Knight v. Board of Trustees of Firemen's Retirement and Pension Fund of Columbia Fire Dept.

• Decision Date: 30 November 1977
• Docket Number: No. 20553,20553
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: Robert L. KNIGHT, Respondent, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF FIREMEN'S RETIREMENT AND PENSION FUND OF the COLUMBIA FIRE DEPARTMENT and the City of Columbia, Appellants.

Page 720

239 S.E.2d 720

269 S.C. 671

Robert L. KNIGHT, Respondent, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF FIREMEN'S RETIREMENT AND PENSION FUND OF the COLUMBIA FIRE DEPARTMENT and the City of Columbia, Appellants.

No. 20553.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Nov. 30, 1977.

Roy D. Bates and Danny C. Crowe, Columbia, for appellants.

Hyman S. Rubin, Jr. of Rogers, McDonald, McKenzie, Fuller & Rubin, Columbia, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

The order under appeal sets forth the material facts and correctly disposes of the issues involved. With minor changes and deletions the order is reported as the judgment of this Court.

ORDER OF JUDGE MOSS

This action was brought pursuant to South Carolina Code § 61-381 et seq. (1962), and more specifically under § 61-428 et seq. (1962), applicable to the City of Columbia. By agreement of the parties, the case was presented to the Court without a jury for determination of stipulated issues of law.

On June 11, 1974, the Plaintiff, while in the employment of the City of Columbia as a firefighter, sustained an injury to his back when he fell through the roof of a burning house during a firefighting operation. According to Dr. Emmett Lunceford, an orthopedic specialist, the Plaintiff sustained a 10 percent permanent impairment of function of his back; according to Dr. Edwin K. Fennel, also an orthopedic specialist, a 10 percent permanent general bodily impairment. The uncontroverted medical testimony of these specialists was that the Plaintiff was thereafter physically unable to perform the duties of a firefighter, the position for which he was hired. Coupled with this medical testimony, the Plaintiff's uncontroverted testimony established that his motion and activities have been limited as a result of his injuries, that he has continued to take prescribed medication for pain following two periods of hospitalization, and that his medical condition has been an adverse factor in his efforts to obtain employment.

The Plaintiff, in reliance upon these facts, applied to the Board of Trustees of Firemen's Retirement and Pension Fund of the Columbia Fire Department (hereinafter referred to as the "Board") for disability retirement benefits pursuant to the cited Code sections. Following the evidentiary hearing before the Board, the Plaintiff was advised by the Defendants that his application for disability benefits was denied because he was not totally and permanently disabled within the meaning of S.C.Code § 61-428 (1962). Pursuant to that section, the Plaintiff appealed to this Court for a review of this finding along with related relief.

The only issues before this Court were the following: first, whether the Plaintiff should have been deemed by the Board, in view of the evidence and within the meaning of the applicable statutory and case law, totally and permanently disabled; and second, whether the decision of the Board in denying benefits was arbitrary or amounted to abuse of discretion. A determination of the first question is dispositive of the second.

A finding on the issue of disability turns upon the proper interpretation of the language "permanent and total disability" contained in § 61-428. At the outset it should be noted that a statutory interpretation by the Defendants does not involve the exercise of administrative expertise to which this Court must defer, and it is therefore within this Court's purview to interpret the applicable statutes. In doing so, the provisions of the Act should be examined in their entirety. 62 C.J.S. Municipal Corporations § 614c.

With respect to the crucial language "permanent and total disability" contained in § 61-428, the Plaintiff contends that total and permanent disability within the meaning of this remedial legislation is to be construed within the context of one's accustomed employment. The Defendants' position is essentially that the Plaintiff's disability must be viewed in a broader context, inferentially to the point of being unable to perform any gainful employment in order to qualify for benefits under § 61-428. For the reasons cited hereafter, the Court finds that the Defendants' position is untenable and that the Plaintiff should have been awarded the benefits for which he applied.

