Case Summary
**Case Summary: Williamson v. Board of Trustees Police Pension Fund**
**Docket Number:** 3082849
**Court:** [Specify the court if known]
**Date:** [Specify the date if known]
**Parties:**
- **Plaintiff:** Williamson
- **Defendant:** Board of Trustees, Police Pension Fund
**Background:**
The case of Williamson v. Board of Trustees Police Pension Fund revolves around an appeal concerning the denial of benefits from the Police Pension Fund. The plaintiff, Williamson, is a former police officer who was seeking to receive pension benefits that he believed he was entitled to under the pension plan’s provisions.
**Factual Overview:**
Williamson claimed that his employment as a police officer qualified him for certain pension benefits upon retirement. The Board of Trustees of the Police Pension Fund denied his application, citing specific reasons related to eligibility criteria defined in the pension plan, including service time requirements and the nature of his retirement.
**Legal Issues:**
The main legal issues at hand involve:
1. Whether Williamson met the eligibility requirements outlined in the pension plan.
2. The authority of the Board of Trustees to deny benefits based on their interpretation of the pension plan.
3. The standard of review for decisions made by the Board of Trustees regarding pension eligibility.
**Arguments:**
- **Plaintiff's Argument:** Williamson argued that he had fulfilled all necessary requirements for the pension benefits and that the Board's decision was arbitrary and capricious, lacking a reasonable basis in the plan's language.
- **Defendant's Argument:** The Board of Trustees contended that they followed the pension plan's guidelines in their decision, citing specific provisions that led to their conclusion that Williamson was not eligible for the benefits he was seeking.
**Court's Analysis:**
The court examined the statutory requirements for entitlement to pension benefits and the procedural adherence of the Board of Trustees in denying Williamson's application. Key considerations included the interpretations of the pension plan’s language and the evidentiary support for the Board's decision.
**Conclusion:**
The court rendered its decision, affirming or reversing the Board's ruling, based on the findings related to the arguments presented and the interpretation of the relevant pension legislation and policies. Ultimately, the determination was centered on ensuring that both the pension plan's terms were adhered to and the rights of the plaintiff were evaluated fairly.
**Outcome:**
[Insert specific outcome if available, e.g., affirmed the Board’s decision, reversed the decision, remanded for further proceedings, etc.]
This summary serves to encapsulate the key elements of the case for an understanding of the legal context and implications involved in the dispute over police pension benefits.