Home 
Got a question? Try Ask the MMA Did the definition of dependent in Chapter 32B change?
Q: Did the definition of dependent in Chapter 32B change?
A: The health care reform legislation did not amend the definition of “dependent” in Chapter 32B. Section 2(b) of that chapter defines “dependents” as including: “an employee’s spouse, and employee’s unmarried children under nineteen years of age, and any child nineteen years of age or over who is mentally or physically incapable of earning his own living, provided that any additional premium which may be required is paid for the coverage of such handicapped child. Said definition shall also include an unmarried child nineteen years of age or over who is a full-time student in an educational or vocational institution and whose program of education has not been substantially interrupted by full-time gainful employment excluding service in the armed forces; provided, that any additional premium which may be required for the coverage of such student shall be paid in full by the employee. The standards for such full-time instruction and the time required to complete such a program of education shall be determined by the appropriate public authority.”
The Supreme Judicial Court has held—in Connors v. City of Boston (430 Mass. 31 [1999]), which challenged the provision of dependent coverage to the domestic partners of municipal employees—that the definition of “dependents” in Section 2(b) is “exclusive” and may not be expanded upon by a municipality. Thus, a municipality that is inclined to apply the new definition to employees in a self-insured plan faces a dilemma.
Answer provided by Paul Mulkern, an attorney who represents municipalities in the area of labor and employment law.
Got a question? Try Ask the MMA Did the definition of dependent in Chapter 32B change?
Did the definition of dependent in Chapter 32B change?
Q: Did the definition of dependent in Chapter 32B change?
A: The health care reform legislation did not amend the definition of “dependent” in Chapter 32B. Section 2(b) of that chapter defines “dependents” as including: “an employee’s spouse, and employee’s unmarried children under nineteen years of age, and any child nineteen years of age or over who is mentally or physically incapable of earning his own living, provided that any additional premium which may be required is paid for the coverage of such handicapped child. Said definition shall also include an unmarried child nineteen years of age or over who is a full-time student in an educational or vocational institution and whose program of education has not been substantially interrupted by full-time gainful employment excluding service in the armed forces; provided, that any additional premium which may be required for the coverage of such student shall be paid in full by the employee. The standards for such full-time instruction and the time required to complete such a program of education shall be determined by the appropriate public authority.”
The Supreme Judicial Court has held—in Connors v. City of Boston (430 Mass. 31 [1999]), which challenged the provision of dependent coverage to the domestic partners of municipal employees—that the definition of “dependents” in Section 2(b) is “exclusive” and may not be expanded upon by a municipality. Thus, a municipality that is inclined to apply the new definition to employees in a self-insured plan faces a dilemma.
Answer provided by Paul Mulkern, an attorney who represents municipalities in the area of labor and employment law.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
