Anderson v. Maine Public Emp. Ret. System

• Decision Date: 29 December 2009
• Docket Number: Docket: Aro-09-237.
• Citation: Anderson v. Maine Public Emp. Ret. System, 985 A.2d 501, 2009 ME 134 (Me. 2009)
• Parties: Betheny C. ANDERSON v. MAINE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

985 A.2d 501

2009 ME 134

Betheny C. ANDERSON v.MAINE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM.

Docket: Aro-09-237.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Submitted on Briefs: November 23, 2009.

Decided: December 29, 2009.

Janet T. Mills, Attorney General, Christopher L. Mann, Asst. Atty. Gen., Office of the Attorney General, Augusta, ME, for Maine Public Employees Retirement System.

David H. Simonds, Esq., Bangor, ME, for Betheny Anderson.

Panel: ALEXANDER, LEVY, MEAD, GORMAN, and JABAR, JJ.

ALEXANDER, J.

[¶ 1] The Maine Public Employees Retirement System (MPERS) appeals from a judgment entered in the Superior Court(Aroostook County, Cuddy, J.), which vacated a decision of the MPERS Board of Trustees(the Board) denying disability retirement benefits to Betheny C. Anderson.MPERS argues that although Anderson has shown that her impairments make it impossible for her to carry out her employment duties as an art teacher, she failed to prove that her incapacity is expected to be permanent, and therefore the Board properly denied her disability benefits, pursuant to 5 M.R.S. § 17921(1)(2008).¹We vacate the judgment of the Superior Court.

I.STANDARDS OF REVIEW

[¶ 2] When we consider a judgment of the Superior Court, reviewing a decision of a state administrative agency pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 80C, we follow the standards of review governing administrative appeals.Thus, when the trial court has acted in an intermediate appellate capacity, we review directly the original decision of the fact-finding agency, without deference to the ruling on the intermediate appeal by the court from which the appeal is taken.Kelley v. Me. Pub. Employees Ret. Sys.,2009 ME 27, ¶ 16, 967 A.2d 676, 682;York Ins. of Me., Inc. v. Superintendent of Ins.,2004 ME 45, ¶ 13, 845 A.2d 1155, 1159.

[¶ 3]A party seeking to vacate an agency decision bears the burden of persuasion on appeal.Kelley,2009 ME 27, ¶ 16, 967 A.2d at 682;Zegel v. Bd. of Soc. Worker Licensure,2004 ME 31, ¶ 14, 843 A.2d 18, 22.When an appellant had the burden of proof before the agency, and challenges an agency finding that it failed to meet that burden of proof, we will not overturn the agency fact-finding unless the appellant demonstrates that the administrative record compels the contrary findings that the appellant asserts should have been entered.Kelley,2009 ME 27, ¶ 16, 967 A.2d at 682(stating that the Court will reverse a finding of failure to meet a burden of proof "only if the record compels a contrary conclusion to the exclusion of any other inference"(quotation marks omitted));Quiland, Inc. v. Wells Sanitary Dist.,2006 ME 113, ¶ 16, 905 A.2d 806, 810.

II.CASE HISTORY

[¶ 4] To qualify for a disability retirement benefit under the MPERS, an applicant bears the burden of proof to demonstrate that the applicant has a mental or physical incapacity that: (1) is expected to be permanent, and (2) makes it impossible to perform the duties of the applicant's employment position.5 M.R.S. § 17921(1)(A), (B).The process begins when an employee files an application with the executive director of MPERS, who then obtains medical consultation(s) on each application.5 M.R.S. § 17925(1)(A)(2008).The consultations must be objective and provided by physicians qualified to review the case by specialty or experience and to whom the applicant is not known.Id.If, after considering the medical consultants' recommendations, the executive director denies the application, the employee may appeal that decision to the MPERS Board of Trustees.5 M.R.S. § 17451(2008).²The Board's decision may be appealed to the Superior Court pursuant to section 17451(2)andM.R. Civ. P. 80C.

[¶ 5] In this case, the record and the Board findings of fact, which are supported by the record, indicate the following:

[¶ 6]Betheny Anderson was employed as an art teacher in the Caribou School Department from 1991 until February of 2006.Over the course of eleven years, beginning in approximately 1995, Anderson developed progressive pain throughout her body.Anderson had pain and numbness in her feet that would sometimes cause her to fall.This pain often caused Anderson to lose sleep, and she was "constantly fatigued."Anderson was absent from her job frequently because of her pain.

