The opinion
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions
Decision: 2016 ME 91
Docket: Ken-15-395
Submitted
On Briefs: May 26, 2016
Decided: June 14, 2016
Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ.
SARA J.T. BEHR
v.
MAINE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM
PER CURIAM
[¶1] Sara J.T. Behr appeals from a judgment entered by the Superior Court
(Kennebec County, Murphy, J.) affirming the decision of the Maine Public
Employees Retirement System (MPERS) Board of Trustees (the Board). The
Board had affirmed the decision of the executive director’s designee, who had
denied Behr’s application for disability retirement benefits. See 5 M.R.S.
§§ 17451(1), 17925(4) (2015). Because the record does not compel a finding that
Behr met her burden to prove that “it is impossible to perform the duties of [her]
employment position,” 5 M.R.S. § 17921(1)(B) (2015), we affirm.
[¶2] In December 2012, Behr filed an application for disability retirement
benefits, see 5 M.R.S. § 17925 (2015), alleging that she was unable to perform her
job as a policy development specialist for the Maine Department of Transportation.
2
Behr asserted that she was disabled due to Lyme disease, mononucleosis,
fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression,
anxiety, and insomnia. On appeal, Behr only challenges the denial of benefits as to
her fibromyalgia.
[¶3] We review directly the Board’s decision. Kelley v. Me. Pub. Emps.
Ret. Sys., 2009 ME 27, ¶ 16, 967 A.2d 676. We will reverse a Board finding that a
party failed to meet his or her burden of proof “only if the record compels a
contrary conclusion to the exclusion of any other inference.” Id. Contrary to
Behr’s contentions, the record does not compel a finding that Behr met her burden
to prove that her fibromyalgia caused functional limitations that made it impossible
for her to do her job.
[¶4] The Board adopted the Hearing Officer’s recommended final decision,
which found that there were “significant inconsistencies and voids in the evidence
of medically-based functional limitations,” especially given MPERS’s evidence
about Behr’s behavior at work. See 5 M.R.S. § 17106(4)(C) (2015) (contemplating
that the Board will determine what weight to give the evidence); 5 M.R.S.
§ 17106-A(3) (2015) (permitting hearing officers to accept, reject, or determine the
weight to be given any evidence). For example, Behr’s supervisor testified that he
observed that Behr’s mood would change depending on whether she was
interacting socially with coworkers or focusing on her work.
3
[¶5] In addition, the Board found that Behr’s evidence regarding her alleged
functional limitations was less persuasive than the medical board’s reports,
see 5 M.R.S. § 17106(3)(D) (2015), which the Board properly considered as
evidence, see Kelley, 2009 ME 27, ¶ 25, 967 A.2d 676. Here, the medical board
twice reviewed the entire record and opined that the medical records contained no
objective medical evidence of any functional limitations caused by Behr’s
fibromyalgia. In its second report, the medical board noted that Behr’s significant
efforts in pursuing her appeal to the Board demonstrated her capacity for sedentary
work. Because the medical board’s reports are a proper part of the evidentiary
record, the record does not compel a contrary finding. See Anderson v. Me. Pub.
Emps. Ret. Sys., 2009 ME 134, ¶ 28, 985 A.2d 501 (holding that the record did not
compel a finding that the employee had proved that her condition would be
permanent when the medical board had written a report “questioning [the
employee’s] evidence of permanency”).
[¶6] Behr’s remaining arguments on appeal do not warrant discussion.
The entry is:
Judgment affirmed.
4
On the briefs:
Sara J.T. Behr, appellant pro se
Janet T. Mills, Attorney General, and Christopher L. Mann,
Asst. Atty. Gen., Office of the Attorney General, Augusta, for
appellee Maine Public Employees Retirement System
Kennebec County Superior Court docket number AP-2014-74
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY