{
  "id": 1659797,
  "name": "JAMES E. WALKER, Individually and as Administrator of the ESTATE OF SARAH S. WALKER, Petitioner v. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE NORTH CAROLINA LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Respondent",
  "name_abbreviation": "Walker v. Board of Trustees of North Carolina Local Governmental Employees' Retirement System",
  "decision_date": "1998-04-03",
  "docket_number": "No. 482PA97",
  "first_page": "63",
  "last_page": "66",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "348 N.C. 63"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "487 S.E.2d 839",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1997,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "127 N.C. App. 156",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11793180
      ],
      "year": 1997,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/127/0156-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "218 S.E.2d 406",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "411",
          "parenthetical": "recognizing that \"any cessation of employment. . . includ[ing] resignation, discharge, disability and service retirement\" constitutes a \"termination from service\" as an employee"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "288 N.C. 329",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8568259
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "337",
          "parenthetical": "recognizing that \"any cessation of employment. . . includ[ing] resignation, discharge, disability and service retirement\" constitutes a \"termination from service\" as an employee"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/288/0329-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "464 S.E.2d 409",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1995,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "411"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "342 N.C. 349",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        796111
      ],
      "year": 1995,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "352"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/342/0349-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "209 S.E.2d 754",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1974,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "756",
          "parenthetical": "quoting 7 Strong's North Carolina Index 2d Statutes \u00a7 5 (1968)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "286 N.C. 148",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8563921
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "152",
          "parenthetical": "quoting 7 Strong's North Carolina Index 2d Statutes \u00a7 5 (1968)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/286/0148-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "474 S.E.2d 323",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1996,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "327"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "344 N.C. 403",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        867649
      ],
      "year": 1996,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "409"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/344/0403-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "276 S.E.2d 404",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1981,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "410"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "302 N.C. 458",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8567436
      ],
      "year": 1981,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "465"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/302/0458-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "487 S.E.2d 839",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1997,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "842"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "127 N.C. App. 156",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11793180
      ],
      "year": 1997,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/127/0156-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 454,
    "char_count": 9253,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.723,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.9238731294136058e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7333589718937281
    },
    "sha256": "53c54b94812ea9a3f5dd7100f00a54eedbf039a6839093273c33346318ff3a67",
    "simhash": "1:8eec92631428e0c2",
    "word_count": 1487
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:11:06.764212+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "JAMES E. WALKER, Individually and as Administrator of the ESTATE OF SARAH S. WALKER, Petitioner v. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE NORTH CAROLINA LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL EMPLOYEES\u2019 RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Respondent"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WHICHARD, Justice.\nOn 5 October 1993 James E. Walker, petitioner, filed a petition for a contested case hearing with the Office of Administrative Hearings. Petitioner challenged a decision of the Board of Trustees of the North Carolina Local Governmental Employees\u2019 Retirement System (the Board) denying petitioner a benefit based upon the death of his wife while in local government service.