ORDERS:
Prescription Medications
15.Petitioner testified about the prescription medications she was taking at the time
of the hearing. She was taking Paxil and Trazadone for depression and sleeplessness; Yasmin
for Endometriosis; Armour Thyroid for Hypothyroidism; and Sporanox for Onychomycosis,
which is a fungal nail infection. Petitioner does not take prescription medications for her alleged
leg problems, foot problems, shoulder pain, knee pain, and foot pain. Petitioner also does not
take prescription medications for Tachycardia, incontinence, paresthesia, headaches, dry skin,
knee sprain, or any of the other problems or medical conditions Petitioner mentioned during the
hearing.
Vocational Evaluation Expert
16.Robert E. Brabham, Ph.D., an independent Vocational Consultant, reviewed
Petitioner’s medical file, conducted a conference with Petitioner, and issued a recommendation
to the Respondent regarding whether Petitioner is incapacitated from performing her previous
job as a school teacher. Dr. Brabham also testified at the hearing into this matter. I found Dr.
Brabham to be a credible expert witness who fairly and honestly evaluated the Petitioner and,
therefore, I gave great weight to his testimony.
When determining his recommendation in this case, Dr. Brabham considered numerous
factors including:
a.The nature of the Petitioner’s job;
b.Her job duties and requirements;
c.Petitioner’s descriptions of her current activities;
d.Petitioner’s lack of regular continuing medical care; and
e.Petitioner’s inconsistent and sometimes noncompliant use of prescribed
medications.
Dr. Brabham’s testimony established the following: In South Carolina, school teachers sign
contracts to work 190 days per year, which is approximately 52% of the days in a year. School
teachers have summer breaks, spring breaks, Christmas breaks, and long weekends for holidays.
School teachers also have several days when they are working but the students are not in the
classroom. Their work is performed in a temperature-controlled environment with access to
numerous restrooms. Accordingly, the physical demands of Petitioner’s job as a school teacher
are considered to be light.
Furthermore, Petitioner practices yoga and has the ability to walk a lap around a football
field. During the period of her alleged disability, Petitioner has also participated in the U.S.
National Achiever Pageant in April 2002, started a nonprofit poetry club for students, lived
alone, and did her own shopping, daily activities, dressing, grooming, and driving.
Consequently, the evidence established that Petitioner could perform the physical duties of the
job.
17.In addressing Petitioner’s specific maladies Petitioner claimed precluded her from
performing her previous job as a school teacher, Dr. Brabham considered the existence of a
medical diagnosis, the existence of an impairment, the existence of a vocational limitation, the
existence of an incapacity, and the likelihood of permanence. Those maladies are addressed
below:
Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: Based on the nature of Petitioner’s previous job, even if she
has Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, she would not be precluded from performing her previous job as
a school teacher.
Fibromyalgia: Despite the existence of numerous rheumatology clinics in North and
South Carolina, there was no indication in Petitioner’s medical file that she had been diagnosed
with Fibromyalgia. Moreover, there is no reference in Petitioner’s medical file to the sixteen
trigger points typically used to make such a diagnosis. Therefore, she failed to establish the
existence of the condition or that it has any vocational significance for her.
Tachycardia: Tachycardia by definition does not prevent people from working.
Moreover, Petitioner’s medical file contained numerous references to normal cardiac function.
Therefore, if Petitioner has Tachycardia, the condition does not have a vocational significance
for her.
Hypoglycemia: Petitioner does not appear to have Hypoglycemia. More importantly, if
she has Hypoglycemia, the condition would not have vocational significance for her.
Thyroid Problems: Petitioner’s thyroid problems would not prevent her from working at
her previous employment. The Petitioner has established at best a mild thyroid imbalance,
whereas people usually continue to work even after they have had their thyroid removed. Based
on the availability of medication and the limited side effects of that medication, the medical
diagnosis of Subclinical Hypothyroidism provides minimal vocational significance. Therefore,
Petitioner’s Hypothyroidism would not inhibit her job duties as a school teacher.
Low Body Temperature: Body temperatures vary based on numerous factors, including
the time of day. Petitioner’s medical file contained numerous references to body temperatures in
the normal range. The body temperatures recorded in Petitioner’s medical records were not
sufficient to prevent Petitioner from resuming her previous job as a school teacher. Furthermore,
there is no medical evidence in the record to indicate that Petitioner’s body temperature would
have any vocational significance.
