ORDERS:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The above-captioned case is before this Court pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 9-21-60 (Supp. 2004) for a contested case hearing. Petitioner Loretta Busby seeks review of the December 30, 2004 Final Agency Determination of Respondent South Carolina Budget and Control Board, South Carolina Retirement Systems (SCRS), in which SCRS denied her application for state disability retirement benefits under S.C. Code Ann. § 9-1-1540 (Supp. 2004). Petitioner contends that she suffers from several medical conditions, including sickle cell disease, diabetes, and hypertension; and that, as a result of these conditions, she is physically incapacitated from the further performance of her job as a clinical counselor with the Barnwell County Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse such that she is entitled to disability retirement benefits from the South Carolina Retirement System. SCRS contends that, while Petitioner carries the genetic sickle cell trait, she does not suffer from sickle cell disease, and that, while Petitioner does have both diabetes and hypertension, those conditions are not so severe as to permanently incapacitate her from performing her previous job duties as a clinical counselor. Accordingly, SCRS argues that Petitioner is not entitled to disability retirement benefits under Section 9-1-1540.
After timely notice to the parties, a hearing of this matter was held on May 25, 2005, at the South Carolina Administrative Law Court in Columbia, South Carolina. Based upon the evidence presented at that hearing and upon the applicable law, I find that Petitioner is not permanently, physically incapacitated from the further performance of her job as a clinical counselor such that she should receive disability retirement benefits from SCRS.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Having carefully considered all testimony, exhibits, and arguments presented at the hearing of this case, and taking into account the credibility and accuracy of the evidence, I make the following Findings of Fact by a preponderance of the evidence:
1. Petitioner Loretta Busby is forty-four-year-old woman who is a member of the South Carolina Retirement System with eight years and nine months of service in state employment. Petitioner was employed between September 1994 and May 2003 as a clinical counselor at the Axis I Center of Barnwell by the Barnwell County Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse. Petitioner last worked for the commission on May 9, 2003.
2. As a clinical counselor at the Axis I Center of Barnwell, Petitioner provided counseling to persons undergoing treatment for drug and alcohol addiction. Her job duties as a counselor included screening and assessing clients, referring clients for treatment, conducting individual and group counseling sessions, keeping clinical documentation on clients, managing cases, and discharging clients. Physically, Petitioner’s job was largely sedentary, as her counseling duties required only occasional walking and standing and rarely demanded that she bend, reach, or lift and carry objects other than normal office supplies.
3. On June 10, 2003, Petitioner filed an application for disability retirement benefits with SCRS, in which she contends that physical impairments caused by sickle cell disease, diabetes, and hypertension permanently prevent her from resuming her job as a clinical counselor with the Barnwell County Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse. After receiving Petitioner’s application, SCRS forwarded her file to the South Carolina Department of Vocational Rehabilitation for review of her disability claim. Disability Examiner Martha Spangler reviewed the medical documents regarding Petitioner’s conditions, and, on October 17, 2003, issued a recommendation to the SCRS Medical Board that Petitioner’s disability retirement application be denied because she retained the capacity to perform her job duties. On October 21, 2003, the Medical Board accepted Ms. Spangler’s recommendation and denied Petitioner’s claim for disability retirement benefits.
4. Petitioner requested a reconsideration of the Board’s decision, and her file was sent to a second Disability Examiner, Matt Woolsey, for additional review. After reviewing Petitioner’s medical file, including new documentation not considered by Ms. Spangler, Mr. Woolsey also recommended that Petitioner’s disability claim be denied because, despite her medical conditions, Petitioner was still able to perform her job duties as a clinical counselor. Based upon this second recommendation, the Medical Board again denied Petitioner’s application for disability retirement benefits on February 2, 2004.
5. Petitioner then requested administrative review of her claim before the Director of SCRS, Peggy Boykin. Ms. Boykin appointed Joel D. Leonard, an independent vocational rehabilitation consultant, to review Petitioner’s claim. As part of his review, Mr. Leonard conducted an administrative conference with Petitioner on April 2, 2004. After the initial conference, Mr. Leonard requested a records review of Petitioner’s file from Dr. Arthur Chausmer, a board-certified specialist both in endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism and in internal medicine.
6. Based upon his review of Petitioner’s medical documents, Dr. Chausmer concluded that Petitioner does not suffer from sickle cell disease, but rather only carries the sickle cell genetic trait. Dr. Chausmer further noted that merely carrying the sickle cell trait is asymptomatic, except under very unusual circumstances resulting from exposure to a very low oxygen environment or from other conditions that cause an inability to adequately oxygenate one’s blood. As these circumstances were not present in Petitioner’s case, Dr. Chausmer further concluded that Petitioner was not debilitated by either sickle cell disease or by her sickle cell trait. As to Petitioner’s claim of disability due to diabetes and related diabetic neuropathy, Dr. Chausmer concluded from Petitioner’s medical documentation that her diabetes was not particularly severe and that there was no medical evidence to support a finding that Petitioner suffered from sensory neuropathy, mononeuropathy, or autonomic neuropathy. Dr. Chausmer did note, however, that the presence of sensory neuropathy would be difficult to rule out without further testing.