[¶ 7] In 2005, Anderson began treatment with her primary-care physician David Connor, M.D, after her joint pain caused her to leave work and go to the emergency room.Shortly thereafter, Anderson filed an application for disability retirement benefits, pursuant to 5 M.R.S. § 17925.

[¶ 8] Anderson's last day of work was February 9, 2006.Anderson left work early to see Dr. Connor because her limbs were too weak to perform her duties at school.At this visit, Dr. Connor noted that in addition to her physical ailments, Anderson was emotionally unstable, which he thought was primarily caused by stress from work.Dr. Connor then removed Anderson from her teaching position because he thought she"may be heading toward a psychological breakdown."

[¶ 9] Later in February of 2006, Dr. Connor diagnosed Anderson with chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, and Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease, the latter being the cause of Anderson's falls.Dr. Connor reported that at this point, he thought Anderson "could work for about [twenty] hours a week with some modifications; such as not having to carry heavy equipment with her to different [classrooms]."Dr. Connor also prescribed an antidepressant and referred Anderson to a psychiatrist and a neurosurgeon.

[¶ 10] In March 2006, the executive director obtained reports from six medical consultants.Each consultant had been asked to review one of the bases for Anderson's claim of disability: depression; fibromyalgia; Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease; a basal cell carcinoma on her left shoulder; chronic fatigue syndrome; an anxiety disorder; and injuries stemming from a car accident.Based in part on the information provided in those consultations, the executive director denied Anderson's application for disability benefits on April 10, 2006.The executive director determined that Anderson's degenerative cervical spine disease did not make it impossible for her to do her job, and that there was no objective medical data to prove that she had fibromyalgia, Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease, or depression.Anderson appealed the decision of the executive director to the Board,³ pursuant to 5 M.R.S. § 17451(1).

[¶ 11] During the spring of 2006, Anderson sought treatment from several doctors.In May, she was diagnosed with depression by her psychologist, Dr. Robert Morrison, and she consulted with Fadi Ajine, M.D., a rheumatologist.In addition, Anderson was evaluated by Carlyle Voss, M.D., who concluded that Anderson's impairments made it impossible for her to return to work.Throughout the spring and summer of 2006, Anderson submitted voluminous records and reports from these physicians to MPERS.She asked that all of the documents be considered in support of her appeal, in addition to the documents that had been previously presented to the executive director.

[¶ 12] Pursuant to 5 M.R.S. § 17106(3)(B)(2008), the Board designated a panel of three physicians, referred to as the "medical board," to assist it in considering the appeal.At the request of the Board, a medical board reviews the file of the applicant for disability retirement benefits and, as requested, may recommend additional medical review or recommend additional medical tests to obtain objective evidence of a permanent disability.SeeYoung v. Bd. of Trs. of Me. State Ret. Sys.,601 A.2d 86, 87 n. 4(Me.1992).⁴

[¶ 13] After reviewing all of the information submitted by Anderson, the medical board reported in September 2006 that her diagnosis of fibromyalgia was warranted.It noted that the functional limitations associated with that condition would restrict Anderson to light or sedentary work on a full-time basis, but also noted that it was premature to determine whether those functional limitations would be permanent.The medical board further reported that Anderson's diagnosis of depression was warranted, but concluded that diagnosis did not result in any functional limitations for Anderson.

[¶ 14] A hearing on Anderson's appeal was held in October 2006, and the MPERS hearing officer permitted the parties to submit additional evidence and arguments into January.In February of 2007, the hearing officer issued an opinion regarding Anderson's appeal, finding that Anderson's impairments from her major depression, fibromyalgia, and degenerative cervical spine disease did make it impossible for her to perform the duties of her teaching position, but that the matter needed to be remanded to the executive director to determine whether these impairments were expected to be permanent.

[¶ 15] On remand, the executive director asked the medical board to perform its statutorily created obligation to review and consider Anderson's application and supporting documents.In May 2007, after its review of the evidence, the medical board advised the executive director that the functional limitations described by Anderson would not likely be permanent.Justifying its position, the medical board noted that: (1) there was "a paucity of objective medical data in the medical records" to support the view that Anderson's functional limitations would be permanent; (2) it did not believe that Anderson's psychopharmacological treatment was sufficiently aggressive, given her symptoms; and (3) Anderson had shown signs of slow improvement.

[¶ 16] On May 17, 2007, the executive director of MPERS concluded, based in part on the recommendation of the medical board, that Anderson's depression, fibromyalgia, and degenerative cervical spine disease did not result in an incapacity that was expected to be permanent.Anderson again requested leave to appeal and submit updated medical information, which was granted.

[¶ 17] During the spring of 2007,...