\nPetitioner\u2019s wife began work for Mecklenburg County in December 1977. Thirteen years later she was diagnosed with cancer. She last worked for Mecklenburg County on 1 June 1990. On that date she went on paid sick leave. On 12 March 1991 with .23 of a day of paid sick leave remaining, petitioner\u2019s wife went on medical leave without pay.\nOn 17 June 1991 petitioner\u2019s wife applied for disability retirement; this application was approved effective 1 August 1991. Petitioner\u2019s wife received a final compensation payment, including compensation for .23 of a day of paid sick leave, on 31 July 1991. She died 18 October 1991. Petitioner sought a statutory death benefit under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 128-27(1) following his wife\u2019s death. The Board denied this benefit. Petitioner challenged this decision.\nAfter a hearing, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Brenda Becton recommended that respondent Board award the death benefit to petitioner. The Board rejected the recommendation and entered a final agency decision in its favor. Petitioner sought judicial review of the Board\u2019s decision in the Superior Court, Mecklenburg County. Judge Marvin K. Gray entered an order reversing the final agency decision and remanding the matter for reinstatement of the AU\u2019s recommended decision. The Court of Appeals reversed that order. Walker v. Board of Trustees of the N.C. Local Governmental Employees\u2019 Retirement Sys., 127 N.C. App. 156, 487 S.E.2d 839 (1997). The Court of Appeals concluded that although the trial court properly interpreted N.C.G.S. \u00a7 128-27(1), the statutory death benefit plan for county employees, such that retirement did not \u201cterminate\u201d employment within the meaning of the statute, the court improperly calculated decedent\u2019s \u201clast day of actual service\u201d under the statute. Thus, the Court of Appeals held that no death benefit was due to petitioner under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 128-27(1). Id. at 161, 487 S.E.2d at 842. This Court granted petitioner\u2019s petition for discretionary review.\nArticle 4 of chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes governs judicial review of the Board\u2019s administrative decisions and provides that courts may review an agency\u2019s decision when that decision is \u201c[a]ffected by . . . error of law.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 150B-51(b)(4) (1995). When the issue on appeal is whether a state agency erred in interpreting a statutory term, an error of law is asserted, and an appellate court may employ de novo review. In re Appeal of N. C. Savings & Loan League, 302 N.C. 458, 465, 276 S.E.2d 404, 410 (1981). Here, we address two such issues of statutory interpretation. First, does retirement \u201cterminate\u201d employment under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 128-27(1)? Second, when was decedent\u2019s \u201clast day of actual service\u201d under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 128-27(1)(2)?\nN.C.G.S. \u00a7 128-27(1) details the terms of the \u201cDeath Benefit Plan\u201d available to employees of counties within North Carolina. This legislation permits payment of a death benefit to the beneficiary of a member of the Death Benefit Plan who dies \u201cwithin 180 days from the last day of [the member\u2019s] actual service.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 128-27(1) (1991). The \u201c[l]ast day of actual service shall be: a. When employment has been terminated, the last day the member actually worked[; or] b. When employment has not been terminated, the date on which an absent member\u2019s sick and annual leave expire.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 128-27(1)(2).\nPetitioner contends that his wife\u2019s retirement did not terminate her employment and that her last day of actual service was 31 July 1991, the date on which her sick and annual leave expired under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 128-27(l)(2)(b). The Board asserts that the decedent\u2019s retirement terminated her employment and that her last day of actual service was 1 June 1990, the last day she actually worked under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 128-27(l)(2)(a). We agree with the Board.\n\u201cIn resolving issues of statutory construction, we look first to the language of the statute itself.\u201d Hieb v. Lowery, 344 N.C. 403, 409, 474 S.E.2d 323, 327 (1996). It is a well-established rule of statutory construction that \u201c \u2018[w]here the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, there is no room for judicial construction^] and the courts must give [the statute] its plain and definite meaning, and are without power to interpolate, or superimpose, provisions and limitations not contained therein.\u2019 \u201d State v. Camp, 286 N.C. 148, 152, 209 S.E.2d 754, 756 (1974) (quoting 7 Strong\u2019s North Carolina Index 2d Statutes \u00a7 5 (1968)).\nThe word \u201cterminate\u201d is undefined in chapter 128 of the North Carolina General Statutes. As this word is unambiguous, however, we accord it its plain meaning. Poole v. Miller, 342 N.C. 349, 352, 464 S.E.2d 409, 411 (1995). Terminate means \u201c[t]o put an end to; to make to cease; to end.