7. After reviewing Dr. Chausmer’s report, Mr. Leonard referred Petitioner to Dr. Mitchell Hegquist for an independent medical examination. Dr. Hegquist examined Petitioner on July 19, 2004, and also referred Petitioner to a neurologist, Dr. Charles Shissias, for an EMG and a nerve conduction study. Based upon his testing, Dr. Shissias found that Petitioner suffered from mild bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. Taking into consideration his own examination of Petitioner, including his own lab results, and Dr. Shissias’ findings, Dr. Hegquist concluded that Petitioner does have mild, and periodically uncontrolled, hypertension and diabetes mellitus, but further determined that Petitioner does not suffer from diabetic neuropathy or from sickle cell disease, although she may have mild carpal tunnel syndrome and does carry the sickle cell trait.
8. After receiving Dr. Hegquist’s report, Mr. Leonard held a second administrative conference with Petitioner on October 28, 2004, to allow Petitioner to offer additional medical evidence or testimony. After the conference, Mr. Leonard reviewed Petitioner’s entire medical file and assessed her application based upon her claims of disability caused by sickle cell crises, cardiac issues, elevated blood pressure, headaches, diabetic neuropathy in her upper and lower extremities, elevated blood sugars, and potential breathing problems. Mr. Leonard issued a recommendation that Petitioner’s application for disability retirement benefits be denied. He concluded that the medical evidence in the record did not support a diagnosis of diabetic neuropathy, sickle cell disease, or respiratory problems. Mr. Leonard also found that Petitioner’s diabetes and hypertension, while periodically uncontrolled and resulting in occasional discomfort, did not prohibit her from performing her prior job duties as a clinical counselor. In sum, Mr. Leonard stated that he saw “no meaningful or compelling evidence that could be correlated to any permanent, preclusive limitations within the parameters of [Petitioner’s] job.” Respt.’s Ex. #1, at 9.
9. On December 30, 2004, Ms. Boykin, the Director of SCRS, issued a Final Agency Determination adopting Mr. Leonard’s recommendations and therefore denying Petitioner’s application for disability retirement benefits. On January 12, 2005, Petitioner filed a request for a contested case hearing before this Court to challenge this final agency determination.
10. Based upon the great weight of the medical evidence presented in this matter, I find that Petitioner does not suffer from sickle cell disease, but rather only carries the sickle cell genetic trait, and that Petitioner does not suffer from any significant diabetic neuropathy in her extremities. Further, I find that, while Petitioner does have hypertension, diabetes, and some cardiac concerns, these conditions are not so severe as to permanently preclude her from further performing her job as a clinical counselor with the Barnwell County Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, I conclude the following as a matter of law:
1. This tribunal has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 9-21-60 (Supp. 2004), S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600(B) (Supp. 2004), and S.C. Code Ann. §§ 1-23-310 et seq. (2005).
2. S.C. Code Ann. § 9-1-1540 (Supp. 2004) provides that qualifying members of the South Carolina Retirement System
may be retired by the [State Budget and Control] [B]oard not less than thirty days and not more than nine months next following the date of filing the application on a disability retirement allowance if the medical board, after a medical examination of the member, certifies that the member is mentally or physically incapacitated for the further performance of duty, that the incapacity is likely to be permanent, and that the member should be retired.
Id. (emphasis added).
3. In the case at hand, Petitioner claims that the pain and other physical limitations she suffers from sickle cell disease, coronary artery disease, hypertension, diabetes, diabetic neuropathy, and respiratory problems have rendered her permanently, physically incapacitated from the further performance of her duties as a clinical counselor at the Axis I Center of Barnwell such that she should be entitled to disability retirement benefits from SCRS. This claim, however, cannot be sustained.
4. In the case at hand, the various medical experts that have examined Petitioner or reviewed her medical documentation have concluded, based upon the objective results of blood tests and other laboratory testing, that she does not have sickle cell disease, but only carries the sickle cell trait, and have found no medical evidence to demonstrate that Petitioner suffers from diabetic neuropathy in her upper or lower extremities. These experts further concluded that Petitioner does suffer from moderate cases of several other medical conditions, including hypertension, diabetes, and certain heart-related conditions. However, none of the medical experts found that these conditions were of such severity, whether considered separately or in combination, that Petitioner would be permanently, physically disabled from the further performance of her job as a clinical counselor, particularly if Petitioner’s conditions are properly controlled with medical treatments. Therefore, while Petitioner may be sincere in her belief that she has sickle cell disease, as opposed to merely carrying the sickle cell trait, and while she may have certain discomfort caused by other physical ailments, the record does not support a finding that Petitioner is permanently incapacitated from the further performance of her job duties as a clinical counselor such that she is entitled to disability retirement benefits from SCRS.
ORDER
Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated above,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the decision of SCRS to deny Petitioner’s application for disability retirement benefits pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 9-1-1540 (Supp. 2004) is SUSTAINED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
JOHN D. GEATHERS
Administrative Law Judge
1205 Pendleton Street, Suite 224
Columbia, South Carolina 29201-3731
August 22, 2005
Columbia, South Carolina
It should be noted that Petitioner bears the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she is entitled to the disability retirement benefits she seeks. See Leventis v. S.C. Dep’t of Health & Envtl. Control, 340 S.C. 118, 132-33, 530 S.E.2d 643, 651 (Ct. App. 2000) (holding that the burden of proof in administrative proceedings generally rests upon the party asserting the affirmative of an issue); see also 73A C.J.S. Public Administrative Law and Procedure § 128, at 35 (1983) (“In administrative proceedings, the general rule is that an applicant for relief, benefits, or a privilege has the burden of proof, and the burden of proof rests upon one who files a claim with an administrative agency to establish that required conditions of eligibility have been met.”).
|