Liver Function: Petitioner alleged that a nurse practitioner informed her that her liver was
not functioning properly because there was undigested food in Petitioner’s blood. There is
nothing in Petitioner’s medical record indicating that any licensed medical professional
diagnosed her with liver dysfunction or referring to any liver dysfunction. Even though tests on
liver function are a standard procedure, there is nothing in the medical records showing
Petitioner’s liver has even been tested for a possible dysfunction. Therefore, there is no medical
evidence in the record to indicate Petitioner’s liver is not functioning properly.
Neurogenic Bladder: The one instance of incontinence alleged by Petitioner was not
significant to establish a pattern of incontinence. Moreover, there are many employees working
for the State who actually do have problems with incontinence. Additionally, Petitioner’s job
duties were performed where there would be readily accessible restrooms. Therefore,
Petitioner’s allegations of incontinence would not be a vocational limitation for Petitioner.
Mental Condition: With regard to the allegation that Petitioner continues to suffer from a
mental affliction, those allegations are simply speculative based on the lack of medical evidence.
More importantly, Dr. Brabham, who is a licensed psychologist, testified that “certainly people
with mental conditions work.” Furthermore, even if Petitioner has a mental affliction, she is not
participating in any counseling or other treatment by a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist.
Petitioner specifically has not received treatment from a licensed psychologist or other doctor
since 2002 regarding any alleged mental condition. She has also missed appointments,
particularly follow-up appointments, after her hospitalizations.
I find that a prerequisite for any disability determination is that the employee must first
seek to reasonably rectify the problem. Here, Petitioner has failed to do so. This is even more
pertinent in light of the fact that a diagnosis of bipolar disorder would not be enough to preclude
a person from being employed as a school teacher.
Other Problems or Medical Conditions: Petitioner also discussed other problems or
medical conditions she has experienced over the years including vomiting, passing out, fibroid
tumors, seeing a hallucination, Irritable Bowel Syndrome, Mitral Valve Prolapse, Endometriosis,
fevers, knot in shoulder, back spasms, leg spasm, and chest pains. None of these conditions or
problems, however, are job preclusive for Petitioner. Petitioner cites only one instance when she
saw a hallucination or experienced a leg spasm. Petitioner also cites only one week in 2002
during which she was vomiting. The isolated incident of allegedly experiencing a hallucination
or a leg spasm or the unrepeated bout of vomiting have not been repeated since at least 2002 and
are not a sufficient basis to preclude Petitioner from performing her previous job duties.
Similarly, without a medical explanation or diagnosis, Petitioner’s allegations that she
occasionally passes out are not sufficient basis to preclude Petitioner from performing her
previous job duties.
Moreover, according to Petitioner, several of the conditions have existed since the late
1980’s including Irritable Bowel Syndrome, Mitral Valve Prolapse, Endometriosis, and fibroid
tumors. Given that those conditions existed prior to Petitioner obtaining a college degree,
participating in several pageants, and working in six different schools, these conditions would
not be job preclusive at this time. Likewise, Petitioner’s vague references to periodic fevers,
knot in shoulder, back spasms, and chest pains without a medical explanation or diagnosis or
explanation as to the disabling aspects of these conditions are not sufficient to demonstrate that
those conditions preclude Petitioner from performing her previous job duties.
Finally, Petitioner testified about experiencing weakness after having a spinal tap in May
2000 and there are other vague references in the record to allegations by Petitioner of
generalized weakness. Contrary to Petitioner’s reports of weakness, when Petitioner visited
Johns Hopkins in May 2001, Dr. Irani noted: “I judged her muscle strength to be grossly intact
throughout, although she had to be encouraged to give full effort during testing.” Petitioner’s
allegations of generalized weakness are not sufficient to preclude Petitioner from performing her
previous job duties.
Conclusion
18.The evidence supports a current medical diagnosis of only Retrobulbar Neuritis
and Subclinical Hypothyroidism. On the other hand, there is not sufficient evidence to support
Petitioner’s allegations that she has a medical diagnosis of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome or
Fibromyalgia. In fact, there is an obvious absence of medical evidence or a diagnosis regarding
either of these conditions by specialists with whom Petitioner allegedly had appointments.
Moreover, there is not sufficient evidence to support a medical diagnosis of any other conditions
that would give an explanation for the additional symptoms alleged by Petitioner. Considering
all of the evidence, teaching in a South Carolina school would be within Petitioner’s ability.
