ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final
25F-001-ARB · Arizona State Retirement System · 2025-09-16
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Diana Meier
Appellant,
v.
Arizona State Retirement System,
Respondent..
No. 25F-001-ARB
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: August 5, 2025. Record held open to August 27, 2025.
APPEARANCES: Diana Meier appeared on her own behalf. Cassie Adams appeared for Respondent.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Samuel Fox
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Notice of Hearing (Not. of Hr’g); Exhibits 1 through 20.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
On July 28, 2008, Diana Meier (Appellant) became an Arizona State Retirement System (ASRS) member.
On August 12, 2010, Appellant started receiving Long Term Disability (LTD) benefits. While on LTD, Appellant received ASRS service credit.
On August 12, 2023, Appellant reached her normal retirement date because she was at least 62 years old with 10 years of service credit, making her ineligible for LTD benefits. She applied for retirement with 15 years of service credit.
Appellant appealed the retirement requirement, wanting to remain on LTD benefits. She lost that appeal, and then, she requested a partial lump sum retirement payment. She was eventually granted the partial lump sum payment, which was back dated to her retirement. The up-front payment resulted in a lower monthly payment.
Ryan Guerra, the privacy officer for ASRS, testified in support of how Appellant’s benefits were calculated, including the recalculation after the lump sum payment was made to Appellant.
Appellant argued that Arizona should provide a disability retirement option, paying individuals who retire as disabled higher amounts. Appellant acknowledged that the law was not in her favor, and she wanted to challenge the law.
Appellant provided arguments about the law, but she did not provide facts to contradict the presentation of ASRS.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter is within the jurisdiction of ASRS.
Complainant bears the burden of proof and the standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of a preponderance of the evidence. A preponderance of the evidence means “proof which leads the [trier of fact] to find that the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence.”
LTD benefits “cease to be payable . . . [at t]he member’s normal retirement date.” The “normal retirement date” is defined as the earliest of the following: “(i) A member's sixty-fifth birthday. (ii) A member's sixty-second birthday and completion of at least ten years of credited service. (iii) The first day that the sum of a member's age and years of total credited service equals eighty.”
A.R.S. Title 38, Chapter 5, Articles 2 and 2.1 do not contemplate additional pension benefits for those who are disabled at the time of their retirement.
The preponderance of the evidence supports that Complainant’s benefits were properly calculated. Complainant did not present any evidence to support that her pension was miscalculated.
Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law herein, Complainant did not meet her burden in this matter.
ORDER
It is recommended that Complainant’s appeal should be denied.
In the event of certification of the Administrative Law Judge Decision by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the effective date of the Order will be forty (40) days from the date of that certification.
Done this day, September 16, 2025.
/s/ Samuel Fox
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Paul Matson, Director
Arizona State Retirement System
Cassie Adams
Office of the Attorney General
[email redacted]
Diana Meier
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff