238.450
Computation of retirement allowance or benefit; notice of dispute; prohibition
on modification of data.
(1) Upon receiving an application for a retirement allowance or benefit from a
member of the Public Employees Retirement System and obtaining information
necessary for computation of the retirement allowance or benefit to which the
member is entitled upon retirement, the system shall provide to the member a
written computation of the retirement allowance or benefit to which the member
is entitled upon retirement and summary of the information used in making that
computation. The written computation must include detailed information about
the number of overtime hours performed by the member during the period used to
calculate the member’s final average salary and the number of overtime hours
applied to the calculation of the member’s final average salary.
(2) A member of
the system may dispute the accuracy of the information used by the system in
making the computation only by filing a written notice of dispute with the
system not later than whichever of the following days occurs last:
(a) The 240th day
after the date on which the computation and information summary is provided to
the member pursuant to subsection (1) of this section.
(b) The 240th day
after the date on which the retirement allowance or benefit to which the member
is entitled first becomes payable.
(3) The filing of
a notice of dispute under subsection (2) of this section extends the time
allowed for election of an optional form of retirement allowance or benefit
until the 30th day after the conclusion of the proceeding and any judicial
review thereof if the proceeding or review results in a change in the
computation of the retirement allowance or benefit.
(4) Upon
receiving a notice of dispute under subsection (2) of this section, the system
shall determine the accuracy of the disputed information and make a written
decision either affirming the accuracy of the information and computation based
thereon or changing the computation using corrected information. The system
shall provide to the member a copy of the decision and a written explanation of
any applicable statutes and rules. The member is entitled to judicial review of
the decision as provided in ORS 183.484 and rules of the Public Employees
Retirement Board consistent with applicable statutes.
(5) After the
last date for filing a written notice of dispute under subsection (2) of this
section, a participating public employer may not modify information that is
provided to the system and that relates to a member’s creditable service,
retirement credit, salary, employee contributions or accumulated unused sick
leave, unless specifically required by one of the following circumstances:
(a) To comply
with a judgment, administrative order, arbitration award, conciliation
agreement, settlement agreement or other legal agreement entered into after the
last date for filing a written notice of dispute under subsection (2) of this
section;
(b) To comply
with ORS 238.156 or 238A.150;
(c) To comply
with a verification of retirement data under ORS 238.285 that was submitted to
the system before the member’s effective date of retirement; or
(d) To make a
correction or modification as a result of a dispute under subsection (2) of
this section, or in response to the board’s request under ORS 238.285 (5) for
the purpose of a determination under ORS 238.285 (2) or (4).
(6) This section
does not affect any authority of the system, on its own initiative, to correct
an incorrect computation of any retirement allowance or benefit. [Formerly
237.210; 2007 c.53 §1; 2023 c.404 §15; 2025 c.49 §2; 2025 c.490 §1]
Notes of Decisions
Wright v. Pub. Emps. Ret. Bd., 425 P.3d 442 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 29× “That is, the director may "delegate to subordinates the authority to take any action on the Director's behalf," OAR 459-001-0025(3), but a person "may file with the Director a request for review of a staff action or determination, except as provided for in ORS 238.450" within 60…”
Kaser v. PERS, 506 P.3d 1134 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 18× “Before the circuit court, petitioner argued that PERS had a statutory duty under ORS 238.450 to investigate and resolve the dis- pute between petitioner and OHA as to how her 2015 leave was recorded.”
Bell v. Pub. Employees Ret. Bd., 247 P.3d 319 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
“Plaintiff unsuccessfully sought administrative review and subsequently brought this action in circuit court, ORS 238.450(4), alleging that, in reliance on defendant’s negligent misrepresentation, she had retired at the age of 59 instead of 62, thereby losing three years of…”
Sundermier v. State ex rel. Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 344 P.3d 1142 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
“He obtained a determination of his monthly retirement allowance from the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS). Believing PERS’s calculation to be incorrect, petitioner requested an audit.”
Wright v. PERS (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 11× “In May 2011, PERS, as required by ORS 238.450, sent peti- tioner a “Notice of Entitlement” regarding his retirement benefit and explaining his right to challenge the calcula- tions.”
Eugene Water & Elec. Bd. v. Pub. Emps. Ret. Bd., 430 P.3d 568 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 2× “Any public employer may file with the Director a request for review of a staff action or determination, except as provided in ORS 238.450 or in Board rules on disability retirement.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 238.450(1) — 2 cases
Wright v. Pub. Emps. Ret. Bd., 425 P.3d 442 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“That is, the director may "delegate to subordinates the authority to take any action on the Director's behalf," OAR 459-001-0025(3), but a person "may file with the Director a request for review of a staff action or determination, except as provided for in ORS 238.450" within 60…”
Wright v. PERS (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“In May 2011, PERS, as required by ORS 238.450, sent peti- tioner a “Notice of Entitlement” regarding his retirement benefit and explaining his right to challenge the calcula- tions.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 238.450(2) — 1 case
Wright v. Pub. Emps. Ret. Bd., 425 P.3d 442 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“That is, the director may "delegate to subordinates the authority to take any action on the Director's behalf," OAR 459-001-0025(3), but a person "may file with the Director a request for review of a staff action or determination, except as provided for in ORS 238.450" within 60…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 238.450(4) — 5 cases
Kaser v. PERS, 506 P.3d 1134 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“Before the circuit court, petitioner argued that PERS had a statutory duty under ORS 238.450 to investigate and resolve the dis- pute between petitioner and OHA as to how her 2015 leave was recorded.”
Wright v. Pub. Emps. Ret. Bd., 425 P.3d 442 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“That is, the director may "delegate to subordinates the authority to take any action on the Director's behalf," OAR 459-001-0025(3), but a person "may file with the Director a request for review of a staff action or determination, except as provided for in ORS 238.450" within 60…”
Bell v. Pub. Employees Ret. Bd., 247 P.3d 319 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
“Plaintiff unsuccessfully sought administrative review and subsequently brought this action in circuit court, ORS 238.450(4), alleging that, in reliance on defendant’s negligent misrepresentation, she had retired at the age of 59 instead of 62, thereby losing three years of…”
Sundermier v. State ex rel. Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 344 P.3d 1142 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
“He obtained a determination of his monthly retirement allowance from the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS). Believing PERS’s calculation to be incorrect, petitioner requested an audit.”
Wright v. PERS (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“In May 2011, PERS, as required by ORS 238.450, sent peti- tioner a “Notice of Entitlement” regarding his retirement benefit and explaining his right to challenge the calcula- tions.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 238.450(5) — 1 case
Wright v. Pub. Emps. Ret. Bd., 425 P.3d 442 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“That is, the director may "delegate to subordinates the authority to take any action on the Director's behalf," OAR 459-001-0025(3), but a person "may file with the Director a request for review of a staff action or determination, except as provided for in ORS 238.450" within 60…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.