\u201d Black\u2019s Law Dictionary 1471 (6th ed. 1990). When \u201cemployment has been terminated\u201d under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 128-27(l)(2)(a), employment has ended. Likewise, when \u201cemployment has not been terminated\u201d under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 128-27(l)(2)(b), employment has not ended.\nRetirement ends employment. See Pritchett v. Clapp, 288 N.C. 329, 337, 218 S.E.2d 406, 411 (1975) (recognizing that \u201cany cessation of employment. . . includ[ing] resignation, discharge, disability and service retirement\u201d constitutes a \u201ctermination from service\u201d as an employee). Retirees do not actively serve their employers. They maintain no employment responsibilities. Rather, they \u201cwithdrawn from active service,\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 128-21(19) (1991), and terminate their employment obligations.\nThus, under the plain meaning of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 128-27(l)(2)(a), when an employee retires, that employee\u2019s \u201cemployment has been terminated.\u201d As such, the retired employee\u2019s last day of actual service is \u201cthe last day the [employee] actually worked.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 128-27(l)(2)(a).\nHere, petitioner\u2019s decedent terminated her employment within the meaning and intent of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 128-27(l)(2)(a) when she went on disability retirement effective 1 August 1991. Because decedent\u2019s \u201cemployment had been terminated\u201d at the time of her death on 18 October 1991, petitioner could receive the statutory death benefit only if his decedent died within 180 days from 1 June 1990, \u201cthe last day [decedent] actually worked.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 128-27(1)(2)(a). Well over 180 days expired between 1 June 1990, the last day decedent actually worked, and 18 October 1991, the date decedent died. Thus, although we disagree with the reasoning of the Court of Appeals, for the reasons stated herein, we affirm its conclusion that petitioner cannot recover a death benefit under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 128-27(1).\nAFFIRMED.\n. There axe later versions of this statute. This is the version that was in effect at the time of petitioner\u2019s decedent\u2019s death and is thus the controlling one.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WHICHARD, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ferguson, Stein, Wallas, Adkins, Gresham & Sumter, P.A., by John W. Gresham, for petitioner-appellant.",
      "Michael F. Easley, Attorney General, by Alexander McC. Peters, Special Deputy Attorney General, for respondent-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JAMES E. WALKER, Individually and as Administrator of the ESTATE OF SARAH S. WALKER, Petitioner v. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE NORTH CAROLINA LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL EMPLOYEES\u2019 RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Respondent\nNo. 482PA97\n(Filed 3 April 1998)\n1. Administrative Law and Procedure \u00a7 65 (NCI4th)\u2014 interpretation of statutory term \u2014 de novo review\nWhen the issue on appeal is whether a state agency erred in interpreting a statutory term, an error of law is asserted, and an appellate court may employ de novo review.\n2. Retirement \u00a7 10 (NCI4th)\u2014 local government employee\u2014 death benefit \u2014 employment terminated upon retirement\u2014 last day of service\nUnder the statutory death benefit plan for local government employees, when an employee retires, that employee\u2019s \u201cemployment has been terminated\u201d within the meaning of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 128-27(l)(2)(a). As such, the retired employee\u2019s last day of actual service is the \u201clast day the [employee] actually worked.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 128-27(l)(2)(a).\n3. Retirement \u00a7 10 (NCI4th)\u2014 local government employee\u2014 death benefit \u2014 disability retirement \u2014 death not within 180 days of last day worked\nPetitioner\u2019s decedent terminated her employment within the meaning and intent of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 128-27(l)(2)(a) when she went on disability retirement. Because decedent\u2019s employment had been terminated at the time of her death, petitioner was not entitled to receive the statutory death benefit where decedent died more than 180 days from the last day she actually worked. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 128-27(l)(2)(a).\nOn discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-31 of a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals, 127 N.C. App. 156, 487 S.E.2d 839 (1997), reversing an order entered by Gray, J., at the 29 January 1996 Civil Session of Superior Court, Mecklenburg County, that reversed a final agency decision and remanded for reinstatement of the Administrative Law Judge\u2019s recommended decision. Heard in the Supreme Court 10 March 1998.\nFerguson, Stein, Wallas, Adkins, Gresham & Sumter, P.A., by John W. Gresham, for petitioner-appellant.\nMichael F. Easley, Attorney General, by Alexander McC. Peters, Special Deputy Attorney General, for respondent-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0063-01",
  "first_page_order": 111,
  "last_page_order": 114
}