Therefore, Petitioner did not establish vocational limitations that would incapacitate her from
performing her previous job duties as a school teacher.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, I conclude the following as a matter of law:
1.The Court has jurisdiction to decide the issues in this case pursuant to S.C. Code
Ann. § 9-21-60 (Supp. 2003) of the South Carolina Retirement Systems Claims Procedures Act.
2.As the trier of fact, the Court must weigh and pass upon the credibility of the
evidence presented. See South Carolina Cable Television Ass’n v. Southern Bell Tel. and Tel.
Co., 308 S.C. 216, 417 S.E.2d 586 (1992). It is within the Court’s discretion whether to qualify
a witness as an expert in a particular field. Smoak v. Liebherr-America, Inc., 281 S.C. 420, 315
S.E.2d 116 (1984). When the expert’s testimony is based on facts sufficient to form the basis of
an opinion, the Court as the trier of fact determines the probative weight of the opinion.
Berkeley Elec. Coop. v. S.C. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 304 S.C. 15, 402 S.E.2d 674 (1991).
3.Respondent provides disability retirement benefits to qualifying members who
work for an employer covered by one of its retirement systems at, or within ninety days of, the
time the member files an application for benefits. See S.C. Code Ann. § 9-1-1540 (Supp. 2003).
If a member applies for disability retirement benefits and is approved, Respondent may schedule
a Continuing Disability Review, which is a date when Respondent will revisit Petitioner’s
medical file to determine if Petitioner, in his or her current condition, is incapacitated from the
performance of his or her previous job. See S.C. Code Ann. §§ 9-1-1570 & 9-1-1580 (1986).
4.Because the member is asserting his or her eligibility for disability retirement
benefits at the time of the Continuing Disability Review, the member must prove that at the time
of the review, he or she is incapacitated from performing the duties of the job held by the
member when the member originally applied for and received disability retirement benefits. See
73A C.J.S. Public Administrative Law and Procedure § 128 (1983). Furthermore, the standard
of proof in an administrative proceeding is a preponderance of the evidence. Anonymous v.
State Bd. of Med. Exam’rs, 329 S.C. 371, 496 S.E.2d 17 (1998). Petitioner, therefore, must
prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she is entitled to the disability retirement benefits
for which she has applied.
5.According to S.C. Code Ann. § 9-1-1540 (Supp. 2003), Petitioner is entitled to
disability retirement benefits if:
a.She is mentally or physically incapacitated from the further performance of her
job as a teacher;
b.The incapacity is likely to be permanent; and
c.She should be retired.
In determining if Petitioner is mentally or physically incapacitated from performing her job
duties and whether that incapacity is likely to be permanent, it is prudent to examine whether
there is: (1) a medical diagnosis; (2) a mental or physical impairment; (3) a vocational limitation;
(4) incapacitation; and (5) permanency. First, a medical diagnosis exists if sufficient medical
records indicate that an individual suffers from a particular physical or mental medical condition.
Second, a mental or physical impairment exists if the diagnosed medical condition interferes
with a person’s ability to perform certain tasks. Third, a vocational limitation exists if the
impairment is job related and the tasks that cannot be performed interfere with a person’s ability
to do her job. Fourth, a person is incapacitated if the vocational limitations prevent a person
from doing her job. Fifth, the impairment that incapacitates a person from doing the job must be
permanent in nature.
6.It is also axiomatic that Petitioner should not be entitled to receive disability
retirement benefits on the basis of a condition for which Petitioner refuses to seek treatment.
The language of the pertinent statute in this case provides for the Court to consider whether
Petitioner “should be retired.” S.C. Code Ann. § 9-1-1540 (Supp. 2003). Here, Petitioner was
not compliant with her medications based on numerous references in the record that she was not
compliant or only sometimes took the medications. Dr. Brabham explained that compliance
with and consistency of taking medications is an important element in an individual’s treatment
to prevent the occurrence of a disability. Likewise, even if Petitioner currently suffers from a
mental condition, Petitioner is not seeking treatment by a psychologist or psychiatrist. Based on
the current lack of treatment, I conclude that even if Petitioner has a current mental or physical
condition, Petitioner should not be retired.
