OPINION BY

Janettarose L. Greene (Greene), successor Trustee of the Charlie Mae Moore Brown Revocable Trust (Trust), appeals from a Public School Employees’ Retirement Board (Board) order refusing to give effect to a June 23, 2003 Assignment executed by Charlie Mae Moore Brown (Decedent) to designate the Trust as beneficiary of her retirement account due from the Pennsylvania School Employees’ Retirement System (PSERS).

Decedent was a member of PSERS since September 1, 1973, as a result of her employment with the Philadelphia School District beginning on that date. On June 23, 2003, Decedent executed two documents in the presence of her counsel, Joel S. Luber, Esquire (Attorney Luber): the Trust, as Grantor and Trustee; and a document entitled “Assignment.”1 The Assignment, by its terms, purported to transfer to the Trust all of Decedent’s rights, title and interest in and to all of her assets of every kind.2

Decedent died on July 18, 2003, without having filed the Trust or the Assignment with PSERS.3 PSERS received Decedent’s death certificate on August 12, 2003. The Assignment of her retirement account was not presented to PSERS until September 18, 2003. On the date of Dece*155dent’s death, the Nomination of Beneficiaries form on file with PSERS designated Tamara Brown Douglass (Douglass) and Samuel J. Brown, IV (Brown), her children, each as 50% principal beneficiaries of Decedent’s retirement account with PSERS.4 On September 25, 2003, both Douglass and Brown filed Applications for Option 1 Death Benefits with PSERS and were notified that each of them would receive a payment in the amount of $336,684.27 within seven to 10 days. On October 30, 2003, checks were sent by the State Treasury Department, but as a result of the Assignment, PSERS stopped payment.

Greene, in her capacity as Trustee of the Trust, requested an administrative hearing, contending that the proceeds of Decedent’s PSERS’ retirement account be distributed to the Trust rather than to the previously designated beneficiaries, Douglass and Brown. PSERS answered, contending that the purported change in beneficiary was not effective because it was not filed with the Board before Decedent’s death, and the change was not on a form provided by the Board as required by statute and regulation. Both Douglass and Brown filed petitions to intervene.

Before the Board, Attorney Luber testified that he had his first conversation with Decedent by telephone on June 20, 2003, to confirm that she wanted him to proceed with the preparation of a revocable trust, durable power of attorney and a blanket assignment of all of her assets. He testified that he had not previously performed any legal services for Decedent but had for Greene, who was Decedent’s friend, who contacted him by e-mail on Decedent’s behalf. After the telephone call with Decedent, Attorney Luber testified that he met with Decedent on June 23, 2003, in her private hospital room. Attorney Luber testified that there were no witnesses present at the meeting, but he verified that Decedent was lucid and understood the purpose of the documents that he had prepared and her testamentary and trust intentions. After she executed the documents, he had a discussion with her regarding whose responsibility it would be to obtain the necessary forms to transfer assets that required beneficiary changes, and she indicated that it was to be his responsibility.

Attorney Luber then testified that around July 10, 2003, he went on vacation, but had known he would be leaving at the time of his meeting with Decedent. He also testified that he knew Decedent was a teacher in the Philadelphia School System and a member of PSERS and also was familiar with PSERS and understood its requirements. However, he testified that he did not attempt to procure any forms from anyone to change any beneficiary designation to the Trust prior to coming back from his vacation. While he was on vacation, Attorney Luber’s office notified him of Decedent’s death. It wasn’t until his return from vacation that he began to make telephone calls to all entities or organizations that he knew about to inform them of the Trust and the Assignment, and he did not send any documentation to PSERS regarding Decedent’s intent to change her beneficiaries until September 18, 2003.5

Michelle Sellers (Sellers), an administrator for PSERS, testified that PSERS’ nor*156mal procedure upon notification of the death of an in-service member was to send out correspondence requesting a death certificate and then, once that was received, to send the necessary forms to the beneficiaries that were listed on the latest Nomination of Beneficiaries form filed with PSERS. Once that information was received, PSERS calculated the benefit payable and paid it to the beneficiaries so listed. On cross-examination, it was also revealed that PSERS had knowledge of Luber’s involvement with the Estate of Decedent on or before August 4, 2003, and on August 4, 2003, wrote to Attorney Lu-ber requesting information regarding the Estate and death of Decedent. However, Sellers testified that contact related to the annuitant death benefits and not to Decedent’s in-service account.

The hearing examiner recommended to the Board to reject Greene’s request that the Assignment executed by Decedent be accepted as a new Nomination of Beneficiaries form timely filed with the Board and dismissed her appeal because Decedent did not make a reasonable attempt to do everything within her power to effectuate a change in her beneficiary prior to her death. Based on the extant March 12, 2002 Nomination of Beneficiaries form signed by Decedent, the hearing examiner concluded that her beneficiaries, as defined by the Public Employes’ Retirement Code (Code), 24 Pa.C.S. § 8102,6 were Douglass and Brown.