While the Court is aware of no cases interpreting this Act, nor have the parties supplied any, there are numerous analogous cases decided in this jurisdiction. For example, in the case of Berry v. United Life and Accident Insurance Company, 120 S.C. 328, 332, 113 S.E. 141, 142 (1922) the Supreme Court of this State interpreted the phrase "totally and continuously unable to pursue any gainful occupation" to mean inability to do substantially all of the material acts necessary to the prosecution of the insured's business or occupation in substantially his customary and usual manner. In the case of Taylor v. Southern States Life Insurance Company, 106 S.C. 356, 91 S.E. 326 (1917), the Court stated "he is deemed totally disabled when he is no longer able to do his accustomed task, and such work as he has only been trained to do, and upon which he must depend for a living." In Blakeley v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, 187 S.C. 263, 197 S.E. 670 (1938), the Court defined disability in terms of an inability to pursue the occupation in which the person was previously engaged. The concept of disability advanced by the Court in these cases has been consistently upheld in this jurisdiction, a quite recent reaffirmation occurring last year in the case of Coker v. Pilot Life Insurance Company, 265 S.C. 260, 217 S.E.2d 784 (1975). By analogy to these cases, it would logically follow that the language here in dispute means disability to perform the task in which the Plaintiff was engaged prior to his back injury, to wit, that of firefighting.

Although the cited cases involve primarily disability insurance claims, the Plaintiff's position finds abundant if not uniform support in cases closely in point from other jurisdictions dealing with remedial legislation such as this. For example, in Simmons v. Policemen's Pension Commission, 111 N.J.L. 134, 166 A. 925 (1933), an on-duty accident impaired the hearing and vision of a motorcycle policeman to the extent that he was no longer able to perform the regular functions of his job, although he was deemed capable of desk duty or other such light work. The New Jersey Supreme Court held that the policeman was disabled within the meaning of the pension statute. The following is taken from that case at page 926:

The act itself gives no definition of "permanent disability," but the natural meaning in the case of a policeman is that it is such as to incapacitate him from reasonably performing the ordinary duties of a policeman, and similarly in the case of a fireman. . . . If a policeman is unable to perform the ordinary everyday duties of a policeman, and is permanently unfitted therefor, he is under permanent disability, and it is no answer to say that the statute does not enable him to retire, because he is able to sit at a desk and make entries in a book. The statute might well provide for such substitute occupation, but it has not done so. We think the theory of our statute is that a fireman is a fireman, a policeman a policeman, and neither a desk clerk; and that a policeman permanently disabled to do his ordinary duty as such and otherwise within the statute is entitled to invoke it.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court, in addressing the same question, stated as follows: "We think this question only can be answered by saying that a policeman becomes disabled within the meaning of those provisions when he can no longer perform the regular duties of a policeman." Board of Trustees of Police Pension and Retirement System of Oklahoma City v. Faris, 470 P.2d 981, 985 (Okl.1970). Likewise, in Iowa the Court held that a police matron rendered unable to perform her routine duty by hypertensive cardiovascular disease was disabled:

It should be kept in mind that plaintiff was a police matron. She was not employed in a calm or sedentary position.

To show that she was disabled as a police matron it was not necessary that she be disabled from all activity. Butler v. The Pension Board of Police Department, 259 Iowa 1028, 147 N.W.2d 27, 30 (1966).

The applicable West Virginia provision allows for disability benefit retirement where one has "become so physically or mentally permanently disabled, regardless of the cause therefor, as to render necessary his retirement from all services in such department . . . ." West Virginia Code § 8-22-24 (Emphasis added). The case of Spencer v. Yerace, 155 W.Va. 54, 180 S.E.2d 868 (1971) is in point:

Though the statute uses the words "all service" it is clear that the Legislature meant all ordinary services of an active policeman and did not intend to deny a policeman, who because of permanent disability is incapable of performing all the ordinary services of an active policeman, his pension because his permanent disability does not prevent him from doing desk duty or light work. * * * The Petitioner is a policeman, not a desk clerk, and a desk clerk is not a policeman. 180 S.E.2d at 872, 874.

A case that presents factual elements virtually identical to those of the instant case is Pueblo Fireman's Pension Board v. Hubersberger, 132 Colo. 344, 288 P.2d 352 (1955). It is quoted in pertinent part:

The sole question presented by this writ of error is: Can a captain in a fire department who injured his back while acting in such capacity and in the line of his duties . . . be denied pension where the facts show that he is so disabled as not to be able to perform his duties as such captain, and then be transferred by the Board in charge of such pensions to a position as a switchboard operator . . .

288 P.2d at 353.

The Court held not, even though the job was still within the Fire...