K was an employee of the state of Rhode Island, which had a section 218 agreement to provide retirement coverage to certain of its employees in lieu of social security coverage.
In a referendum vote, K voted “yes” for coverage under the state’s retirement system. The “yes” vote was a condition precedent to being covered under the state’s retirement system.
There was a condition subsequent in which the covered employees needed to contribute a share for retroactive retirement benefits by a date certain. K did not make this payment in a timely fashion and, therefore, the state changed his “yes” vote to a “no” vote.
Social Security held that the state could not do this.
See Social Security Ruling (SSR) 68-77.
This material should not be construed as legal advice for any particular fact situation, but is intended for general informational purposes only. For advice specific to any individual situation, an experienced attorney should be contacted.
When it comes the family law and social security disability, each client and case is different. It is also important to select an attorney with the experience, skills and professionalism required to address your legal issues. To learn more, contact the Salt Lake City law offices of Melvin A. Cook and schedule an initial consultation to discuss your case.