Greene filed exceptions to the opinion and recommendation of the hearing examiner. However, finding the hearing examiner’s Findings of Fact, Discussion, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation to be correct, the Board adopted7 them as its own and denied Greene’s request to accept the Assignment executed by Decedent on June 23, 2003, as a timely filed new Nomination of Beneficiaries form. This appeal followed.8

Greene contends that the Assignment executed by Decedent on June 23, 2003, was legally effective to change the beneficiary of her PSERS’ retirement account as of the date of her death on July 18, 2003, to be payable to the Trust because: 1) it was the functional equivalent of a PSERS’ Nomination of Beneficiaries form; 2) it was filed with the Board; and 3) Decedent substantially complied with the terms of the statute and/or regulations governing the designation of beneficiaries of a PSERS’ retirement account.

The Code also requires every member to nominate a beneficiary for death benefits9 by written designation filed with the Board. 24 Pa.C.S. § 8507(e). Specifically, *15724 Pa.C.S. § 8507(e) states, in pertinent part:

(e) BENEFICIARY FOR DEATH BENEFITS. — Every member shall nominate a beneficiary by written designation filed with the board to receive the death benefit or the benefit payable under the provisions of Option 1. Such nomination may be changed at any time by the member by written designation filed with the board. A member may also nominate a contingent beneficiary or beneficiaries to receive the death benefit or the benefit payable under the provisions of Option 1. (Emphasis added.)

The Board implemented this provision by promulgating Board Regulation 22 Pa. Code § 215.7(d), which provides:

(d) Beneficiaries. Every member shall nominate a beneficiary and contingent beneficiary, if desired, on a form to be filed with the Board and supplied by the Board. In all these cases, the designated or contingent beneficiary, as the case may be, shall be the only one entitled to receive the accumulated deductions or the death benefit for those who die in service or those who would be entitled to a benefit under Option 1 under section 8345 the Retirement Code (relating to member’s options). (Emphasis added.)

Because Decedent only filed the Assignment with the Board, which purported to transfer to the Trust all of her rights, title and interest in and to all of her assets of every kind, even if it had been filed during her lifetime, the Code required further documentation, specifically, the Nomination of Beneficiaries form.

Citing to Coleman Appeal, 33 Pa. D & C 2nd 191 (1963), Greene, however, argues that the Assignment, filed two months after the death of Decedent, was legally effective to cause the balance in her PSERS’ retirement account to be payable to the Trust because a PSERS member can change a beneficiary by filing a blanket assignment after her death if she does everything in her power to make the change, and everything under the circumstances reasonably possible to comply with the Code and the regulations.

In Coleman, the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, which was acting in the same capacity assumed by the yet-to-be-created Commonwealth Court, held that a nomination of beneficiaries form received by the Board after the death of a PSERS member may only be effective if that member made all possible efforts to file the nomination with the Board prior to death. In that case, a petitioner contested PSERS’ benefits based on two competing beneficiary forms, one of which was filed with PSERS in 1945 and was signed by two witnesses, while the other was completed in 1957, was not signed by any witnesses, and, more importantly, was never filed with PSERS. Relying on the fact that, normally, in life insurance contracts, the general rule is that the mode prescribed by an insurance policy for a change of beneficiary must be strictly and exactly followed, and the only exception to that rule is in situations where it can be showed that an insured did everything in his power to make the change and had done everything under the circumstances reasonably possible to comply with the policy terms, the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County upheld the 1945 form because the Code10 required that the nomination of *158beneficiaries form be filed with PSERS, the 1957 form was never filed, and the record disclosed that the decedent knew of the required filing, had time to change beneficiaries, and had no physical barriers impeding her from filing the form. The Coleman Court, thus, concluded that the failure to file the form was purposeful.11 Under the Coleman test, the question then ís whether Decedent made all possible efforts to designate the new beneficiary pri- or to her death by executing the Assignment and then entrusting her attorney to obtain the necessary documents to effectuate that change with PSERS.12

Ignoring whether the change in the beneficiary of her retirement account has to be on an “official form,”13 Coleman’s hold*159ing, making an exception for “all possible efforts,” presupposes that a PSERS member has made a written designation specifically changing who is to receive the death benefits from his or her PSERS’ retirement account, but then dies shortly before the written designation reaches the Board in the normal course of business. It did not envision that a blanket assignment of all assets constituted “all possible efforts” and was the type of written designation that could act to change a beneficiary after a member’s death. Because a blanket assignment of assets is not the functional equivalent to a specific change in beneficiaries, even if such an assignment reached the Board prior to a member’s death, it would not act to change the beneficiary of the members’ PSERS’ retirement account because that requires a separate nomination.

Accordingly, because the March 12, 2002 Nomination of Beneficiaries form designating Douglass and Brown as the beneficiaries of Decedent’s PSERS’ retirement account was the last designation of beneficiaries on file at the time of Decedent’s death, the death benefits in the amount of $747,224.82 were properly payable to Douglass and Brown, and the order of the Board denying Greene’s request to accept the Assignment as a new Nomination of Beneficiaries form timely filed with the Board, effectively distributing Decedent’s retirement account with PSERS to the Trust, is affirmed.

ORDER

AND NOW, this 29th day of June, 2005, the order of the Public School Employees’ Retirement Board at No. 2003-37 denying Janettarose L. Greene’s request that the Assignment executed by Charlie Mae Moore Brown on June 23, 2003, be accepted as a new Nomination of Beneficiaries form timely filed with the Board, is affirmed.