Opinion
No. 2-141 / 01-0707.
Filed March 27, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clinton County, MARK CLEVE, Judge.
Plaintiffs appeal from the district court's denial of their petition for writ of mandamus or other equitable relief against the City of Clinton. AFFIRMED.
G. Wylie Pillers of Pillers Law Offices, Clinton, for appellant.
Bruce Johansen, City Attorney, Clinton, for appellee.
Considered by SACKETT, C.J., and ZIMMER and VAITHESWARAN, JJ.
Plaintiffs-appellants, Thomas Hansen and Edward Staszewski, appeal from the district court's denial of their petition for writ of mandamus or other equitable relief against the City of Clinton. We affirm.
The appellants are former Clinton police officers who retired on disability in 1997. At the time of the retirement they demanded that the city pay the cost of single coverage health insurance for both of them. The city paid the coverage while the matter was under review, but in February 1998, the city informed both officers it would no longer pay their health insurance premiums after March 1998, but would pay the medical expenses each incurred as a result of their disability. The city informed both officers this change was to provide the same benefits to them that other police and fire disability retirees had received who retired after 1990. Appellants filed a petition in district court seeking a writ of mandamus and/or injunctive relief. The parties submitted the case to the district court on the pleadings, exhibits, and stipulated facts on February 5, 2001. The court issued its ruling on April 5, 2001, denying the officers' claims. In doing so the court examined Iowa Code section 411.15, which requires a city to continue "to provide hospital, nursing, and medical attention for injuries or diseases incurred" on the job. Iowa Code § 411.15 (1999). The court concluded the city was performing its duty under the law by paying for the hospital, nursing, and medical attention needed by the officers. The court also concluded the officers failed to prove entitlement to a mandamus order based on an implied unilateral contract. The court found no evidence that would make estoppel or laches applicable.
The district court also denied the appellants' claim that the city administrator either abused his discretion or acted arbitrarily in discontinuing benefits the city retirement board provided to disability retirees prior to 1991 or in discontinuing the benefits temporarily provided to the two officers. The court concluded the home rule statutes in Iowa Code chapter 364 do not limit the means by which a city administrator "may manage accidental disability benefits." The court determined the express provisions of the Clinton city charter "could reasonably grant the City administrator . . . authority to make decisions regarding the insurance and medical care expense provisions at issue in this case." The temporary payment of benefits in excess of those prescribed by statute "does not create a duty on the part of the City to provide those benefits" without some proof of the city's intent to be bound or of any representations which would cause justifiable reliance on past policy and practice. Finally, the court found no evidence of bad faith on the part of the city.
On appeal, the appellants claim (1) the court should have found the city breached its contract or acted in bad faith in cutting their benefits in violation of city policy, (2) the court should have found only the city council could change an existing policy concerning benefits to disability retirees, and (3) they are entitled to equitable relief reinstating their medical insurance benefits.
Actions of mandamus are tried as equitable actions. Iowa Code § 661.3. Our review of the record is de novo. Gabrilson v. Flynn, 554 N.W.2d 267, 275 (Iowa 1996). Granting a writ of mandamus is not a matter of right, but rests largely within the discretion of the court. Vincent v. Ellis, 116 Iowa 609, 615, 88 N.W. 836, 838 (1902). If the decision to grant or to refuse to grant the writ involves the court's discretion, our review of the decision is for error of law or abuse of discretion. Hewitt v. Ryan, 356 N.W.2d 230, 233 (Iowa 1984). Mandamus generally is limited to circumstances in which an official or entity has a duty to act. Hicks v. Franklin County Auditor, 514 N.W.2d 431, 441 (Iowa 1994). Where the duty is discretionary, the mandamus can only compel action, but cannot control such discretion. Iowa Code § 661.2. "[M]andamus will lie only if it is shown defendant acted arbitrarily or capriciously in denying the request." Charles Gabus Ford, Inc. v. Iowa State Highway Comm'n, 224 N.W.2d 639, 644 (Iowa 1974).
