SCHOOL DISTRICTS

SCHOOL DISTRICTS: INSURANCE: RETIRED EMPLOYEES: School district is not required to make available same level of insurance coverage to retired employees 65 years of age and older as that provided to active employees. Minn. Stat.§ 471.61, subd. 2b. 16lb-7 (Cr. ref. 59a-25), 125a-28, 469a-7 December I 5, 1 998 Patricia A. Maloney AmyE. Mace Ratwik, Roszak & Maloney, P.A. 300 Peavey Building 730 Second Avenue South Minneapolis. MN 55402 Dear Ms. Maloney and Ms. Mace: In your letter to Attorney General Hubert H. Humphrey III. you submit substantially the following: FACTS Independent School District No. 622. North St. Paul-Maplewood provides group hospital. medical and dental insurance coverage to its employees. The school district also allows former employees and their dependents to continue to participate in the same hospital. medical and dental insurance group that the employee participated in immediately before retirement. You then ask substantially the following: QUESTION Is the school district required by Minn. Stat. s 471.6 I. subd. 2b to make available to an eligible employee who is 65 years or age or older the same level of coverage that the employee received prior to retirement"? OPINION We answer your question in the negatiw. \!inn. Stat.ʅ .+71.61. subd. 2b provides in part: ,\ unit of Inca! go\'crnmcnt must allow a former employee and the employee·s dependents to rnntinuc lo ranicipate indctinitdy in the employer-sponsored Patricia A. Maloney Amy E.Mace Page2 hospital. medical. and dental insurance group that the employee participated in immediately before retirement under the following conditions: (a)* * * (b)sUntil the former employee reaches age 65, the former employee ands dependents must be pooled in the same group as active employees for purposes ofs establishing premiums and coverage for hospital. medical and dental insurance.s (Emphasis added.) We note that the statute does not by its terms entitle retired employees to retain any particular level of coverage. Rather it entitles them to continue to participate in the group in which they previoasly participated. How.ever in that respect. tht:se provisions are not a model of clarity. The initial clause indicates generally that the retired employee may participate in the same employee sponsored insurance "group·• indefinitely, while the second requires inclusion in the same ·'group .. as active employees for premium and coverage purposes only until age 65. Resolution of this seeming contradiction. pursuant to established rules of statutory construction. leads to the conclusion that. while retired employees may participate indefinitely in an employer-sponsored group pian. the premium and level of coverage provided to retired employees 65 years of age and over may differ from that provided to then-active employees. Minn. Stat. ʁ 645.17(2) provides that the legislature intends the entire law to be effective and certain. As noted by the Court in State v. Pem·. 524 N.\V.2d 21 (Minn. App. 1994), "'a construction which would ʂiw no effect to fa] ran of the statute. is to be avoided."" Id. at 23. Minn. Stat. ʃ 645.26. subd. I provides that ··when a general provision in a la.w is in conflict with a special provision of the same or another law. the two shall be construed. if possible. so that effect mav he gi,·cn to both:· !!'that cannot be done then the special provision will prevail. Patricia A. Maloney Amy E. Mace Page3 In this situation subparagraph (b) plainly is more specific and limiting than the initial clause of the subdivision. Furthermore. if subdivision 2b were interpreted to require that the same coverage be made avail.:.ble to retired employees before and after age 65, no effect would be given to that part of subparagraph (b) which limits the mandatory inclusion with the active employee group to retired employees under 65 years of age. To have meaning subparagraph (b) must be interpreted to imply that premium and coverage levels for employees 65 years of age and older may differ from those for active employees and younger retirees. Thus it is our opinion that local government emp.loyers including District 622 are not_ required to make available to retired employees 65 years of age or older the same coverage as that provided at tile time of retirement. or that available to currently active employees. Very truly yours. HUBERT H. HUMPHREY Ill Attorney General KENNETH E. RASCHKE. JR. Assistant Attorney General