During the final three years (1994-1996) of PERA, PERAC’s predecessor agency, there were 1,450 accidental disability retirements. In the first three years of PERAC’s administration, the new agency approved 1,290 accidental disability retirements.

The Public Employee Retirement Administration Commission (PERAC) was created by the Legislature in 1996 in the wake of alleged accidental disability abuse, as reported by the Boston Globe Spotlight Team. Although abuses were limited in number, sensationalism prevailed.

The major difference between the Public Employee Retirement Administration (PERA) and PERAC is that the latter is a commission under the direction and oversight of seven commissioners. Its predecessor, PERA, had no governing panel.

Although PERAC has numerous other pension supervisory duties, some of which are more significant and of greater importance to our retirement systems than disabilities, it is the perception of disability abuse that spurred the Legislature to create PERAC and unfortunately will continue to be the focus of the media.

A look at the twenty largest municipal retirement systems, in order of their active employee membership and numbers of accidental disabilities, shows a 6.1% drop in the number of accidental disability pensions approved during comparable three year periods. As expected, Boston, with over four times as many employees of any other city, has the most disabilities, but still a relatively small number when compared to its size.

State, Teachers, Counties Also Down

Few Return To Work

Another aspect of the disability reforms, brought about in 1996 with the creation of PERAC, was a renewed focus on the reevaluation and potential restoration to active service for disability retirees. Over the past three years this task has proven to be the most controversial aspect of PERAC’s mission.

Accidental disability retirees must be reevaluated once the first 2 years out and every 3 years thereafter to determine whether or not they remain disabled. The goal is to return retirees, who are found to be no longer disabled, to active service in their former job.

The previous law, which the Globe took issue with, granted the individual department heads the authority to unilaterally refuse to reinstate disability retirees to active duty. Today, if a disability retiree is found fit and subsequently completes the required retraining program, he must be brought back to active duty once a position becomes available.

This process has come under heated scrutiny in recent months from municipal officials, backed by the Mass. Municipal Association, who argue that an influx of retirees returning to active service is not good public policy. They are seeking to pass legislation that would once again grant the department heads the final authority over who returns to active service.

However, retirees who find themselves under PERAC’s scrutiny argue that anything less than full reinstatement puts them at risk of losing their pensions, while not being granted their old job back. Disability retirees point to the rigors of PERAC’s reevaluation process and the small number of people who have been reinstated to active duty as proof the current system works.

In fact, PERAC’s own data seems to support the claim that very few retirees have successfully completed the reevaluation process and have been found fit for active service. As of March, PERAC had reevaluated some 2,200 disability retirees out of the 15,000 retired from public service. Of that number, only 58 people had been found to be no longer disabled and fit to return to work. It should be noted that the majority of those found fit had requested to be reevaluated and returned to work on their own.

“This data is showing that of all the disability retirees that have been reevaluated to date, less than 2% have actually been ordered back to work. Of those 58 people, about half are physically back on the job. The others are waiting for the next opening in the department,” explained Duhamel. “Something to keep in mind is that the retirees that have been reexamined are the cream of the crop. They tend to be younger, recently retired, and motivated to return to work.

“If so few have been found fit in this first batch, then it would be safe to assume that even fewer retirees will be found fit as time goes on. More than half of all disability retirees were retired prior to 1986, fourteen years ago. They tend to be older and in many cases, their disabilities have worsened over time. I seriously doubt that we will ever witness the influx of retirees returning to work that has been rumored. Looking at the numbers it just does not add up.”