7.The evidence does not establish that Petitioner is currently incapacitated from
performing her previous job duties as a school teacher. Petitioner, therefore, failed to meet her
burden of proving that she is entitled to disability retirement benefits.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s application for disability retirement
benefits is denied.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________________________________
Ralph King Anderson, III
Administrative Law Judge
December 30, 2004
Columbia, South Carolina Prescription Medications
15. Petitioner testified about the prescription medications she was taking at the time
of the hearing. She was taking Paxil and Trazadone for depression and sleeplessness; Yasmin
for Endometriosis; Armour Thyroid for Hypothyroidism; and Sporanox for Onychomycosis,
which is a fungal nail infection. Petitioner does not take prescription medications for her alleged
leg problems, foot problems, shoulder pain, knee pain, and foot pain. Petitioner also does not
take prescription medications for Tachycardia, incontinence, paresthesia, headaches, dry skin,
knee sprain, or any of the other problems or medical conditions Petitioner mentioned during the
hearing.
Vocational Evaluation Expert
16. Robert E. Brabham, Ph.D., an independent Vocational Consultant, reviewed
Petitioner’s medical file, conducted a conference with Petitioner, and issued a recommendation
to the Respondent regarding whether Petitioner is incapacitated from performing her previous
job as a school teacher. Dr. Brabham also testified at the hearing into this matter. I found Dr.
Brabham to be a credible expert witness who fairly and honestly evaluated the Petitioner and,
therefore, I gave great weight to his testimony.
When determining his recommendation in this case, Dr. Brabham considered numerous
factors including:
a. The nature of the Petitioner’s job;
b. Her job duties and requirements;
c. Petitioner’s descriptions of her current activities;
d. Petitioner’s lack of regular continuing medical care; and
e. Petitioner’s inconsistent and sometimes noncompliant use of prescribed
medications.
Dr. Brabham’s testimony established the following: In South Carolina, school teachers sign
contracts to work 190 days per year, which is approximately 52% of the days in a year. School
teachers have summer breaks, spring breaks, Christmas breaks, and long weekends for holidays.
School teachers also have several days when they are working but the students are not in the
classroom. Their work is performed in a temperature-controlled environment with access to
numerous restrooms. Accordingly, the physical demands of Petitioner’s job as a school teacher
are considered to be light.
Furthermore, Petitioner practices yoga and has the ability to walk a lap around a football
field. During the period of her alleged disability, Petitioner has also participated in the U.S.
National Achiever Pageant in April 2002, started a nonprofit poetry club for students, lived
alone, and did her own shopping, daily activities, dressing, grooming, and driving.
Consequently, the evidence established that Petitioner could perform the physical duties of the
job.
17. In addressing Petitioner’s specific maladies Petitioner claimed precluded her from
performing her previous job as a school teacher, Dr. Brabham considered the existence of a
medical diagnosis, the existence of an impairment, the existence of a vocational limitation, the
existence of an incapacity, and the likelihood of permanence. Those maladies are addressed
below:
Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: Based on the nature of Petitioner’s previous job, even if she
has Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, she would not be precluded from performing her previous job as
a school teacher.
Fibromyalgia: Despite the existence of numerous rheumatology clinics in North and
South Carolina, there was no indication in Petitioner’s medical file that she had been diagnosed
with Fibromyalgia. Moreover, there is no reference in Petitioner’s medical file to the sixteen
trigger points typically used to make such a diagnosis. Therefore, she failed to establish the
existence of the condition or that it has any vocational significance for her.
Tachycardia: Tachycardia by definition does not prevent people from working.
Moreover, Petitioner’s medical file contained numerous references to normal cardiac function.
Therefore, if Petitioner has Tachycardia, the condition does not have a vocational significance
for her.
Hypoglycemia: Petitioner does not appear to have Hypoglycemia. More importantly, if
she has Hypoglycemia, the condition would not have vocational significance for her.
Thyroid Problems: Petitioner’s thyroid problems would not prevent her from working at
her previous employment. The Petitioner has established at best a mild thyroid imbalance,
whereas people usually continue to work even after they have had their thyroid removed. Based
on the availability of medication and the limited side effects of that medication, the medical
diagnosis of Subclinical Hypothyroidism provides minimal vocational significance. Therefore,
Petitioner’s Hypothyroidism would not inhibit her job duties as a school teacher.
Low Body Temperature: Body temperatures vary based on numerous factors, including
the time of day. Petitioner’s medical file contained numerous references to body temperatures in
the normal range. The body temperatures recorded in Petitioner’s medical records were not
sufficient to prevent Petitioner from resuming her previous job as a school teacher. Furthermore,
there is no medical evidence in the record to indicate that Petitioner’s body temperature would
have any vocational significance.
