ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter is before me pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 9-21-60 (Supp. 2003) for a
contested case hearing as the result of a final decision of the South Carolina Retirement Systems
(Retirement Systems) denying disability retirement benefits to the Petitioner. A hearing was held
before me at the offices of the Administrative Law Judge Division (Division) in Columbia, South
Carolina on December 10, 2003.
ISSUE PRESENTED
The issue before the Division is whether the Petitioner is entitled to disability benefits
pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 9-1-1540 (Supp. 2003).
FINDINGS OF FACT
Having carefully considered all testimony, exhibits and arguments presented at the hearing
of this matter, and taking into account the credibility and accuracy of the evidence, I make the
following findings of fact by a preponderance of evidence:
Procedural Background
The Petitioner filed a disability application with the Retirement Systems in April of 2002
claiming an inability to perform her job as a result of extreme fatigue, pain, lack of mental
concentration, bouts of diarrhea, and insomnia stemming from fibromyalgia. Upon receipt of the
Petitioner’s disability application, the Retirement Systems forwarded her claim to the South
Carolina Department of Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) for an evaluation and recommendation.
On August 6, 2002, after reviewing her file and obtaining a physical and mental medical
evaluation of the medical records by two doctors, the disability examiner for VR recommended
that the Petitioner’s disability claim be denied and forwarded that recommendation to the Medical
Board for the South Carolina Retirement Systems. On August 13, 2002, the three physicians of
the Medical Board panel unanimously denied the Petitioner’s disability claim.
The Petitioner then sought reconsideration of the Medical Board’s decision and the
Retirement Systems again sent her claim to VR for review by a different disability examiner. On
March 20, 2003, after reviewing her file and obtaining a physical and mental medical evaluation of
the medical records by two new doctors, a second disability examiner recommended that the
Petitioner’s claim be denied. That denial was also forwarded to the Medical Board for
reconsideration. On March 25, 2003, three physicians of the Medical Board reviewed the
Petitioner’s claim in light of the second disability examiner’s recommendation and once again
unanimously recommended that her claim be denied.
Afterwards, the Petitioner appealed her claim to the Retirement Systems’ Director
pursuant to the Internal Administrative Review Procedures for Decisions of the Medical Board of
the South Carolina Retirement Systems. The Director engaged Joel D. Leonard, an independent
vocational consultant, to conduct a conference and issue a recommendation concerning the
Petitioner’s disability. An administrative conference was held on June 20, 2003. At that
conference, the Petitioner was given the opportunity to present her evidence showing that she is
entitled to disability retirement benefits. Mr. Leonard found that the evidence presented by the
Petitioner did not support her disability claim and on July 22, 2003, the Director agreed with that
assessment and issued a Final Agency Determination denying the Petitioner’s disability retirement
claim.
General Facts
The Petitioner alleges that she is unable to perform her job due to vocational limitations of
extreme fatigue, pain, lack of mental concentration and alertness, bouts of diarrhea, and insomnia
resulting from fibromyalgia. In her initial disability report, she also complained of depression,
panic attacks, and chronic fatigue syndrome. The Petitioner was an administrative assistant with
Clemson University. Her job duties included operating copiers, printers and faxes; maintaining
the chemistry library; sorting and distributing mail; ordering office supplies and equipment; word
processing; arranging seminars; and scheduling room reservations. According to her employer,
she was required to walk about one hour during the day, stand about one hour during the day, and
sit about five and one-half hours during the day. The Petitioner’s job required her to lift no more
than ten pounds regularly. Consequently, from a physical standpoint, the Petitioner’s job is
considered modestly demanding and the temperamental tasks are also considered moderate in
nature.
Furthermore, the licensed counselor whom the Petitioner had evaluate her impairment
rated her at 65 on the Global Assessment of Functioning Scale. A score of 60 to 70 indicates
“some mild symptoms (e.g. depressed mood and mild insomnia) or some difficulty in social
occupations, or school functioning, but generally functioning pretty well, has some meaningful
interpersonal relationships.” Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fourth
Edition, published by the American Psychiatric Association, Washington, D.C., 1994.
Additionally, Joel Leonard, a vocational expert, testified that in his opinion the Petitioner was
capable of performing her job as an administrative assistant at Clemson University at the time she
quit her job in January of 2002.
I find that the Petitioner has a medical diagnosis of fibromyalgia and depression.
Additionally, the Petitioner does have some mental and physical impairments as a result of the
fibromyalgia and depression. However, I find that her depression does not impose severe
limitations on her functioning. Furthermore, although the Petitioner clearly has some physical
impairments that have resulted in physical limitations, I find that those physical limitations (which
include not being able to lift more than twenty-five pounds, not being able to stand and/or sit for
more than six hours a day, being unable to climb ladders, and difficulty with frequent repetitive
hand and wrist motion) would not prevent the Petitioner from performing her job duties as an
administrative assistant as described by her employer. Accordingly, I find that the mental and
physical impairments do not preclude the Petitioner from performing her job duties.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1.This Division has procedural and subject matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant
to S.C. Code Ann. § 9-21-60 (Supp. 2003).
2.A state employee who has had five or more years of earned service may be entitled
to “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. S.C. Code Ann. § 9-1-1540 (Supp. 2003). The South Carolina Retirement Systems
Claims Procedures Act, 2003 Act 12, required the Budget and Control Board to adopt
procedures for handling these cases. That procedure was adopted by the Budget and Control
Board on July 1, 2003 and was followed in this case. Additionally, if the Retirement Systems
does not grant an applicant a disability retirement allowance, the applicant, upon exhausting all
administrative remedies available within the Retirement Systems, may seek de novo review of that
decision before the Administrative Law Judge Division. S.C. Code Ann. § 9-21-60 (Supp. 2003).
Therefore, to qualify for disability retirement benefits, the Petitioner must prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that she is mentally or physically incapacitated from performing
her job duties and the incapacity is likely to be permanent. Although the Petitioner is suffering
from fibromyalgia and depression, the evidence does not support a finding that the Petitioner was
incapacitated from performing her job duties as an administrative assistant at Clemson University
at the time she terminated her employment. Consequently, the Petitioner failed to meet her
burden of proof.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petitioner’s claim for disability retirement benefits
be denied.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
Ralph King Anderson, III
Administrative Law Judge
February 5, 2004
Columbia, South Carolina |
