Jon Lender: Retirees win ruling that Hartford violated judge’s order by changing medical plan, but without a contempt finding, did they win?

In 2003 a group of retired Hartford firefighters got a court judgment that the city administration couldn’t “change or diminish in any way” their lifetime medical benefits without getting their written consent.

But on Jan. 1, 2016, the city unilaterally changed the retirees’ medical coverage, from an Anthem Blue Cross plan to a Cigna health insurance plan, without their consent.

The retirees sued in 2017, and, this past January, a Superior Court judge ruled that the city had committed “a clear violation” of the 2003 judgment.

So they won, right? Not really.

That’s because although Judge Henry S. Cohn ruled Jan. 24 that the city had clearly violated the 2003 judgment, he stopped short of finding the city in contempt of court, as the retirees had requested -- and which they say would give teeth to the 2003 judgment and provide various potential legal remedies.

“What we’re looking for is for someone … to explain to us why we won a court decision and yet there seems to be no penalty for the other party in any way,” said Robert Williams Sr., 76, of Newington, one of about 28 retired firefighters who are plaintiffs in the case.

“This is not about us looking for public sympathy,” said Williams, acknowledging that the lifetime health benefits package enjoyed by the retirees and their spouses is much better than most people have. “But what does it mean for the court system, not only here in Connecticut, but maybe in America? How good is the court system if somebody picks and chooses when someone gets penalized for breaking the law?”

The city denies it broke the 2003 ruling or should be found in contempt. Deputy Hartford Corporation Counsel Alexandra Lombardi said Friday that because the benefits were the same, with no increased costs to the retirees and their spouses under the Cigna plan, “There was no contempt.”

“They didn’t win the ruling,” she said. “Contempt has to be a willful and egregious violation. ... Essentially, the name on the insurance card is different, but the benefits are the same.”

Now the dispute has landed in the Connecticut Appellate Court, with no decision expected until next year.

It was Cohn, himself, who issued the 2003 “stipulated judgment” by giving his official blessing to an agreement worked out by the city and the retirees to settle an earlier lawsuit over medical coverage.

Cohn said in his January ruling that although the city violated the 2003 order by switching to Cigna without the retirees’ consent, he would need evidence of intent by city officials to make a contempt finding. The judge held additional hearings on that point and other issues such as “whether the Cigna plan is factually identical to the replaced Anthem plan,” as the city claims.

After those hearings, Cohn issued a May decision saying that the retirees had acknowledged in court that the city has developed a “written protocol” through which “all claims had been paid.” Cohn quoted a prior court decision to the effect that “failure to comply with [a court order or judgment, by itself] will not support a finding of contempt. ... Rather, to constitute contempt, a party’s conduct must be willful [and not the result of] a good faith dispute or legitimate misunderstanding.”

And so, Cohn ruled, “the city is not presently in contempt.”

Williams and his fellow plaintiffs have taken their case to the Appellate Court to determine if Cohn erred by not making a contempt finding. He said there’s no guarantee that all city administrations in the future will honor claims as now and, besides, there have been time-consuming and anxiety-raising hassles for some retirees under Cigna. The city corporation counsel’s office denies that, pointing to the retirees’ admission in court that they haven’t been harmed by the new setup. The city has filed a “cross-appeal” of its own to the Appellate Court, challenging Cohn’s January finding that the city violated the terms of the 2003 judgment.

Each side will file legal briefs in anticipation of oral arguments sometime in 2020. If the Appellate Court rules against the city, the case would likely be remanded to the Superior Court for reconsideration.

The opposing parties likely will be making arguments about the definition of the words “change” and “diminish” when it comes to medical benefits, and how the city’s unilateral switch from an Anthem plan to a Cigna plan doesn’t meet one of those definitions in some way.

The switch from Anthem to Cigna on Jan. 1, 2016, was approved by the city council for all Hartford employees and retirees in September of 2015, while Pedro Segarra was mayor. Cohn in January ruled that the 2003 court order was “sufficiently clear and unambiguous” in its wording to apply to the city’s changes in medical benefits from Anthem to Cigna and in drug benefits from Anthem to CVS. In all, about 150 firefighter retirees are affected.

Their medical coverage includes an unlimited prescription plan with a $3 copay for generic drugs and $6 for brand-name medications, as well no copayment for 100-day supplies of maintenance medications. Office visit copays are $10 and emergency room visit copays are $25. The plan covers Lasik surgery, smoking deterrents, orthotics, weight-control drugs and nutritional counseling, dentures and bridges, acupuncture and bariatric surgery for obesity if the patient meets specific medical guidelines.

Of the 150 or so affected firefighter retirees, about 28 are currently plaintiffs in the Appellate Court action, known as Rudolph J. Fiorillo, et al, v. City of Hartford. Williams said they’re paying the legal fees out of their own pockets.

Their attorney is his son, Robert Williams Jr. of Suffield, who said, “It seems to be harder and harder to have a court find a party in contempt.”

Jon Lender is a reporter on The Courant’s investigative desk, with a focus on government and politics. Contact him at [email protected], 860-241-6524, or c/o The Hartford Courant, 285 Broad St., Hartford, CT 06115 and find him on Twitter@jonlender.

___

(c)2019 The Hartford Courant (Hartford, Conn.)

Visit The Hartford Courant (Hartford, Conn.) at www.courant.com

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.