Liver Function: Petitioner alleged that a nurse practitioner informed her that her liver was
not functioning properly because there was undigested food in Petitioner’s blood. There is
nothing in Petitioner’s medical record indicating that any licensed medical professional
diagnosed her with liver dysfunction or referring to any liver dysfunction. Even though tests on
liver function are a standard procedure, there is nothing in the medical records showing
Petitioner’s liver has even been tested for a possible dysfunction. Therefore, there is no medical
evidence in the record to indicate Petitioner’s liver is not functioning properly.
Neurogenic Bladder: The one instance of incontinence alleged by Petitioner was not
significant to establish a pattern of incontinence. Moreover, there are many employees working
for the State who actually do have problems with incontinence. Additionally, Petitioner’s job
duties were performed where there would be readily accessible restrooms. Therefore,
Petitioner’s allegations of incontinence would not be a vocational limitation for Petitioner.
Mental Condition: With regard to the allegation that Petitioner continues to suffer from a
mental affliction, those allegations are simply speculative based on the lack of medical evidence.
More importantly, Dr. Brabham, who is a licensed psychologist, testified that “certainly people
with mental conditions work.” Furthermore, even if Petitioner has a mental affliction, she is not
participating in any counseling or other treatment by a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist.
Petitioner specifically has not received treatment from a licensed psychologist or other doctor
since 2002 regarding any alleged mental condition. She has also missed appointments,
particularly follow-up appointments, after her hospitalizations.
I find that a prerequisite for any disability determination is that the employee must first
seek to reasonably rectify the problem. Here, Petitioner has failed to do so. This is even more
pertinent in light of the fact that a diagnosis of bipolar disorder would not be enough to preclude
a person from being employed as a school teacher.
Other Problems or Medical Conditions: Petitioner also discussed other problems or
medical conditions she has experienced over the years including vomiting, passing out, fibroid
tumors, seeing a hallucination, Irritable Bowel Syndrome, Mitral Valve Prolapse, Endometriosis,
fevers, knot in shoulder, back spasms, leg spasm, and chest pains. None of these conditions or
problems, however, are job preclusive for Petitioner. Petitioner cites only one instance when she
saw a hallucination or experienced a leg spasm. Petitioner also cites only one week in 2002
during which she was vomiting. The isolated incident of allegedly experiencing a hallucination
or a leg spasm or the unrepeated bout of vomiting have not been repeated since at least 2002 and
are not a sufficient basis to preclude Petitioner from performing her previous job duties.
Similarly, without a medical explanation or diagnosis, Petitioner’s allegations that she
occasionally passes out are not sufficient basis to preclude Petitioner from performing her
previous job duties.
Moreover, according to Petitioner, several of the conditions have existed since the late
1980’s including Irritable Bowel Syndrome, Mitral Valve Prolapse, Endometriosis, and fibroid
tumors. Given that those conditions existed prior to Petitioner obtaining a college degree,
participating in several pageants, and working in six different schools, these conditions would
not be job preclusive at this time. Likewise, Petitioner’s vague references to periodic fevers,
knot in shoulder, back spasms, and chest pains without a medical explanation or diagnosis or
explanation as to the disabling aspects of these conditions are not sufficient to demonstrate that
those conditions preclude Petitioner from performing her previous job duties.
Finally, Petitioner testified about experiencing weakness after having a spinal tap in May
2000 and there are other vague references in the record to allegations by Petitioner of
generalized weakness. Contrary to Petitioner’s reports of weakness, when Petitioner visited
Johns Hopkins in May 2001, Dr. Irani noted: “I judged her muscle strength to be grossly intact
throughout, although she had to be encouraged to give full effort during testing.” Petitioner’s
allegations of generalized weakness are not sufficient to preclude Petitioner from performing her
previous job duties.
Conclusion
18. The evidence supports a current medical diagnosis of only Retrobulbar Neuritis
and Subclinical Hypothyroidism. On the other hand, there is not sufficient evidence to support
Petitioner’s allegations that she has a medical diagnosis of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome or
Fibromyalgia. In fact, there is an obvious absence of medical evidence or a diagnosis regarding
either of these conditions by specialists with whom Petitioner allegedly had appointments.
Moreover, there is not sufficient evidence to support a medical diagnosis of any other conditions
that would give an explanation for the additional symptoms alleged by Petitioner. Considering
all of the evidence, teaching in a South Carolina school would be within Petitioner’s ability.
