The decisive issue in this appeal is whether a 1971 amendment to the DeKalb County Retirement System Pension Plan requires the county to reduce an employee's pension benefits in an amount equal to the workers' compensation benefits that the employee is receiving from the county. The trial court ruled that the pension plan required such a reduction in benefits. We agree for the reasons that follow. Therefore, we affirm. The 1971 pension plan provision provides, in relevant part, that [t]he amount of each monthly retirement payment shall be equal to 50% of the participant's monthly rate of earnings as of the date of disability minus the sum of 50% of the Social Security Benefit to which he may be entitled, plus any benefits received through workman's compensation from DeKalb County. 1The trial court interpreted this provision to mean that a retiree's pension payment must be determined by first calculating a base retirement benefit of "50% of [his] monthly rate of earnings" and by then reducing the base benefit by the sum of 50% of the social security benefits he receives and any workers' compensation benefits he receives from DeKalb County. Ware, on the other hand, contends that his retirement benefit is determined by calculating a base retirement payment of 50% of his monthly earnings and by then reducing that base benefit only by 50% of any social security benefits. As for workers' compensation, Ware contends that the retirement provision simply means that any workers' compensation benefits he receives from DeKalb County will continue to be received separately from and in addition to any pension payment he receives from the county We conclude that the trial court properly interpreted the retirement provision. The court's interpretation is consistent with the meaning of the phrase "minus the sum of," 2 is consistent with the statutory history of this provision, 3 and is consistent with the "well-established principle that a statute must be viewed so as to make all its parts harmonize and to give a sensible and intelligent effect to each part." 4 For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the trial court properly interpreted the pension provision at issue. 5Gambrell & Stolz, Seaton D. Purdom, Bryan M. Cavan, John Hinton IV, for appellees. | 