Before 1991, retirement benefits for police and fire department personnel were controlled by the Clinton Retirement Board. Before about 1980, the board paid the actual costs of medical care for disability retirees. In about 1980, the board adopted a policy of paying health insurance premiums for heart or lung disability retirees. In 1990, the legislature created a statewide pension fund to replace city retirement systems effective January 1, 1992. 1990 Iowa Acts ch. 1240, §§ 49, 85. The change did not affect the responsibility of cities to "provide hospital, nursing, and medical attention" to disability retirees from funds appropriated for the police or fire department from which the person retired. Iowa Code § 411.15 (1991). In 1998, the legislature amended this section to allow cities to provide the benefits "through the purchase of insurance, by self-insuring the obligation, or through payment of moneys into a local government risk pool." Iowa Code § 411.15 (1999). During the time of the change from a city retirement system to a statewide pension fund, Clinton changed the former retirement board's policy and stopped paying health insurance premiums for police and fire personnel who retired on disability except for those benefits mandated by Iowa Code section 411.15. The city did not change the policy for existing retirees, but did not pay for insurance for any new retirees after 1990 except for the short period benefits that were provided to appellants.
At or near the time of their retirement, appellants contacted city officials to request a review of their entitlements as accidental disability retirees and to demand that the city pay for their single coverage health insurance. The health insurance provided appellants during the review was done contrary to Clinton's existing policy. After its review, the city determined no change in policy was warranted and it notified appellants it would not continue paying for their health insurance. They had the option of participating in the health insurance at their own cost. The city continued to pay for health care costs associated with their disability.
The city has a statutory duty to provide certain health care benefits to accidental disability retirees. Thus, appellants have "clear and certain" legal rights and mandamus would lie to compel the city to provide those certain benefits if it were not already doing so. See Stafford v. Valley Comm. Sch. Dist., 298 N.W.2d 307, 309 (Iowa 1980). The city is providing benefits required by statute. The city has exercised its discretion in determining to pay the health care costs directly instead of paying health insurance premiums. "Where discretion is left to the inferior tribunal or person, the mandamus can only compel it to act, but cannot control such discretion." Iowa Code § 661.2 (1999). However, if the city acted arbitrarily and capriciously, mandamus would issue to correct such abuse of its discretion. See Headid v. Rodman, 179 N.W.2d 767, 769 (Iowa 1970). Appellants claim the city abused its discretion. An abuse of discretion occurs when a decision is made on grounds or reasons clearly untenable or unreasonable. Squealer Feeds v. Pickering, 530 N.W.2d 678, 681 (Iowa 1995). "[A]buse of discretion is synonymous with unreasonableness, and involves lack of rationality," focusing on whether the decision made is "clearly against reason." Schoenfeld v. FDL Foods, Inc., 560 N.W.2d 595, 598 (Iowa 1997). We find no abuse of discretion in the decision of the city regarding how it provides the benefits required by statute.
Hansen and Staszewski contend the city administrator exceeded his authority by changing the benefits policy of the former city retirement board. The twenty-fifth amendment to Iowa's Constitution granted home rule power and authority to municipal corporations. The legislature set forth the powers and duties of cities in Iowa Code chapter 364. Section 364.1 grants broad home-rule powers, providing in part:
A city may, except as expressly limited by the Constitution, and if not inconsistent with the laws of the general assembly, exercise any power and perform any function it deems appropriate to protect and preserve the rights, privileges, and property of the city or of its residents, and to preserve and improve the peace, safety, health, welfare, comfort, and convenience of its residents. . . .
Iowa Code § 364.1 (emphasis added). Clinton adopted a city charter in 1987. Among its various provisions, it grants the city administrator the power to "direct and coordinate all City services provided through the various departments: and to conduct the business affairs of the City." Clinton Code of Ordinances §§ 19.04(6), 19.04(9) (1999). We find the city administrator did not exceed his authority.
Appellants raise a variety of other issues, including breach of a unilateral contract or an implied contract, bad faith, tortious interference with a contractual relationship, and a general claim for equitable relief. We have carefully considered the claims raised and find them without merit.
From our de novo review of the record before us, we find nothing that would provide a basis for issuing a writ of mandamus or other equitable relief. The city is providing disability retirees the health benefits to which they are statutorily entitled. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the officers' petition for a writ of mandamus or other equitable relief.
AFFIRMED.