Therefore, Petitioner did not establish vocational limitations that would incapacitate her from
performing her previous job duties as a school teacher.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, I conclude the following as a matter of law:
1. The Court has jurisdiction to decide the issues in this case pursuant to S.C. Code
Ann. § 9-21-60 (Supp. 2003) of the South Carolina Retirement Systems Claims Procedures Act.
2. As the trier of fact, the Court must weigh and pass upon the credibility of the
evidence presented. See South Carolina Cable Television Ass’n v. Southern Bell Tel. and Tel.
Co., 308 S.C. 216, 417 S.E.2d 586 (1992). It is within the Court’s discretion whether to qualify
a witness as an expert in a particular field. Smoak v. Liebherr-America, Inc., 281 S.C. 420, 315
S.E.2d 116 (1984). When the expert’s testimony is based on facts sufficient to form the basis of
an opinion, the Court as the trier of fact determines the probative weight of the opinion.
Berkeley Elec. Coop. v. S.C. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 304 S.C. 15, 402 S.E.2d 674 (1991).
3. Respondent provides disability retirement benefits to qualifying members who
work for an employer covered by one of its retirement systems at, or within ninety days of, the
time the member files an application for benefits. See S.C. Code Ann. § 9-1-1540 (Supp. 2003).
If a member applies for disability retirement benefits and is approved, Respondent may schedule
a Continuing Disability Review, which is a date when Respondent will revisit Petitioner’s
medical file to determine if Petitioner, in his or her current condition, is incapacitated from the
performance of his or her previous job. See S.C. Code Ann. §§ 9-1-1570 & 9-1-1580 (1986).
4. Because the member is asserting his or her eligibility for disability retirement
benefits at the time of the Continuing Disability Review, the member must prove that at the time
of the review, he or she is incapacitated from performing the duties of the job held by the
member when the member originally applied for and received disability retirement benefits. See
73A C.J.S. Public Administrative Law and Procedure § 128 (1983). Furthermore, the standard
of proof in an administrative proceeding is a preponderance of the evidence. Anonymous v.
State Bd. of Med. Exam’rs, 329 S.C. 371, 496 S.E.2d 17 (1998). Petitioner, therefore, must
prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she is entitled to the disability retirement benefits
for which she has applied.
5. According to S.C. Code Ann. § 9-1-1540 (Supp. 2003), Petitioner is entitled to
disability retirement benefits if:
a. She is mentally or physically incapacitated from the further performance of her
job as a teacher;
b. The incapacity is likely to be permanent; and
c. She should be retired.
In determining if Petitioner is mentally or physically incapacitated from performing her job
duties and whether that incapacity is likely to be permanent, it is prudent to examine whether
there is: (1) a medical diagnosis; (2) a mental or physical impairment; (3) a vocational limitation;
(4) incapacitation; and (5) permanency. First, a medical diagnosis exists if sufficient medical
records indicate that an individual suffers from a particular physical or mental medical condition.
Second, a mental or physical impairment exists if the diagnosed medical condition interferes
with a person’s ability to perform certain tasks. Third, a vocational limitation exists if the
impairment is job related and the tasks that cannot be performed interfere with a person’s ability
to do her job. Fourth, a person is incapacitated if the vocational limitations prevent a person
from doing her job. Fifth, the impairment that incapacitates a person from doing the job must be
permanent in nature.
6. It is also axiomatic that Petitioner should not be entitled to receive disability
retirement benefits on the basis of a condition for which Petitioner refuses to seek treatment.
The language of the pertinent statute in this case provides for the Court to consider whether
Petitioner “should be retired.” S.C. Code Ann. § 9-1-1540 (Supp. 2003). Here, Petitioner was
not compliant with her medications based on numerous references in the record that she was not
compliant or only sometimes took the medications. Dr. Brabham explained that compliance
with and consistency of taking medications is an important element in an individual’s treatment
to prevent the occurrence of a disability. Likewise, even if Petitioner currently suffers from a
mental condition, Petitioner is not seeking treatment by a psychologist or psychiatrist. Based on
the current lack of treatment, I conclude that even if Petitioner has a current mental or physical
condition, Petitioner should not be retired.
7. The evidence does not establish that Petitioner is currently incapacitated from
performing her previous job duties as a school teacher. Petitioner, therefore, failed to meet her
burden of proving that she is entitled to disability retirement benefits.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s application for disability retirement
benefits is denied.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________________________________
Ralph King Anderson, III
Administrative Law Judge
December 30, 2004
Columbia, South Carolina |
