County retirees sue over health benefits

AUBURN — More than a dozen retired Androscoggin County workers,
including two surviving spouses, are suing the county over health care
benefits.

In May, county commissioners sent a letter to former county workers
notifying them that the county would no longer pay lifetime health care
insurance premiums to husbands and wives of deceased retirees starting
in July.

In the civil suit, filed last week in Androscoggin County Superior
Court, former county workers said they agreed dating back to 1966 to
lower pay raises and, in some cases, no raises at all in exchange for
the benefit. All but two of the 17 plaintiffs are retired and have
living spouses. The remaining two are surviving spouses of county
workers: Muriel C. Hamann, widow of Laurier Hamann, and David F.
Goodwin, widower of Florence A. Goodwin, both of Lewiston. Hamann
worked for the county for 43 years; Goodwin, 22 years.

The plaintiffs include a retired sheriff, judge, commissioners and emergency management director.

Commissioners said last spring the benefit had never really existed.
They reviewed and interpreted the county's benefit package anew, then
informed retirees and their surviving spouses. Local attorney Bryan
Dench, who represents the county, advised commissioners that the
county's health care provision was never meant to extend to spouses
following the death of county retirees.

Commissioner Randy Greenwood on Monday referred inquiries about the
lawsuit to Dench, who could not be reached at his local office for
comment. The county has not yet filed a formal response to the suit.
Greenwood said he expected the legal action would be reviewed at the
commissioners' next meeting Wednesday.

The suit alleges the county breached its contract with former county
workers because it stopped providing the negotiated benefit for the two
surviving spouses and would not provide that benefit in the future for
the other 15 spouses of retirees. The county should pay damages,
including attorney's fees, the suit says.

Plaintiffs also allege violation of their constitutional rights,
including 5th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which
protect against depriving citizens of property without due process and
compensation. The suit seeks to have the court restore the benefit and
reimburse plaintiffs for their costs that should have been covered
under the benefit.

The suit also seeks to have the court stop the county from refusing to provide the benefit to retirees' surviving spouses.

 

Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...

In order to make comments, you must verify your account.

In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your profile. A member of our staff will call you to verify this information. To join in, fill out your user profile completely and check the box "please verify my status." We'll get back to you within one business day to verify your account.

Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned.

Advertisement

Displaying comments, from newest to oldest

Dave's picture

I don't blame them. Poorly

I don't blame them. Poorly thought out action by the Commissioners.

sheade's picture

Careful what you promise

Careful what you promise because it may might you in the butt later on. If these people didn't get any raises or lowered raises then the county would be at fault. But if any of them got raises or higher than normal raises then the commissioners are in the clear.

tron's picture

Hey this is a bunch of brand

Hey this is a bunch of brand new commissioners that you dumb a**es voted on last November. Remember everyone wanted to oust the last group, you, the SJ and most of the voters. In fact the SJ railroaded one of them off the County Commission, denying voters their elected choice. So live with them.

zachary's picture

Revisionism: The

Revisionism: The reinterpretation of evidence, motivations, and decision-making processes surrounding a historical event. Rewriting history to suit your own agenda.

Sound familiar? The County Commisioners have been doing it for years.

Budgets are debated, tweaked, debated again, voted on and finally are accepted. At that point, it is the Commisioners job to see that the funds are distributed per the budget. However, when they need money or don't like something, they go back and reallocate money at their own whim. Whether it is screwing over County employees for their cost of living increase like last month or in this case, insurance benefits that have been in place for decades. They think they have the authority to go back and rewrite history on the issue. THEY DON'T! Last time this issue came up their attorney Bryan M. Dench told them they couldn't reallocate the cost of living raises. However, this is a new panel of commisioners who were not here then.

Thank God some people have had enough and are now suing the county over it. These lawsuits are costing the County a mint and if the Commisioners get away with it, there will be many more. Really want to save some money in this county?... Get rid of the Commisioners!

Advertisement