This matter is before me upon the Motion of the Petitioner, by and with the consent of
the Respondent. The parties are scheduled to appear before this court on July 26, 2005, for a
hearing on Petitioner’s Request for a Contested Case Hearing.
The issues in this case are whether Petitioner is mentally or physically incapacitated from
performing his previous job as a police officer, whether those incapacities are likely to be
permanent, and whether Petitioner should be retired. See S.C. Code Ann. § 9-11-80(1) (1986 &
Supp. 2004). Peggy G. Boykin, Director of Respondent, issued a Final Agency Determination
denying Petitioner’s application for disability retirement benefits. Petitioner filed a Request for
a Contested Case Hearing on December 28, 2004, seeking an Order from this Court overturning
the Final Agency Determination and granting Petitioner’s application for disability retirement
benefits.
During the time this case has been pending before this court, the parties have participated
in discovery and exchanged additional materials, including recent medical evidence. On April
12, 2005, Petitioner participated in a Functional Capacity Evaluation during which the examiner
observed Petitioner’s poor lifting capacity, decreased endurance, poor force generation, and
decreased balance with carrying including two episodes during testing when Petitioner lost his
balance. As a result, the examiner concluded Petitioner would be unsafe and/or unfit to perform
his previous job as a police officer.
Based on the additional evidence received during discovery including the most recent
Functional Capacity Evaluation, the Vocational Consultant has determined that the issue of
permanence is sufficiently resolved. The Vocational Consultant issued a new recommendation
to Director Boykin to grant Petitioner’s application for disability retirement benefits.
Respondent, therefore, has made the determination to award the disability retirement benefits at
issue in this action.
NOW THEREFORE, on motion of Richard V. Davis, attorney for Petitioner, and with
the consent of Kelly H. Rainsford, attorney for Respondent,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the above action is
dismissed and the hearing scheduled for July 26, 2005, is cancelled.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_______________________________
Honorable Carolyn C. Matthews
Administrative Law Judge
May 12, 2005
Columbia, South Carolina
