.). 2 Oakland contracted with CalPERS in 1989, and Union City did so in 2000.

In September 2006, the Legislature amended the PEMHCA and, specifically section 22892,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.