Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Oglesby v. Roling
No. 44-02277 (Mo. Cir. Ct. City of St. Louis filed October 7, 2004) ; Clearinghouse Number: 55813
Description
Recipients of Missouri’s Blind Pension Allege That State Officials Withheld and Diverted Pension Funds
Abstract
On behalf of a class, Missouri blind pension recipients are suing
the state social services director and the division of family
services for underpaying for at least ten years plaintiffs’
pensions by withholding money from the pension fund and using
pension funds to pay other expenses and fund other programs.
Plaintiffs claim that this violates their U.S. constitutional due
process rights and state statutes governing collection and use of
the fund. Established as a property tax levy in the Missouri
Constitution, the Blind Pension Fund must be administered in
accordance with the existing statutory framework, which sets the
formula for calculating annual increases and lists permissible uses
for any remaining balances, plaintiffs say. According to
plaintiffs, defendants unlawfully “front-load” the fund
by charging expenditures to it before calculating the annual
increase and have used pension funds for administrative expenses
and other programs for the blind. Plaintiffs estimate that the
class may be owed $1 million or more for each year that pensions
were underpaid. Plaintiffs seek an accounting of all monies
expended from the fund, enjoinder of the challenged practices,
findings that defendants intentionally breached their fiduciary
duties and duty of care, and attorney fees.
