Charles A. Carlton & Marie E. Carlton v. The United States, 782 F.2d 173 (Fed. Cir. 1986). · Go Syfert
Search
Charles A. Carlton & Marie E. Carlton v. The United States, 782 F.2d 173 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
3 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Laudes Corp. v. United States (uscfc, 2009-03-16)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Laudes Corp. v. United States (2×)
Fed. Cl. · 2009 · confidence medium
Corp., 9 Cl.Ct. at 173 (declining to find an implied-in-fact contract in the absence of privity of contract where the United States Agency for International Development (“USAID”) loaned money to a plaintiff but reserved the right to approve the terms of contracts between the plaintiff and its lenders); Penn Towne Builders, Inc. v. United States, 4 Cl.Ct. 677, 684-85 (1984) (finding that the Government’s high degree of involvement in supervising and drafting the contract did not create an implied-in-fact contract because the United States was not a party to the contract); Somali Dev.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Charles A. CARLTON and Marie E. Carlton, Et Al., Appellants,
v.
the UNITED STATES, Appellee
Appeal 85-2138.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Jan 15, 1986.
782 F.2d 173
Richard S. Cohen, Kadison, Pfaelzer, Woodard, Quinn & Rossi, Los Angeles, Cal., argued, for appellants. With him on brief was Jeffrey K. Riffer., John Griffin, Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., argued, for appellee. With him on brief were Glenn L. Archer, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Michael L. Paup, Ann Belanger Dumey and Michael J. Roach.
Davis, Miller, Newman.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
JACK R. MILLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

The decision of the United States Claims Court granting the Government’s motion for summary judgment and denying appellants’ motion for summary judgment is affirmed on the basis of the thorough and well-reasoned opinion of Judge Mayer, 7 Cl.Ct. 323 (1985).

We note, particularly, the findings of the Claims Court that—

Under the city’s pension plan, police and fire department members who were eligible for both a service pension and a service-connected disability pension could apply to be retired under either of the two provisions. However, because the plan prohibited a member from receiving both pensions at the same time, he had to choose between them. If he opted for a service pension, he could not later claim entitlement to a disability pension____
If a Los Angeles police or fire department member or former member incurred any work related illness or impairment resulting in a loss of earning power, he could apply for workers compensation. However, any payments received as a workers compensation award would reduce the amount of disability payments by the amount of the award. The service pension, by contrast, was not affected by workers compensation.
Both plaintiffs. are receiving service pensions in amounts based on the number of years they served with the Los Angeles police department. Although shortly after their retirements they received workers compensation awards for service-connected disabilities, their approved retirement applications requested pensions “by reason of years of service.” Therefore, despite a finding that they were disabled at the time of their retirements, their pension payments are founded solely on length of service____

7 Cl.Ct. at 324 (emphasis supplied).

These findings are not controverted by appellants. The characteristics of the city’s pension plan are not matters of form, but, rather, matters of substance which bring appellants squarely within the terms of Treasury Regulation § 104-l(b), 26 C.F.R. § 1.104-l(b), which provides, inter alia:

[SJection 104(a)(1) [Internal Revenue Code] does not apply to a retirement pension or annuity to the extent that it is determined by reference to the employee’s age or length of service ... even though the employee’s retirement is occasioned by an occupational injury or sickness.

Appellants cite Rev.Rul. 85-105, 1985-30 I.R.B. 13. However, the ruling involves a[*175] state statute which provides that if a service pension is greater than a disability pension, “the larger sum will be paid as a disability pension.” Id. No such provision is present in this case.

AFFIRMED.