The opinion
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT
KENNEBEC, ss. CIVIL ACTION
Docket No. AP-07f-64 /
,, ,'. '
5/ /: ':-; " ) J '{
SHIRLEYANN RATAJCZAK
LEAMAN,
Petitioner
v. DECISION AND ORDER
MAINE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES
RETIREMENT SYSTEM (formerly
MAINE STATE RETIREMENT
SYSTEM),
DONAlDl.GARBRECHT
Respondent LAW LIBRARY
•
Ii 11~1 (\'/
.... , • i "-.
'lnOB
lJJ
Pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 80C, the petitioner seeks judicial review of the
respondent's denial of her disability benefits. After a hearing on February IS, 2007 and
review of medical evidence, including the report of the Medical Board, the respondent
determined that the petitioner failed to carry her burden of proving that as of the last
day of her employment, she suffered from obsessive compulsive disorder, traits of
obsessive compulsive disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, depressive
disorder NOS, and/ or panic disorder with agoraphopia that were diagnosable
conditions. See 5 M.R.S.A. §§ 17921(1)(A), (l)(B), & (2); (R. at 29.1.)
The petitioner relies on the opinions of Dr. Dana Sattin and Dr. Carlyle Voss (R.
1.38-1.45.; 12.101-12.126.) The respondent's decision, however, was based significantly
upon the Medical Board's determination that it was "unconvinced that the member's
problems represent five or six psychiatric diagnoses, or that any diagnosis has been
responsible for member's difficulties performing satisfactorily on the job." (R. 12.132.)
The petitioner argues that the respondent committed legal error by giving
presumptive weight to the opinion of the Medical Board. Pet.'s Mem. at 7. In
particular, the petitioner argues that the following statement of the hearing officer was
adopted inappropriately by the respondent in affirming the hearing officer's report:
Because the Hearing Officer is charged by the M.5.R.S rules to "refer or re
refer to the Medical Board any matters involving medical evidence,
questions or issues," the Medical Board's opinion should be given great
weight by the Hearing Officer and Board of Trustees.
Id.; (R. 26.10.)
The Medical Board is created by statute. 5 M.R.S.A. § 17106(1). The respondent's
Board of Trustees must"designate a medical board or boards each to be composed of 3
physicians not eligible to participate in the retirement system." Id. Among the powers
and duties, section 17106 provides:
[t]he medical board or other physician designated by the board shall, at
the request of the executive director, review the file of an applicant for
disability retirement and as requested shall respond on any or all of the
following ...D. Inform the executive director and board in writing of its
view as to the existence of a disability entitling an applicant to benefits ...
5 M.R.S.A. § 17106(3)(D).
The petitioner is correct that the statute does not provide presumptive status to
the conclusions of the Medical Board. The respondent's decision does not, however,
reflect that presumptive status was given to the opinion of the Medical Board. The
respondent considered the opinions of Dr. Voss and Dr. Sattin and the Medical Board
and determined that Dr. Voss and Dr. Sattin's opinions were "based on [petitioner's]
self reporting of her behaviors and her problems, as are most psychiatric opinions.
Because of that, the doctors' bases for their opinions are limited to the information
provided by the patient." (R. at 29.9.) The respondent accepted the opinion of the
Medical Board that although the petitioner is not necessarily capable of performing her
2
work duties, "she does not have any diagnosable conditions. Without the identification
of a specific condition causing disability, there would be no way to apply the System's
statutes referencing disability." Id.
The petitioner must prove that "no competent evidence" supports the agency's
decision. Seider v. Board of Examiners of Psychologists, 2000 ME 206, <j[ 9, 762 A.2d 551,
555. "Inconsistent evidence will not render an agency decision unsupported." Id. This
record contains competent and substantial evidence to support the respondent's
decision. Id.
The entry is
The Respondent's Decision is AF
Date: May 15, 2008
ancy Mills
Justice, Superior Court
3
Date Filed 10/10107 Kennebec Docket No. _..L:'AuP"-Ou7...:::L6eo4L- _
County
Action P"-=e-"'-t""-i-"'-t""-i"'-on-"-'----"'-f"'-o"'-r_R~ev_"__"_iEew"____ _
80C
J. Mills
Shirlevann Rataiczak Leaman
Plaintiff's Attorney Defendant's Attorney
David H. Simonds, Esq. Christopher L. Mann, AAG
15 Columbia Street 6 State House Station
Bangor, Maine 04401 Augusta Maine 04333-0006
Date of
Entry
10/10/07 Petition for Review, filed. s/Simonds, Esq.
10/11/07 Letter entering appearance, filed. s/Mann, AAG
11/2/07 Certified copy of record, filed. s/Danette Larochelle (in vault)
12/13/07 Notice and Briefing Schedule mailed to attorneys on 11/16/07.
12/18/07 Brief of Petitioner, filed. a/Simonds, Esq. (12/12/07)
1/10/08 Respondent's Brief, filed. s/Mann, AAG
1/30/08 Petitioner Response to Respondent Brief, filed. s/Simonds, Esq.
3/18/08 Letter and copy of Decision And Order (Joan K. Steele v. Maine State
Retirement System, Somerset CV-07-110). s/Simonds, Esq.
5/19/08 DECISION AND ORDER, Mills, J. (5/15/08)
The Respondent's Decision is AFFIRMED.
Copy mailed to attorneys of record and repositories.