The reviewing court presumes that the board acted correctly and defers to it in its areas of expertise. Rosinski v. Teachers Ret. Ass'n Bd. of Trs., 495 N.W.2d 14, 16 (Minn. App. 1993). But PERA decisions regarding statutory interpretation are reviewed de novo.

We presume that the board acted correctly and defer to it in its areas of expertise. Rosinski v. Teachers Ret. Ass'n Bd. of Trustees, 495 N.W.2d 14, 16 (Minn. App. 1993). But when reviewing legal questions we need not defer. St. Otto's Home v. Minn. Dep't of Human Servs., 437 N.W.2d 35, 39-40 (Minn.

This court accords "a presumption of correctness" to decisions of a public retirement fund board and deference to the board in its area of expertise. Rosinski v. Teachers Ret. Ass'n Bd. of Trs., 495 N.W.2d 14, 16 (Minn. App. 1993) (quoting Reserve Mining Co. v. Herbst, 256 N.W.2d 808, 824 (Minn. 1977)).

See Minn. Stat. § 354.05, subd. 35(b)(5). Relator objects to this characterization of the payments, relying on Rosinski v. Teachers Ret. Ass'n Bd. of Trustees, 495 N.W.2d 14 (Minn.App. 1993). In that case, a school principal was placed on an unrequested leave of absence for the 1989-90 school year based upon a medical evaluation.

Reserve Mining Co. v. Herbst, 256 N.W.2d 808, 824 (Minn. 1977); Rosinski v. Teachers Retirement Ass'n Bd. of Trustees, 495 N.W.2d 14, 16 (Minn.App. 1993). A reviewing court is not required, however, to defer to an agency's decision with respect to questions of law.